The Federal Communication Commission

[Microcosmos]

Or FCC, as it's better known, is about to clamp down on violators of free access to the interwebs. Is this a good thing or a bad thing, and how will it impact our beloved iPhones?

I think, from what I've read so far, that there is nothing wrong with a little well-placed regulation if it makes sense for just about everyone involved. Some are saying that the new laws might interfere with business expansion, while others say that the new laws won't change much because they will only be enforcing strong policies that are already in place, and those in favor fear that without the regulations things may get a bit wonky as greedy companies try to shut out competitors.

What do you think?

[whmurray]

As I understand "net neutrality" it means that traffic should flow and be priced without regard to origin, destination, application, device, or content. Your packets should not have priority over mine and they should cost the same.

The discussion gained momentum when AT&T suggested that Google should pay more than their other customers.

I do not think that discriminatory pricing or delivery is a good idea. I am glad that the FCC chairman has come down on my side.

However, I do not think that government regulation of the Internet is a good idea either. My favorite five words of English are, "Congress shall make no law........." We do not permit the state to regulate speech because history demonstrates that the state will use such power in its own interest tather than that of the citiizen.

Similarly, government should not be able to regulate access to media. Government should not influence what I use my ink to say and should not be able to restrict my access to ink.

In this case, government is using speculation about the potential for market abuse to justify a regulatory role for itself. It is already a crime for AT&T to collude with Verizon to force Google to pay more than other customers. That law and competition ought to be enough power for government to use to prevent discriminatory prices.

That may not be sufficient to resist discriminatory treatment of traffic. Carriers are already "shaping" traffic in the name of network efficiency. There is concern that they will discriminate in the name of efficiency. However, I am willing to leave even that to the market and the states until someone demonstrates abuse. I am not yet willing to grant power to the federal government in anticipation of a problem that may never be real.

What am I missing?

[Earless Puppy]

1) once the government gets involved with the internet, you will see internet taxes starting to show up... This will cost us and become a revenue stream for the government.. Watch
2) In the end you will see a rate increase and less unlimited plans offers from companies..

As much as I can see the need for "net neutrality" I also see where this will go and how it will not help out the common person.

[canadu]

This is a great question....to me it seems that big business and big government are going to end up screwing us as consumers. "Net neutrality" is a way-in on all that lucrative and mostly un-taxed internet money. I agree with everyone above that we as consumers will end up financing "net neutrality" once carriers raise fees to shift cost.

[whmurray]

The real issue here is competition. One need not worry about highter prices or interference with traffic as long as one can choose among ISPs or even service levels.

My ISP offers me high speeds and low prices in return for using their servers and not operating my own. However, if I really need to operate, for example, an SMTP server, they offer me that capability at a reasonable price.

For historical reasons my ISP is not my primary e-mail provider. In the name of an orderly internet, e.g., resisting span, my ISP blocks my access to a trusted SMTP server operated by my primary e-mail provider. Not exactly "neutral." Not to worry, for a fee.... And of course, I can use a proxy.

Most of my neighbors, who have never thought of operating their own servers or noticed any restrictions, are not even aware that there are different rates.

I am quite sure that I pay less for more today than I did a decade ago. "Long distance" which was too costly to use when I was small, is now literally "too cheap to meter." I credit this mostly to competition and not to regulation.

[Microcosmos]

How about this bit o' news: FCC chairman warns of 'looming spectrum crisis' AP News : FCC chairman warns of 'looming spectrum crisis'

[Jevangil]

Well, maybe the manufacturers need to start making devices that are not connected to the internet. But, oh yeah, how would AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon and Sprint be able to charge fees for data plans then?

Such a quandary we live in.

[whmurray]

Originally Posted by Microcosmos

How about this bit o' news: FCC chairman warns of 'looming spectrum crisis' AP News : FCC chairman warns of 'looming spectrum crisis'

Government just loves "crisis." "Looming" crises are the best kind of all. They justify more government.

The solution to limited bandwidth is technical, not regulatory. Spectrum is infinitely reusable. The trick is (highly redundant signal over) low power. For example, CDMA technology uses only that power necessary to reach the nearest cell. The more cells, the less signal.

Think about micro-cells. There are at least three solutions to low signal in my apartment: 1) AT&T boosts the signal; 2) I sit closer to the window; 3) (AT&T permits me to) install a micro-cell in my apartment. Note that what the industry refers to as the "backhaul" for the micro-cell already exists and I pay for it whether I use it or not. Note that Sprint and Verizon micro-cells reduce the signal output of CDMA phones so that they do not interfere with other's use of the spectrum.

Economics argues for moving long-distance broadcast to glass. Policy, which gives the vested broadcast industry the right to consume huge amounts of spectrum, is counter-productive. The role for policy is to get out of the way of economics.

So, to the extent that there is a "looming crises" it is the result of government. Government's favorite solution for the unintended consequences of too much government is always more government. That is a solution that results in ever increasing inefficiency.

Let us deal with real crises. We always do. Let us not grant government more power in the name of (government) speculation about crisis.

[whmurray]

Originally Posted by Jevangil

Well, maybe the manufacturers need to start making devices that are not connected to the internet.........

No, government should stop allocating huge amounts of spectrum to broadcast TV, an application that does not require it, so that it is available for local low-power hand-held portable devices that really need it.

[whmurray]

The argument seems to be led by the wireless carriers and focusing on whether the same rules can or should be applied to both wireless and wireline portions of the Internet.

The argument for treating them differently is rooted in the wireless operators' claim that , not simply is there a temporary shortage but a fundamental one. It is this claim of a fundamental shortage that they use to justify that be treated differently. On the other hand, much of the control that they want seems to be protective of their broken business models. For example, they want to perpetuate the artificial separation between voice and data and charging differently for them.

Of course, their argument regarding shortage may be caused in part by the government policy of allocating spectrum, said allocation causing a shortage where there otherwise is none. For example, it is aggravated by allocating huge amounts of spectrum to applications, like broadcast television, that use it inefficiently.

Indeed the government's justification for regulation rests in part upon the arguable assumption that spectrum is fundamentally scarce. I would argue that the issue is not really one of shortage but one of efficient use. Modern cellular wireless technology in general, and 4G CDMA in particular, is all about efficient use of what might otherwise be scarce spectrum.

One might well argue that regulation based upon an assumption of scarcity, might discourage efficiency. In any case, we should not resort early to regulation to remedy a problem that may never emerge.