facebook rss twitter

Web CEOs lobby FCC over net neutrality

by Sylvie Barak on 20 October 2009, 15:03

Tags: Google (NASDAQ:GOOG)

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qaujv

Add to My Vault: x

FCC's guiding light

Currently, the FCC works with a series of "guiding principles" rather than hard and fast rules for keeping the Internet an open place, for instance, the FCC does its best to ensure network operators can't prevent users from accessing Internet content, apps or services of their choice or stop users from adding their devices to the network.

As well as turning the above guidelines into law, Genachowski says he also wants to add another couple of rules to the FCC net neutrality handbook, preventing Internet service providers from discriminating against bits and bobs of Internet content or apps and making sure ISPs remain transparent about the network management practices they use.

But AT&T and co say having rules is draconian and highly unnecessary, claiming that the guidelines work well enough and that strict regulations would interfere with the way firms managed their networks, despite Genachowski's re-iteration that the FCC is not trying to throw a wet dishcloth over development, or suffocate new business models.

The web CEOs, with this latest letter, have shown their support for Genachowski and the ideal that Internet users should be able, by law, to visit any web site and use any online service they may choose, without being blocked and effectively censored by their service providers.

 



HEXUS Forums :: 3 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
…that strict regulations would interfere with the way firms managed their networks
That's kinda the point, is it not? The whole point of paying an ISP for internet access is to have.. well, internet access. Having an ISP limit your access to the internet, means you no longer have internet access, merely some internet access. Network management should be performed at the user endpoint, not by the man in the middle. Ideally, consumer routers should be smarter and more powerful as standard. The technology is freely available, after all.
Yes, the Internet industry is divided between those that pay and those that don't. Those that opposed net neutrality are those putting in the infrastructure and those that are for it are those that consume the resources and make huge profits off it.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying there shouldn't be net neutrality but perhaps content provides that use huge bandwidth need to contribute more to the infrastructure.
Shouldn't it be the other way around? After all, it's the content providers which foot the bill for delivering high bandwidth applications, paying with multiple complex deals with advertising, delivering corporate/government solutions, sometimes direct consumer subscriptions, etc. Providers maintaining server farms, and connecting directly to carriers, or using high bandwidth hosting isn't exactly small potatoes. While the ISPs fork in healthy profit levels, with cash flow directly from the consumers. For ISPs to expect payment from both producers *and* consumers is absurd, after all, without producers creating content for ISP customers to consume, there'd be no need for ISPs in the first place. Carriers (such as AT&T, coincidentally) already enjoy cashflow from both ends. And that is silly enough.

If ISPs need more money to develop better infrastructure, it's up to them to bill their customers accordingly, strike deals with other businesses, loan from banks, garner investor interest, and/or float their company on the stock exchange, whatever they need to do to maintain their infrastructure projects. Hence why I maintained the position in another article that ISP customers should more ideally pay by the volume of data they consume.

ISPs blocking off sites and services which aren't paying them cash is pretty much akin to coercion/eliciting bribery/'protection' money. Imagine if e-victims.org was getting a load of hits, and ISPs started threatening to block your site if you didn't pay each of them Ā£10,000 a year, not exactly fair and open internet, is it?