The Federal Communications Commission of the United States decided that Comcast may not block internet traffic for heavy-use subscribers. Comcast argued that the FCC has no enforcement authority in the matter. The agency appears to rely on net neutrality principles that it issued in 2005 as the source of its authority. Comcast argued that principles are not law, but the FCC disagreed and ordered Comcast to change its policies regarding traffic blocking by the end of the year.
The decision by the FCC - an executive agency, not a legislative body - is disturbing. With this ruling, the FCC essentially said that the United States owns the internet, and we will be regulating it. That a body with no lawmaking power can make such a power grab is offensive. That it's just another executive agency exceeding its constitutional authority can't be argued.
This decision is certain to be appealed, a process that is likely going to take many months, if not years, to run its course. In the meanwhile, however, with its newly self-granted authority, the FCC will be able to rely upon its Comcast decision to impose more regulation and pseudo-law on not only internet service providers, but all components of the industry, from the infrastructure and architecture to the end user. Let's hope that the courts do the right thing and, at the very least, contract this latest expansion of the powers of executive agencies.
The decision by the FCC - an executive agency, not a legislative body - is disturbing. With this ruling, the FCC essentially said that the United States owns the internet, and we will be regulating it. That a body with no lawmaking power can make such a power grab is offensive. That it's just another executive agency exceeding its constitutional authority can't be argued.
This decision is certain to be appealed, a process that is likely going to take many months, if not years, to run its course. In the meanwhile, however, with its newly self-granted authority, the FCC will be able to rely upon its Comcast decision to impose more regulation and pseudo-law on not only internet service providers, but all components of the industry, from the infrastructure and architecture to the end user. Let's hope that the courts do the right thing and, at the very least, contract this latest expansion of the powers of executive agencies.
1 comment:
Both the user and Comcast greatly benefit from net neutrality. The user is given a service free from censorship that would benefit the ISP. A service that connects the user to the free market and true competition. Comcast is given a monopoly of great value on cable-based Internet service [in an area] and doesn't get sued as an accessory to whatever crimes originate from their customers everyday. Telephone companies have had this arraignment for decades.
Since Comcast doesn't want to give up the shield from their user's misdeeds or monopoly do they really have a complaint? "When you sleep with dogs don't complain when you wake up with fleas." They've been happily sleeping with the dogs of regulation and now complain about a small flea. They to be reminded that if regulation from the US Govt was a meal it wouldn't be a buffet, from which you can pick and choose, but a forced feeding tube.
If a bittorrent (or any) user is using "too much" bandwidth Comcast can still legally cut back their speed or end service. They just can't pick out a few protocols that might dig into future revenues and lie about blocking (injecting fake peer reset packets to degrade service) them. And they do actively boot people everyday for bandwidth "abuse". This ruling doesn't change that.
Do you think an ISP should be able to: 1. Degrade service to say google.com in favor of yahoo.com (if yahoo pays them of course)? 2. Inject their own ad block on any web that passes through their routers? 3. Alter the content of a web page to "protect" their integrity or just block public complaints? Should a mobile phone company be allowed to secretly degrade calls to other providers and say it's not their fault?
Comcast paints this issue from a very myopic and dishonest viewpoint: the big, bad government is out to get us. Normally I'd agree but not this time. =)
I'm with you on many other ideas but I have to disagree with you on this one. IMO net neutrality for those companies that enjoy the benefits and profits from a government sanctioned monopoly can be a good thing.
Thanks
Post a Comment