FCC approves controversial 'net neutrality' rules 12/21/2010

[Willis]

FCC approves controversial 'net neutrality' rules

By Doug Gross, CNN
December 21, 2010 4:53 p.m. EST

The Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday approved "high-level rules of the road" designed to ensure that internet providers grant everyone equal access to the Web.

But the 3-2 vote immediately came under attack from both flanks, with internet-freedom advocates saying the new rules don't go far enough and critics saying the government should stay out of online business altogether.

In announcing the proposed rules this month, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said they would require high-speed internet providers to treat all types of Web content equally.

The rules are designed to, in effect, keep the companies that own the internet's real-world infrastructure from slowing down some types of websites or apps -- say, those belonging to a competitor -- or speeding up others for high-paying clients.

For average internet users, the vote affects whether government will guarantee they'll continue to have access to all Web content, regardless of their internet provider's wishes, and whether they'll get that content as quickly as businesses or individuals able to pay more for it.
See the article in full, HERE (http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/12/21/fcc.net.neutrality/?hpt=T1)

[Tony]

The government is getting pretty nasty with the internet these days. And this is a supposedly 'liberal' administration.

This story (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/20/015259/FBI-Defend-Raids-On-Texas-Datacenter?from=rss) from last April got posted to Slashdot yesterday, presumably by someone else that missed it completely. I know I did. Maybe I'm just more sensitive after ICE shut down (http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/telecom/internet/82-websites-iced-by-ice-on-cyber-monday-a-preview-of-coica) all those websites a couple weeks ago - with absolutely no judicial oversight.

I'm not sure I'm ready to join The Wolverines (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoM6IFiyRjE) just yet, but there seems to be a very disturbing trend developing here in the US.

[Kensey]

The government is getting pretty nasty with the internet these days. And this is a supposedly 'liberal' administration.

Liberal administrations aren't necessarily friendly to free communications. Remember, the Clipper Chip was all the Clinton Administration's idea, they were the ones pushing for key escrow, it was that administration that went after Phil Z. over PGP (one of the very first things they did), and Clinton was the President who signed the Communications Decency Act as well as a bunch of other legislation that was probably broader than it should have been.

I'll bet we see Clipper and/or key escrow rise from the digital graveyard like zombies intent on eating the brains of people who should know better than to even try.

[derricksonb]

Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat, signed off on the rules but called them only a "first step in the right direction."
"In my book, today's action could have, and should have, gone further," he said. "Going as far as I would have liked was, however, not in the cards."
For example, he said, the rules won't absolutely prevent broadband providers from "pay for priority" -- giving faster service to those able to pay for it, or to one favored business over another.


I wonder how this will affect QoS.

[Kensey]

I wonder how this will affect QoS.

I think QoS will still be used and useful, but it will be focused more on regulating protocols rather than traffic to and from specific sites. And of course QoS is still vital for internal applications like prioritizing site-to-site videoconferencing packets over an enterprise VPN.