from the Fox-Warns-of-Excessive-Henhouse-Security dept.
AT&T claims common carrier rules would ruin the whole Internet:
AT&T today urged the Federal Communications Commission to avoid reclassifying broadband Internet access as a telecommunications service, which is something network neutrality advocates are asking the FCC to do. Reclassification would open broadband providers up to common carrier rules under Title II of the Communications Act, similar to regulations that have covered our phone system since 1934. Recent calls for reclassification of broadband stem from a federal appeals court ruling that the FCC could not impose strict network neutrality rules, such as prohibitions against blocking Web services and Internet fast lanes, without first declaring the providers to be common carriers. AT&T's anti-regulatory view isn't surprising. It's already arguing that the Public Switched Telephone Network should be shut down and replaced with largely unregulated Internet-based voice service.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/att-cla ims-common-carrier-rules-would-ruin-the-whole-inte rnet/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/223147218/May-9-Ex-Parte -Letter
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 11 2014, @02:37PM
Ruined? I'll take the smouldering ruins of the internet with net neutrality over the one where ISPs get to double dip.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Dunbal on Sunday May 11 2014, @02:48PM
It's more like triple dip, but yeah.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jackb_guppy on Sunday May 11 2014, @02:46PM
Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, Version, DirectTV and even Google, should have the "wires" removed from their hands. Instead they should al be placed into content only business. Then the service of network (internet, phone, TV, ...) becomes a service hence "common carrier". This way you can buy a capacity you need both up and down and not worry that Version with it's streaming sevice will get a better SLA then Netflix.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 11 2014, @03:06PM
I'll throw this one out there to entertain the rabid politicos of either side: why not nationalize the fiber-based communications infrastructure like the post office or interstate highway system? Just to knock out a few commonplaces early, in the hopes that people will come up with new and more entertaining arguments for either side:
OMG Socialism: we've been funding the network for a generation, and the National Infrastructure Initiative paid the private telcos for rewiring all of America to fiber standards, which didn't happen.
Privacy: be realistic, the NSA already taps everything, and the private companies would gladly sell whatever of your data they don't already.
Constitutionality: when did that ever matter? NASA isn't in the constitution either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 11 2014, @03:53PM
Privacy: be realistic, the NSA already taps everything, and the private companies would gladly sell whatever of your data they don't already.
And that is how "freedoms" were pulled over everyone's eyes. The gov't can point to their laws and say "We don't collect information on private citizens! We don't try to impede free speech! We don't silence dissidents!". They don't add "We just contract that to the private sector!"
Repeat after me - ignorance is bliss! ignorance is BLISS!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by art guerrilla on Sunday May 11 2014, @09:33PM
NOT saying i disagree with you in principle, but seeing as how kongreeskritters have managed to nearly, clearly (and purposefully) screw up the USPS, not sure i want them within a tentacle's length of the tubes...
(Score: 4, Interesting) by edIII on Sunday May 11 2014, @10:14PM
I think it's easier than that, though it will never be done.
It shall be illegal for a company to both own and produce content while also having any ownership in the communications infrastructure in which content is distributed
It shall be illegal for a company to discriminate against another company or network from accessing its services. Exceptions are only allowed for behavior that is clearly detrimental and otherwise in violation of existing laws covering "hacking"
It shall be illegal for any company providing Tier 1 service to refuse peering and transit in regards to content. Reasonable costs may be recouped, but even during disputes peering and transit must still be possible. Appeals and disputes are adjudicated by the FCC, not the courts.
Municipalities will be responsible for the last mile to the consumer and provide a market place for consumers to choose among lower tier providers. Reasonable costs may be assessed by the municipality in the form of taxes to support the infrastructure. Tier 2 providers (ISPs) may post bonds, and be assessed fees by the municipalities in order to connect the last mile to Tier 1 infrastructure.
At that point, who gives a shit about Net Neutrality?
Your taxes pay for your last mile connection and you can just assume that it will be there no different than sewage or water. I know government is typically not the best, but they only have to provide up to 100mb/s as a baseline to achieve excellent service. Private sector is responsible for allowing connections from the neighborhood level to the Tier 1 level. Moving in you have to the ability to choose from one of any number of ISPs that are precluded by law from establishing exclusivity to an address. If one of them decides to be dicks and have pricing plans derived from content, just go to the next one.
The barrier for entry for ISPs will be substantially lower since all they really have to worry about are running their lines and equipment across a city to the major endpoints. Their bond and fees entitle them to space provided by the municipality in the street.
If people were really being abused, it would not be long before a group of businessmen got together and raised the money to run their own fiber to peer with a Tier 1 provider at their own major hub in a city. Google would be there in a hot minute.
The free market (a myth in almost every case) actually would clean up all that Net Neutrality bullshit. I look to Blockbuster as a great example. Their online service they debuted a few years ago was designed to compete against Netflix. You remember it? It was hilarious. They were still pulling their rental shit and saying you only had 24 hours to watch it and wanted a few bucks a pop. Then were also trying to sell movies and allow you to watch them in the DRM'd to all hell library. What did the market end up saying to them? They're gone now.
What's Viacom going to do when legally they can't own a single solitary piece of communications infrastructure to try leveraging that power for more influence against other companies? How will they then compete with Netflix and other streaming companies that are figuring out the new business models?
The same goes for Time Warner, Sony, etc. All of that influence is permanently removed, at least on a superficial level. The government can go after collusion, but what can they really do anyway? Sony is not going to influence Level 3. Level 3 will just laugh and tell them to go fuck themselves since Level 3 has legally protected access to the municipality markets and Sony could even spend enough money to shut them out either since achieving a monopoly is impossible.
That leaves a market of middlemen fighting really hard to connect you up with Level 3. That's competition, and competition is always good for us.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 11 2014, @11:08PM
I'm confused: what's the point in having Level 2 providers, if the municipality is wiring neighborhoods? Why can't the city just run a line from the neighborhood to the nearest Level 3 provider?
(Score: 1) by jackb_guppy on Monday May 12 2014, @04:42PM
Difference is content. YES, you can have a large company sit on top supplying content. But you could have a local company supplying content too. Email is content. Video Stream is content (think local cable access, or local PBS station). This way a small local company can offer you "service" and content that meets your needs. Now that small company could grow and merge with other local small companies growing in size. WBN or TBS then ... to CNN. This allows other to get into and grow into major players.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinanc e/2014/03/31/competition-and-cheaper-internet/7129 435/ [usatoday.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by SpallsHurgenson on Sunday May 11 2014, @10:42PM
Constitutionality: when did that ever matter? NASA isn't in the constitution either.
I think a lawyer could make a good argument that the US government could have jurisdiction over telecom. The Postal Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 7) empowers Congress "To establish Post Offices and post Roads". This was done to facilitate interstate communications (and to give the new government some much needed income). In many respects, the Internet has replaced the traditional postal service; data which once had to be sent by hand is now instead transmitted electronically. It is our new post service; it is not outside reason to put it under the jurisdiction of the already established post office. Plus, there is already significant case law against government (or anyone else, for that matter) snooping on "postal data" without a warrant. The government can't open your letters, and neither can anyone else, as protected by Federal law. It could solve all those pesky privacy issues in one fell swoop by putting internet traffic under the same protections as other letters and property.
I don't know if giving the government further jurisdiction over the Internet is a good idea, but I think the worries about the Constitutionality should not be a major concern.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Nerdfest on Sunday May 11 2014, @03:16PM
Wouldn't common carrier status also mean that they can't log all communications, wiretap or hand over subscriber info without warrants, inspect content, etc? I'm sure there's some NSA (et al) pressure on the FCC to keep things at least as wrong as they currently are.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by bornagainpenguin on Sunday May 11 2014, @04:44PM
This is a genuine question I'd like an answer to, I'm not being facetious--if there is a special circumstance that makes AT&T's past manipulations and dishonesty irrelevant here, I'd love to hear the explanation, because from where I'm standing no one should hold AT&T as having any credibility on this matter whatsoever. Credibility matters.
SOURCE: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140306/1013512
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 11 2014, @05:02PM
Yes, credibility matters. So, it tells you a lot that SouthWestern Bell so messed up the world's view of themselves that they purchased the rights to the old much maligned AT&T name to use instead. They believed the remaining cognitive dissonance upon seeing/hearing that name to be less troublesome then SouthWestern Bell and customers had already seen through SBC.
(Score: 1) by fadrian on Monday May 12 2014, @03:54PM
What credibility do they have left?
Well, the credibility granted any of our overlords! Even if they might have lied in the past, all of their statements still have to be listened to and believed by the powers that be because they are better than you. Happy to have been of service in answering that, fellow plebeian.
That is all.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by AndyTheAbsurd on Sunday May 11 2014, @06:01PM
What AT&T means by "ruin the whole internet" is "ruin AT&T's ability to milk obscene profits from the internet". They have a vested interested in not becoming a common carrier, which would force them to treat traffic from Netflix/Hulu/YouTube/Vimeo/whatever equally with all other traffic instead of blocking it or throttling it down to speeds where those services are unreasonable, which would push people to use AT&T's cable TV service.
Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Sunday May 11 2014, @06:21PM
ISPs like AT&T already enjoy the benefits of common carrier status: They are not liable for any information that traverses their network. They experience none of the penalties for being a common carrier, like net neutrality or not spying on their customers.
So, for example:
- If someone downloads child pornography, AT&T is not criminally or civilly responsible for distributing child porn.
- If someone downloads copyrighted content, AT&T is not criminally or civilly responsible for copyright violation.
- If someone anonymously posts something critical to his employer, and AT&T happens to intercept it and sends it and his identity to his boss, AT&T is not criminally or civilly liable.
- If someone running for political office posted something 3 years ago on Craigslist that might be seen as embarrassing, and AT&T stored that information (even if Craigslist deleted it), and AT&T sends that information on to that candidate's rival campaign, AT&T is not liable for defamation.
Why would they even remotely consider a change in that position? Especially since they've bribed 500 members of Congress and the President [opensecrets.org], and been bribing them for decades? They have no real fear that anyone in government will do anything they don't want, and consumers don't really have a choice of whether or not to use them. Even if you use a different ISP or phone carrier (which isn't always possible), your packets will almost definitely traverse a wire owned by AT&T on their way to a US-based server.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.