Northwest Indiana Discussion

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... Collection

New U.S. Push to Regulate Internet Access

By AMY SCHATZ
WASHINGTON—In a move that will stoke a battle over the future of the Internet, the federal government plans to propose regulating broadband lines under decades-old rules designed for traditional phone networks.

The decision, by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski, is likely to trigger a vigorous lobbying battle, arraying big phone and cable companies and their allies on Capitol Hill against Silicon Valley giants and consumer advocates.

Breaking a deadlock within his agency, Mr. Genachowski is expected Thursday to outline his plan for regulating broadband lines. He wants to adopt "net neutrality" rules that require Internet providers like Comcast Corp. and AT&T Inc. to treat all traffic equally, and not to slow or block access to websites.

The decision has been eagerly awaited since a federal appeals court ruling last month cast doubt on the FCC's authority over broadband lines, throwing into question Mr. Genachowski's proposal to set new rules for how Internet traffic is managed. The court ruled the FCC had overstepped when it cited Comcast in 2008 for slowing some customers' Internet traffic.

In a nod to such concerns, the FCC said in a statement that Mr. Genachowski wouldn't apply the full brunt of existing phone regulations to Internet lines and that he would set "meaningful boundaries to guard against regulatory overreach."

Some senior Democratic lawmakers provided Mr. Genachowski with political cover for his decision Wednesday, suggesting they wouldn't be opposed to the FCC taking the re-regulation route towards net neutrality protections.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, whose authority over broadband lines has been questioned by a federal court, plans to use regulation on traditional phone networks to establish rules for Internet providers.

"The Commission should consider all viable options," wrote Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, W.V.), chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, and Rep. Henry Waxman (D, Calif.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, in a letter.

At stake is how far the FCC can go to dictate the way Internet providers manage traffic on their multibillion-dollar networks. For the past decade or so, the FCC has maintained a mostly hands-off approach to Internet regulation.

Internet giants like Google Inc., Amazon.com Inc. and eBay Inc., which want to offer more Web video and other high-bandwidth services, have called for stronger action by the FCC to assure free access to websites.

Cable and telecommunications executives have warned that using land-line phone rules to govern their management of Internet traffic would lead them to cut billions of capital expenditure for their networks, slash jobs and go to court to fight the rules.

Consumer groups hailed the decision Wednesday, an abrupt change from recent days, when they'd bombarded the FCC chairman with emails and phone calls imploring him to fight phone and cable companies lobbyists.

"On the surface it looks like a win for Internet companies," said Rebecca Arbogast, an analyst with Stifel Nicolaus. "A lot will depend on the details of how this gets implemented."

Mr. Genachowski's proposal will have to go through a modified inquiry and rule-making process that will likely take months of public comment. But Ms. Arbogast said the rule is likely to be passed since it has the support of the two other Democratic commissioners.

President Barack Obama vowed during his campaign to support regulation to promote so-called net neutrality, and received significant campaign contributions from Silicon Valley. Mr. Genachowski, a Harvard Law School buddy of the president, proposed new net neutrality rules as his first major action as FCC chairman.

Telecom executives say privately that limits on their ability to change pricing would make it harder to convince shareholders that the returns from spending billions of dollars on improving a network are worth the cost.

Carriers fear further regulation could handcuff their ability to cope with the growing demand put on their networks by the explosion in Internet and wireless data traffic. In particular, they worry that the FCC will require them to share their networks with rivals at government-regulated rates.

Mike McCurry, former press secretary for President Bill Clinton and co-chair of the Arts + Labs Coalition, an industry group representing technology companies, telecom companies and content providers, said the FCC needs to assert some authority to back up the general net neutrality principles it outlined in 2005.

"The question is how heavy a hand will the regulatory touch be," he said. "We don't know yet, so the devil is in the details. The network operators have to be able to treat some traffic on the Internet different than other traffic—most people agree that web video is different than an email to grandma. You have to discriminate in some fashion."

UBS analyst John Hodulik said the cable companies and carriers were likely to fight this in court "for years" and could accelerate their plans to wind down investment in their broadband networks.

"You could have regulators involved in every facet of providing Internet over time. How wholesale and prices are set, how networks are interconnected and requirements that they lease out portions of their network," he said.

—Niraj Sheth, Spencer E. Ante, Sara Silver and Nat Worden contributed to this article.
Write to Amy Schatz at Amy.Schatz@wsj.com

This is one battle we cannot afford to lose. Most people know when the internet was created (I was an early adopter) it was intended to be a free flow of information and even then there were concerns of government interference. Obviously today it has evolved into it's own entity and just about everybody uses the net for one thing or the other whether they realize it or not even if they don't own a computer.

Regulation of the internet is wrong. I realize lots of people have valid concerns about uses of parts of the internet but attacking the internet at the point of connection needs to be taboo. If you have issue with certain conduct on the internet that's one thing and we have procedures to address much of those concerns. If someone is downloading kiddie porn or bilking people in a scam get a warrant! But NO government has any right to control the internet itself.

Most of all this means of communication should be granted 1st Amendment status no matter how unpolitically correct those words may be. You think some of the stuff said today is too far out there? Try reading some newspaper editorials from the 1770s & 80s. I think we're actually kinda lame in comparison to some of those mudslinging-fests! lol

Mirage,

You are missing the point of the legislation. They are trying to regulate broadband as they regulate telephone lines. Not the content. This legislation is in favor of "Net Neutrality", not against it.

The court case mentioned had to do with Comcast shutting off access to a website. It is to prevent internet providers from stopping you from accessing one website in favor of another. There are other court cases pending where providers stopped access to one website in favor of a similar website that was paying the provider.

Say Comcast got paid by Barnes and Nobles to give priority access over Amazon.com.

The regulation of telephone lines was instituted to make sure that customers could call anyone regardless of what telephone company either party had.

Would you find it acceptable if ATT said you couldn't call Verizon lines any longer? Would you find it acceptable if Comcast told you that you couldn't email an account on Yahoo?

Here in the Chicago area we have choices among a few internet providers. In other areas they do not and may only have one. The customer has no choice but to go where the provider allows them. Some areas still have NO high speed internet access.

This piece is part of a greater broadband policy to increase broadband availability. The United States is FAR behind many countries in the availability of broadband internet.

Now I don't think this method of "net neutrality" is perfect, but it is better than allowing providers to control content.

Any time the government seeks to control you need to read it over with a fine tooth comb to be sure it says exactly what you think it means. I'm sure a lot of people were shocked to learn that healthcare reform meant nationalizing the student loan industry.

I'll take your word on this for now.

blah blah blah big bad evil corporations blah blah blah...

Good grief dude..do you ever take that union dick out of your mouth?

The internet never would have evolved without ''big bad evil corporations'' you moron.

if it wasn't for them you'd still be getting kicked off message boards except it would be across a 600 baudrate dial-up connection ..

I think that Mirage has a good point.
One law, can lead to many others that
we wouldn't be happy with.

Just like the finance reform bill they are working on now. Will effect your finances. and require the banks to send your info into the fed.

but waxman (calif) has entered an amendemnt into the bill that will affect your ability to buy vitamins, minerals, herbs etc. And what does that have to do with finances??

Like Moby said "The internet never would have evolved without ''big bad evil corporations'' you moron." Do you ever bother to read anything before posting? The on ramp to the internet for consumers has ALWAYS been thanks to large corporations.

In the early days people used a dialup connection to a few universities and many private corporations who allowed a few people to use their connections at night, then came dedicated companies like Compuserve out of Ohio and Qlink out of Virginia (later evolved into AOL), before teleco & cable companies made direct access possible to the consumer years later. So without big corporations, like Moby said, you'd be limited to telephone access to private BBS at 600 - 1200 baud. Even today the fastest dialup modem is less desirable than the slowest DSL connection. But keep in mind these connections depend on good teleco service.

My cautions are not to protect the profit of the ISPs but to protect consumers from the overreach of big brother government to censor and regulate. But you KNEW that! The day before this story was posted I remember reading on the Times site about in IL part of this change would allow teleco to beef up broadband near Chicago while also allowing less phone service downstate. How many years have we been paying fees for teleco for rural phone access? But I hear the FCC is seeking $billions to provide rural areas with broadband rather than make a more cost effective satellite system, for example. So directly related to this debate you effectively are saying give those big corporations a free pass on less profitable service because the Federal taxpayers can foot the bills. No surprise there!

And people like you NEED gub'mint intervention in each and every aspect of their lives....and that is just pathetic?

''Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed'' -

Thomas Jefferson

Mirage,

The only reason rural areas had telephone service was because of federal regulation. The federal government required them to provide telephone service to rural areas and subsidized their costs of running lines. This broadband policy is doing exactly that for internet service. There are vast rural areas that have no high speed internet service and some that have no local dial up service. That is a travesty in the biggest economy in the world. Many countries have bypassed the United States in high speed internet access.

IN regards to the policy with Telcos. Telcos have asked to start to wind down their landline obligations. The goal is to provide these locations with voip service thru Fibre Optic lines run as a part of the broadband initiative. There is no need to run dual service at dual cost to any location. It is happening at the same pace in the cities as well.

The US is ranked 18th in the world for average internet speed at 3.9 mb/s. South Korea tops the list with an average of 14.6 mb/s. Only 22% of US homes have high speed internet. Don't you think that is a huge difference and vital to our economic future?

And the problem with Satellite is not download speed. There are some blazing download speeds from satellite options worldwide. The problem is with latency. If you were just downloading one big file it would be ultrafast, but anything with 2 way communication puts it at the bottom of the heap. So most of our day to day work would be slowed down tremendously via satellite vs any other internet protocol.

Google and Cisco are testing internet services that would be rolled out to cities and towns. It would be a universal service for all residents that promises speeds of up to 1 gb/s. So close to 1000x faster than existing internet services. But it is a large scale project and not one that would be sold door to door. Exactly the sort of thing the broadband policy is aimed at.

And as for censorship. What is the difference between government censoring your internet or your broadband plan doing it? Net neutrality has been around for a long time and I highly suggest you read up on it so you can make an informed decision.

Really man.
What are the odds that the worlds "most well informed man" on every subject known to man is on THIS board? He even provides free advice for others to "bone up" on the subject matter when their take doesn't come up to his snuff.

I do tell people to do some research when their opinions are made on false facts and erroneous figures. It's not hard to open up google and do a little reading for yourself before you make a post that borders on the ridiculous. I think it's just common sense ....

And the worlds most informed man might be a bit superfluous, but I am very well informed when it comes to economic and commerce issues.

I was only half joking about the "worlds most informed man". Your knowledge base is incredible and I wish I could put it down in words like you can. That said...with your case stated, it speaks for itself just like the other posters does. If it appears "ridiculous" to you, so be it. IMHO, it's a bit much to tell someone to bone up on the material.

Why, one of those wealthy corporations that provides money (free and otherwise) to a fat, clock-punching Hammond-based union gorilla is responsible for a massive oil spill. They certainly are a threat.