Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Senate Republicans Send Another Letter to FCC on Net Neutrality

More criticism of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's proposal to create new net neutrality rules: A group of Republican senators, including Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), sent a letter (pdf) to Genachowski on Tuesday, saying they believe all five commissioners should be in agreement on the proposal before new rules are created. Republican commissioners Robert M. McDowell and Meredith Attwell Baker have expressed concerns about Genachowski's proposal.

"It appears your decision to create new commission rules is outcome-driven. Your promulgating network neutrality rules seems to emanate from a fear that there may be some problems related to openness in 'the future,' " the 18 Republican senators wrote. "Our view is that it is harmful for the commission to impose industry-wide rules based upon speculation about what may occur in the future.

By Cecilia Kang  |  October 13, 2009; 4:00 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: 3 Democratic State Leaders Caution FCC on Net Neutrality
Next: Updated: Snowe Broke With GOP on Net Neutrality, Too

Comments

The GOP Has become a party of idiots, they sound like a Christmas fruitcake given the power of speech. One need only look at their record to see they have become the party of "No" and "Nothing".

Know Nothing.

Do Nothing.

Support nothing.

And in the end?

The GOP will become non-existant -the ultimate nothing.

Posted by: maxtor0 | October 14, 2009 6:21 AM | Report abuse

In their protest against the Open Net, the industry's concerns, "Phone and cable companies worry Mr. Genachowski is trying to turn their broadband lines into "dumb pipes" of Internet data, instead of highly segmented and managed lines that allow them to offer different sorts of services -- at different prices -- to customers."

The only managed segments and different sorts of services the ISPs wish to offer is new innovation in billing for technical services already in existence and paid for. ISPs are dump pipes. The internet providers need to remain in their role as JUST that. Dumb pipes. THAT is what we pay for. All they're SUPPOSED TO BE is a dumb pipe. Not a water meter for bandwidth, not a sheriff denying access to my Vonage, and not a moral compass for what comes across the pipe. I don't applaud much of Obama's team, but the open net is a must and I applaud yesterday's decision. And it's time for Repubs to stop being the tool of ISPs in their ongoing attempts to attach a parking meter to our bandwidth which is already well and truly paid for . ISP's in the form of CATV, DSL, and FIOS are public utilities at this point, given the right of ways for their lines are granted by society. They MUST remain what they are now; big dumb pipes with ever-greater bandwidth, constantly expanding backbone and facilities to rural areas. THAT was their franchise, nothing more.

As soon as they are able, they'll ban all telephony traffic except their own, meter every gig they can, and tier speeds to their pricing schedule. They need to remain the big dumb pipes they are now and they and the Republicans need to quit trying to play games with what is, purely and simply, a public utility. Kudos to the Open Net FCC of today.

Posted by: JamesChristian | October 14, 2009 6:51 AM | Report abuse

maxtor0 - Nice rage, but what does it have to do with the subject at hand??

Since Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize for what he might do in the future, then why not 'impose industry-wide rules based upon speculation about what may occur in the future'?

Posted by: joeblotnik49 | October 14, 2009 8:45 AM | Report abuse

joeblotnik49- Nice regurgitation of far-right talking points, but what does it have to do with actual reality? Our President got the Nobel prize NOT "for what he might do in the future"

"'He got the prize for what he has done,' committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland told The Associated Press..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/14/AR2009101400476.html

We await joeblotnik's apology for LYING about the Nobel judges' reason for giving the Nobel Peace Prize to our President.

joeblotnik also concurs with the right-wing talking point that Net Neutrality will "impose industry-wide rules based upon speculation about what may occur in the future."

WRONG! ISPs are ALREADY guilty of discrimination. From wiki:

"certain Internet service providers (such as Comcast) have intentionally slowed peer-to-peer (P2P) communications."

"Others have begun to use deep packet inspection to discriminate against P2P, FTP and online games, instituting a cell-phone style billing system of overages, free-to-telecom "value added" services, and anti-competitive tying ("bundling").[6]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

We await joeblotnik's apology for regurgitating the untruths favored by corporate overlords.

Posted by: wpforumtroll | October 14, 2009 9:43 AM | Report abuse

No proposed way for a business to increase revenues fails to cause excited ambition among right wing members of Congress. You take the Internet. It was designed with funding by the Pentagon to create a communications network that can be partially destroyed and still function. So Republicans want to take this invention, created by the American taxpayer, and turn it into a toll highway to enhance the revenues of communications transport enterprises. You'll have two classes of user (or more). One for the cheap: slow and shoddy. One for the profligate: fast and reliable. Why not fast and reliable for everyone?

Posted by: BlueTwo1 | October 14, 2009 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Will someone tell these senators that their collective staffs are out of control??!!! Just because one of them got a new AOL account last week you would think they actually HAD an opinion on what Net Neutrality actually meant??!!?!?!

Posted by: rbaldwin2 | October 14, 2009 11:03 AM | Report abuse

I believe in the law of unintended consequences. People who view the internet as a series of dumb pipes really don't understand how it works. A blanket rule written by someone whose own comments lead me to believe he doesn't quite understand the big picture, concerns me greatly. For a example a typical cable provider internet system is a collapsed core hierarchical system consisting of cascading shared trunks. There are many services besides P2P in use on the internet. Different services have different traffic profile requirements. Some are more sensitive to certain network phenomenon than others. Without being able to mark and service the traffic in a specific way one type of using the same amount of bandwidth can render another service unusable. For example one home user using a P2P service could take out the Vonange telephone service of everyone else in the neighborhood. This is the case even if everyone has equal share of the bandwidth. To prevent this without marking and prioritizing traffic, a provider would have to invest in more infrastructure to decrease the convergence areas. This is a large investment which will get passed on to the consumer in the form of higher rates. While I support the concept behind net neutrality, a knee-jerk blanket ban on the practice would have serious unintended consequences.

Posted by: akmzrazor | October 14, 2009 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Oh, I'll just bet the Republican's are squirming over any sort of regulations that would entail them telling us who pays their talk radio and Faux News talking heads money for their "opinions". In the current debate over health care, millions of dollars are flowing into the coffers of these vermin and the brain dead human copy machines, the tea baggers, that run around echoing that nonsense is both dangerous and moronic. The Republican "leadership" are gasbags, anyways. Their Neomarxist fuzzy minded one world "free trade", "global economy" Neocon nonsense, the anti-family, immoral garbage on "their" Fox network television has stood traditional conservative values on it's head. No actual thinking person, no one with an ounce of self respect, no one who actually believes in morality and this country, will buy their garbage if the understand the cesspool they netted it from.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | October 14, 2009 12:01 PM | Report abuse

"Our view is that it is harmful for the commission to impose industry-wide rules based upon speculation about what may occur in the future." This from the delusional GOP who love to rant about future 'death panels,' 'school abortion clinics,' and how the Earth will explode under the Democrats. No wonder the Republicans have no credibility - they're about as substantive as Pee Wee Herman in an adult theater.

Posted by: rurik | October 14, 2009 12:23 PM | Report abuse

The issue that people don't get is that data is data. Vonage, P2P, television(analog and digital) are all the same. The only question is what the minimum bandwidth a service requires for function. Reasonable controls that take this into consideration are not forbidden with the Net Neutrality regulations. The use of those controls to limit people from achieving reasonable speeds that are advertised as available while using legal programs is currently being done. The threat is implicit that said companies will use the reasonable control to halt the use of legal programs. This has been done before, and will be done again. Without explicitly stated regulations and laws consumers, who are often subject to monopolies in service providers, will have no remedies against the ISPs. Once stable divisions of control have been achieved(baby bell style), ISPs would be free to limit bandwidth to unusable levels for competing technologies. No more instant watch Netflix, no more Vonage, or any other technology that your ISP can provide to you at a higher price and lower quality.

Posted by: Sm4rt3rTh4nY0u | October 14, 2009 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Here's another example of an ever-growing disdain for the principle of American democracy on the part of the GOP.

They scream like there's been some sort of coup when the Democrats consider requiring a simple majority in the Senate instead of a super-majority.

Now they think that 2 out 5 votes on the FCC should decide policy.

It's hard to beleive it's been that long, but it all really started frothing up in '94 when the Newt wing of the GOP and its successors don't simply disagree with the Democrats. The Republicans don't beleive the Democrats have any right to exist.

Posted by: MichaelOwen04 | October 14, 2009 2:05 PM | Report abuse

akmzrazor: "People who view the internet as a series of dumb pipes really don't understand how it works."

Ha ha! Its your REPUBLICANS who think that! In the immortally ignorant words of disgraced Republican Alaskan politician (no, not that one) Ted Stevens said about the Internet:

"It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes."

In trying to defend anti-Net Neutrality Republicans, you just accidentally showed how clueless Republicans really are!

akmzrazor: "For example one home user using a P2P service could take out the Vonange telephone service of everyone else in the neighborhood."

Prove it. How often does this happen? Or is this nothing more than what your Republicans call disdain as mere "speculation about what may occur in the future"?

akamzrazor: " This is a large investment which will get passed on to the consumer in the form of higher rates."

Or gets swallowed by the ISPS in their need to compete in a free market or gets eliminated by smarter tech and more aggressive planning. It's very funny how apologists for megacorporations think the only way to deal with any issue is charging consumers more.

But many time it turns out that they don't need to raise rates and even LOWER rates after the government forces them to stop creating monopolies/ polluting/ enslaving migrant workers / denying health care to the sick... oh, wait. The government has not stopped that one yet.

Thanks to your Republicans.

Posted by: wpforumtroll | October 14, 2009 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Sm4rt3rTh4nY0u,
No. The fact that you think all data is the same IS the issue. You don't know enough to know what the difference is. That is obvious by your statement alone. A blanket rule prohibiting any marking and prioritization will backfire on consumers. You have no idea how important that capability is in a modern network. If this goes into effect the way it is proposed, be prepared to pay a lot more for the service you have now.

Posted by: akmzrazor | October 14, 2009 3:39 PM | Report abuse

wpforumtroll
Who said I was Republican?

Since you do not have the technical education to understand, there is no point arguing with you on technical merits. If you think an ISP will swallow the cost your ignorance is apparent. A blanket rule will cover all of them. Since they will all face the same problem, they will all raise their rates.

Posted by: akmzrazor | October 14, 2009 4:03 PM | Report abuse

akmzrazor fails basic reading comprehension.

akmzrazor says "wpforumtroll, Who said I was Republican?"

I never called YOU a Republican. I talked about "YOUR Republicans."

You know- the Republicans who have taken YOUR side against Net Neutrality.

YOUR Republicans are on the wrong side of this issue, just like YOU are on the wrong side of this issue. On this issue, you own the Republicans. They're yours. Enjoy them.

akmzrazor, makes a claim with zero evidence and throws out an insult: "Since you do not have the technical education to understand,"

Why said I don't have the technical education to understand?

How is the taste of your own words, akmzrazor? Yum!

akmzrazor FLEES from the debate after being challenged: "there is no point arguing with you on technical merits."

Buh-bye. Nice to see you admit defeat so easily. I hope YOUR Republicans will do the same.

akmzrazor: "If you think an ISP will swallow the cost your ignorance is apparent. A blanket rule will cover all of them. Since they will all face the same problem, they will all raise their rates."

I will repeat what I said before, since you failed to really address it:

"It's very funny how apologists for megacorporations think the only way to deal with any issue is charging consumers more.

But many time it turns out that they don't need to raise rates and even LOWER rates after the government forces them to stop creating monopolies/ polluting/ enslaving migrant workers / denying health care to the sick... oh, wait. The government has not stopped that one yet."

We constantly heard this pathetic whining from megacorporations and their apologists whenever the government stops them from discriminating.

Megacorps love to bleat that their ONLY option is raising rates. But after the regulations go into effect they often do not raise prices. They even lower prices.

Megacorps have about fearsome "consequences" back in the age of the Trusts and they lie today in the age of Enron and AIG and Comcast.

The only people who eat what the megacorps are shoveling are the Republicans. And, in this case, akmzrazor.

Good for the FCC to not fall for YOUR Republicans and their laughable approach called "election losers get to dictate policy."

Posted by: wpforumtroll | October 14, 2009 4:56 PM | Report abuse

akmrazor, it's perfectly possible (and in place now) to throttle back individual users that hog bandwidth.

Comcast went to that approach after they got smacked down by the FCC.

Throttling back individual users during congestion is neutral. An estimated 80% of all traffic is generated by about 10% of all users.

An estimated 40-50% of traffic is video, which is growing exponentially and will eat up any expansions in capacity.

Throttle back heavier users during heavy congestion (streaming video buffers), charge more for more use, and you have the $ to build out more capacity.

Posted by: VirginiaGal2 | October 16, 2009 7:33 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company