NEWS: US proposes net neutrality rules

The US has proposed new rules that would require internet firms to respect the principle of "network neutrality".

The head of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) said that "all web traffic should be treated equally".

The new rules are intended to prevent firms throttling bandwidth-sapping web traffic such as streaming video.


Reply to
John Navas
Loading thread data ...

It's not just throttling video but also using Internet telephone services like Vonage in competition with their own.

But I would hope that broadband suppliers (which is already expensive compared with dial up) realise why people pay for their service. If they throttle it there is no longer the same reason to use it.

Reply to
Christopher A. Lee

I didn't see a link to any NPRM in the article. What the "rules" the BBC claims to have been proposed appear to be are merely the chairman's personal guiding principles, which I don't disagree with, not any sort of formal rule making process. Much time will pass and much money will change hands and flood into congress before an NPRM is released and then even more money will change hands and even more money will flood into congress before a final Report and Order is released making these guiding principals into formal rules.

In short, we are a long way from formal 'Net Neutrality rules, which may not even happen before this chairman's term is complete.

- Nate >>

Reply to
Nate Bargmann

Oops. I forgot to include the NPRM quote:

"Chairman Genachowski will seek to begin the process of codifying the Commission?s existing four open Internet principles, along with the two additional principles, through a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) at the October meeting. The NPRM will ask for input and feedback on the proposed rules and their application, such as how to determine whether network management practices are reasonable, what information broadband providers should disclose about their network management practices and how the rules apply to differing platforms, including mobile Internet access services."

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Everything is "throttled" in some way. Economists refer to it as relative scarcity.

Hauling packets isn't free. The problem with the unmetered ("all you can eat") pricing is that some subscribers end up paying to haul other subscriber's packets, and users have no incentive to economize. If the originators of those packets (Hulu, YouTube, etc) can't be charged, ISPs will have to ration service with speed or download caps or switch to per-unit pricing or just allow the quality of everybody's service to deteriorate. Whichever alternative you pick, somebody's going to complain.

As usual, the real question is "Who pays?" And, again as usual, the policy debate has tended to avoid and obscure that question.

Reply to
Neill Massello

I don't see cost of carry being significant. Recall AOL tried the metered game early on and it did not take long for someone else to offer a better deal.

Other countries (Japan comes to mind but I have no direct experience) have better penetration, faster and cheaper service on all communications)

Just this weekend I spoke with people that attended the new opening of the Dallas Cowboy stadium. Would you believe $10 a bottle beer, $10 for a box of pop corn and $75 for a pizza. Clearly there is a cost of provision and labor (currently minimum wage). I won't put it pass them to chare $5 to take a leak.

Big companies, communications carriers in particular, know how to game the system and use legislation to cut competition.

Reply to

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:26:03 -0700, John Navas wrote in :

"'Open internet' rules criticised"

Mobile providers have said that US proposals to ensure all traffic on the internet is treated equally should not be applied to wireless traffic.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) wants rules to prevent providers blocking or slowing down bandwidth-heavy usage such as streaming video.

Providers claim a two-tiered system is essential for the future vitality of the net.

Mobile operators said any regulation would damage innovation.

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski said doing nothing was not an option.


Reply to
John Navas Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.