freepixels.com
For all of the hype going on over the FCC's proposed rules about Network Neutrality, it really comes down to a few very short, common sense rules.
What is "Network Neutrality"?
In short, the rules would force Internet Service providers (ISPs) to treat all traffic equally, period. For such a complex-sounding name, it really is quite a simple concept.
Why is it important?
Two reasons, and both of them have to do with money for the ISPs.
The first and simplest has to do with the fact that after selling millions of Americans "unlimited" Internet, their networks are starting to fill. Imagine a Internet connection as a water pipe. It can only transmit so much water before it becomes full and a larger pipe must be laid. The ISPs want to be able to delay the day of reckoning for as long as possible before they have to buy and lay new pipes. They can get this delay if they slow down certain types of traffic. The problem is this is not what they sold you when you purchased their "unlimited Internet", is it?
The second reason is far more insidious. Without these rules, ISPs can sell preferential treatment to the highest bidder, or even actually slow down traffic to competitors. For example, a large search engine could conceivably pay an ISP to slow down the searches of their competitors. We could see this exact same scenario for e-commerce sites. End users would never know it is happening; they would simply think that provider A has some really fast servers and provider B needs to get their act together.
There are billions of dollars at stake, so predictably we see various politicians who are in the pockets of the large telcos coming out against Network Neutrality. For example, Senator John McCain -- an admitted technology neophyte -- has introduced legislation to block the FCC from implementing these rules. Senator McCain just so happens to be the single largest recipient of campaign contributions from the telcos would would stand to profit should network neutrality be blocked.
What are the rules?
Nobody who actually reads the rules can reasonably be against them. They are short and to the point: equal rights for bytes. Although some people are voicing concerns over onerous regulations and government bureaucracy, nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, the rules can fit onto a single printed page. They are:
Content
Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service may not prevent any of its users from sending or receiving the lawful content of the user’s choice over the Internet.Applications and Services
Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service may not prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the user’s choice.Devices
Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service may not prevent any of its users from connecting to and using on its network the user’s choice of lawful devices that do not harm the network.Competitive Options
Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service may not deprive any of its users of the user’s entitlement to competition among network providers, application providers, service providers, and content providers.Nondiscrimination
Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner.Transparency
Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service must disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this part.Law Enforcement
Nothing in this part supersedes any obligation a provider of broadband Internet access service may have—or limits its ability—to address the needs of law enforcement, consistent with applicable law.Public Safety and Homeland and National Security
Nothing in this part supersedes any obligation a provider of broadband Internet access service may have—or limits its ability—to deliver emergency communications or to address the needs of public safety or national or homeland security authorities, consistent with applicable law.Other laws
Nothing in this part is intended to prevent a provider of broadband Internet access service from complying with other laws.
As you can see, there is nothing nefarious in these rules. They are simple, to the point and do nothing to infringe upon property rights or First Amendment rights.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to not pass these rules.
Comments
Actually, there are quite a few good reasons not to pass the rules. Among other things, they'd harm innovation and competition. Remember: the company that's putting the big money behind the lobbying for these rules is Google, which doesn't want to see a competitor arise to challenge its monopoly. So, the rules prohibit a startup from being able to buy "priority delivery" for its services or data. Instead, it would have to build out a huge fiber network, like Google's, to compete. And since a small startup couldn't do this, it couldn't ever catch up to Google.
The rules would also prevent ISPs from reining in bandwidth hogs who, using software specially designed for the purpose, try to grab more than their share of the bandwidth at the expense of everyone else on the network. And they'd do nothing to stop content providers from spying on you or turning your computer into a server for themselves. In short, they leave a lot to be desired.
@Brett,
Are you kidding me? You think we need this rule to allow people to buy preferential treatment so they get a leg up?
So consider it like this. There is a store on Main st. in Sometown America, around the corner on Maple St. is another competing store that just opened. You're saying it's fair to say we should be able to sell the ability to reduce the size of Main st. and increase the size of Maple St. so that store two gets more cars driving past its store.
Yeah that sounds real fair! How about store 2 use normal business practices to get itself known. Mac stepped up their game by targeting a specific audience, Metro PCS got themselves known by offering up a type of 0 contract cellular service to attract those with low credit scores (which is a large group)... these companies play on a fair and balanced playing fields and they innovate in that realm.
furthermore if Google wanted to stop net neutrality so they can stay on top... why not spend all that lobbying money on buying the preferrential treatment? They certainly got the cash.
sorry... "push net neutrality"... I said stop by accident.
"Among other things, they'd harm innovation and competition."
Disagree. All this will do is create a level playing field. On the other hand, without these rules ISPs will happily forcing some new application that might compete with theirs to pay to play -- and that will absolutely stand in the way of innovation.
"The rules would also prevent ISPs from reining in bandwidth hogs"
No, they won't. The rules specifically state they are "subject to reasonable network management". Also, there is no such thing as "more than their fair share". The ISPs sold "unlimited bandwidth".
"So, the rules prohibit a startup from being able to buy "priority delivery" for its services or data."
No, the rules prevent Store A from doing the cyber-equivalent of breaking up the sidewalk in front of Store B so that it's less accessible and appealing to customers.
It is a payback to Google who does not have to spend a dime in network infrustructure but uses exactly the same priority as network owners. Why do network owners want to spend billions in network system and let Netflex & Google Phone to use it for free?
It is a payback!
"It is a payback to Google who does not have to spend a dime in network infrustructure but uses exactly the same priority as network owners."
A) Wrong. Google spends billions of dollars in network infrastructure; they have more network infrastructure than most ISPs, including massive datacenters and their own fiber loops.
B) Payback for what? You realize that Google is not the only one to benefit, right? We *all* benefit.
What they say it is and what it ends up being is two different things.
"What they say it is and what it ends up being is two different things."
We can only debate things that are; we can't really discuss what it *might* end up being. The rules above are very clear; if they end up being something else, then that's another discussion.
Thanks for you comment!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!