How Washington will shape the Internet

[BJ_M]

NOT a political thread !! for information and discussion only ...

The Web was the Wild West — until the sheriff rode into town



By Michael Rogers
Columnist
Special to MSNBC
Updated: 11:21 a.m. ET July 11, 2006


The most potent force shaping the future of the Internet is neither Mountain View’s Googleplex nor the Microsoft campus in Redmond. It’s rather a small army of Gucci-shod lobbyists on Washington’s K Street and the powerful legislators whose favor they curry.

After years of benign neglect, the Federal government is finally involved in the Internet — big time. And the decisions being made over the next few months will impact not just the future of the Web, but that of mass media and consumer electronics as well. Yet it’s safe to say that far more Americans have heard about flag burning than the laws that may soon reshape cyberspace.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

All of the major changes are encompassed in a single, sprawling bill that is called a “rewrite” of the 1996 Telecommunications Act but which in fact breaks all manner of new ground. At present the bill is out of committee in both houses but it’s not clear whether it will actually be passed this year; three weeks remain until summer recess and in September members may be more focused on elections than electrons. But sooner or later, Congress is going to lay down the law, and here’s a quick primer on some of the key issues:

Network neutrality: This argument has received by far the most publicity. It pits network owners such as Verizon and AT&T against the companies who buy their bandwidth, such as Google and Amazon, and it hinges on whether the network owners can charge extra to deliver certain kinds of bits — bill more for streaming video, for example, than simpler data like text e-mail.

Enormous lobbying forces on both sides have created a highly emotional battle, involving everyone from Moby to the Christian Coalition. One side argues that access providers will use pricing to lock out competitors or even censor certain Web sites. The other side contends that Federal pricing regulation would permanently cripple the development of the Internet because network owners won’t be able to charge enough to upgrade their infrastructure.

In the end, it’s really an argument about who will bear the costs of building out the robust networks that we’ll all use in the future. And while net neutrality has received the most press, in the end it may not change the status quo as much as either side fears or hopes. If the networks win, the government will probably intervene if it sees unfair discrimination against competitors or censorship. If the Googles of the world win, the network owners will undoubtedly figure out some other way to raise prices.

No matter which way it goes, it means a new element of government regulation. And as far as who pays to build out the networks — in the end, one way or another, most of the costs will still be passed on to the consumer.

National video franchise: Wait… weren’t we talking about the Internet? This is about the Internet. Telephone companies have figured out that they’re dead in the water competitively in the Internet bandwidth game unless they replace their existing copper lines with fiber optic cables, thereby leapfrogging the capabilities of the cable companies.

But retrofitting America for fiber is going to be phenomenally expensive and it will be hard to recoup those costs selling Internet access. So the telcos want to provide television, just like the cable companies.

Problem: as the law currently stands, the telcos have to go to every community individually and ask for a franchise to deliver television, which is what the cable companies had to do years ago. That process could be both lengthy and expensive, so the telcos want a national television franchise that will let them go into many communities all at once. After much opposition by the cable and satellite folks, who don’t want any more competition, it looks like the telcos will get what they want.

If so, then fiber optic cables to the home are going to happen far more quickly than anyone would have predicted five years ago — a major upgrade to the U.S. information infrastructure. At the same time, by introducing a new competitor, it will probably reduce or at least stabilize cable and satellite television fees.

Universal service fund: This is the mysterious charge on your phone bill that currently subsidizes telephone service to remote parts of the country, as well as Internet access for schools and libraries.

Two parts of the USF must be rethought. The first: should “universal service” be redefined as broadband Internet connectivity, rather than voice telephone service? And then if that’s the case, then shouldn’t VOIP and Internet access fees — not just telephone bills — bear some of the tax burden as well?

Some argue for the abolition of the USF altogether — but that seems unlikely, as that would impose an immediate and costly burden on many rural Americans. And going forward, without a USF, if providers started to “cherry pick” only affluent communities for broadband upgrades, that could worsen the digital divide for both rural and inner city customers. Congress has the chance to do the right thing here and make sure all Americans have decent access to the digital world — but it may prove to be a battle in this anti-tax era.

Flags: Not the ones that burn — these are digital codes, inserted into video and audio signals, that tell recording equipment (a PVR, a DVD recorder, your computer) whether it’s OK to make a copy of the content.

This is enormously controversial. On one side, the recording, film and television industries want a flag to protect their digital content from piracy; they say the flags would allow certain kinds of copying for personal use, but prevent the wholesale distribution of copyrighted material on the Internet. On the other side, the consumer electronics and computer industries are strongly against this, since all of their hardware would have to be designed to recognize and obey the digital flag — not just increasing their costs, but probably annoying consumers.

No matter how this resolves, it will change both media and consumer electronics. Opponents of the flag say that consumers will lose control over what they can do, even with movies or music they’ve purchased legally. On the other hand, television broadcasters threaten that without the broadcast flag to protect their content, free over-the-air television will no longer be free: the networks will start charging viewers for their top-tier programming.


White Spaces: This bland phrase could have a significant impact on the cost and availability of wireless Internet access countrywide. Essentially it would allow wireless operators to use certain television frequencies that aren’t currently occupied by television stations, thus broadening the opportunities for competitive services.

The broadcasters are unhappy about this, arguing that it raises the risk of interfering with television signals. More to the point may be that broadcast spectrum is enormously valuable property and the broadcasters don’t see how sharing does anything for them. Consumer electronics manufacturers don’t have a position on this — probably because some of them hope to make products that use this new spectrum and the rest make television sets they worry might be negatively affected.

And those are only the high points of the new legislation. If it all sounds complicated, just wait. Over the next few years, government regulation will increasingly be a factor in how the Internet grows. Government has been remarkably hands-off in its approach to the commercial Internet over the past decade (with a few exceptions, such as indecency and children). But as the Internet becomes integral to the economic infrastructure of the country, it’s hard to see how government won’t be involved in issues ranging from anti-competitive practices to safety and security. We’re going to look at the first decade of the commercial Internet as something like the Wild West — and we’ll mark 2006 as the year that the sheriff rode into town.

The final impetus for Washington may come when the Internet truly becomes our primary means of commerce, including electronic versions of anonymous cash. At that point, the Internet could become the largest potential tax-avoidance machine ever invented. (For an early example, consider how many states and municipalities are already worried about losing local sales tax to online shopping.) These days, any institution whose revenue is threatened by the Internet is quick to take defensive action — and in the years to come I expect no less of our elected representatives.

[Conquest10]

This bill has been heavily advertised here. Not the actual content though (when is it ever?). The ads always talk about how its horrible to be stuck in a world of cable and expensive bills and how this new bill would bring about competition and lower bills. I have said this before, that's a complete lie. Competition has not brought about lower prices here. For internet you got two choices AT&T and Comcast. Same price roughly for Comcast's 6MB and AT&T's 768kb. Comcast has advertised that they have raised the speed of their connection (something I will soon test now that I am finally free of AT&T) but the price stays the same. What does AT&T do? They offer their 3MB (slower than Comcast) for cheaper but only for a limited time. Afterwards the price soars to more than what Comcast charges for their faster connection. Where's the advantage of competition there?

The thing about the costs of updating their outdated copper lines, its BS. They will pass the charges right down to the customer no matter what. What did AT&T do when they had to update the wiring in my house just so I could receive service? They charged me. What did Comcast do? They updated the cables free of charge. This is just a ploy by those greedy bastards to rip even more people off now that they won't need permission from each community.

I wonder how good their garbage tv service will be.

[BJ_M]

i see they outlawed online gambling (for all intents) and also require ISP to block gambling sites ... this happened last night ....

i smell a plot ...

deregulation of the phone industry didnt cause prices to go down ... and now how many phone companies are there ? i think 3 or 4 .. that was after there were 100's -- all of whom on their own couldnt make money ....

[thecoalman]

Net Neutrality is probably the most important issue there. Being able to contol bandwidth would essentially put them in complete contrlol of the conent you recieve. There's many small sites that only successful or became sucessful because of that. Most would fall off the face of the earth becasue let's face it if the site loads really slow people are just going to go elesewhere.

[lordsmurf]

I've never been able to understand "net neutrality". Is it:

(A) The current Internet will be left alone, speeds remain unchanged. A new "high speed lane" (like the HOV on a highway) will be added. This seems more likely, and is what I've read in several places. Large companies like Google that want high speed preferences will get it, at a price.

(B) The Internet will be slowed down unless you pay a bounty. Only companies like Google and Microsoft can afford it, so small businesses will suffer and disappear offline. This is the doomsday scenario posed by some, and seems unlikely.

Sometimes I wish the phone company was like the postal service, a government run organization that exists simply to break even or allow for enough growth profits. It does not need to rake in tons of money. Of course, would it be as aggressive in new technologies? Catch 22. I could say the same about electricity, gasoline, natural gas, water, and disposal (waste) too.

[thecoalman]

(A) The current Internet will be left alone, speeds remain unchanged. A new "high speed lane" (like the HOV on a highway) will be added. This seems more likely, and is what I've read in several places. Large companies like Google that want high speed preferences will get it, at a price.
.

That may be fine for the present conditions but what about the future? Files get bigger as new technologies emerge and that could squeeze the little guy out in the future.

[NiteLite]

The guy in charge of these decisions (R-Alaska_T. Stevens) the guy that got the half billion pork for a bridge no one wanted...actually said on the senate floor,
"The internet is not a big dump truck. It's more like a bunch of tubes."
"All this video stuff is slowing down my internet. Someone sent me some "internet" on wednesday and I didn't get it until Friday."

Someone sent him some internet?
Talk about an idiot running the institution.
How can anyone image the future state of the internet with a fool like this in charge of the decision making process?

[lordsmurf]

Dear Mr. XXXXXX

Thank you for contacting me about Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and their ability to control Internet content. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this matter.

A variety of issues are under discussion in the 109th Congress, and it is important that I remain abreast of issues affecting my constituents. As you may know, network neutrality would prohibit ISPs from choosing a more favorable bandwidth allotment for websites, and thus would prohibit providers from favoring certain websites over others. Historically, the Internet has been self-governed. However, concerns exist in the marketplace that some companies may inhibit a consumer's ability to freely navigate the web. Therefore, some organizations are calling for federal regulations to maintain Internet and network neutrality.

I understand your concern that the lack of network neutrality may create a less competitive and less innovative global marketplace. As the use of the Internet continues to affect our personal and professional interactions, the need to maintain a free and open source of communication and expression will continue to grow. You may be certain that I will keep your views in mind as the Senate considers relevant information.

I appreciate having the opportunity to represent the interests of my constituents in the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,
XXXXXXXXXX
United States Senator

I honestly have no idea what the **** he just said.

[Conquest10]

Looks like he just completely avoided the question and said he understands your concern.

Who's office is this?

[Doramius]

Personally, I don't have a problem with price restriction in regards to speed. All areas should have the ability of highest speed, but those who pay for it will get it. The rest will get tiered increase levels. So money making businesses can pay for high speeds to run their businesses, while the thrifty american can get highspeed to do simple tasks.

Isn't that how it pretty much is, only you're getting raped by the local ISPs. It'd be nice to be able to have competition nationally. Fiberoptics doesn't restrict you to local service, just like satellite doesn't. Problem with satellite is there are ONLY a few providers. You can become one yourself.......good luck on finding funding to put one into sub-orbit. It's also getting to the point where highspeed broadband could run over cellular frequencies. If that's true, you just pay for an IP address like you pay for telephone number. Select your plan, just like you picked your local calling plan. And based on your plan, you have your speed and options.

This seems like the most viable route to make people happy. Communications companies just want MORE money from companies that get heavy traffic. Not because it costs them any more to maintain, but because they want to rake in on the demand. It's a greed factor.

None of this is new. This is also how you know there aren't any honest people running communications these days. The media is self evident of that. :/

[JoeTheDude]

Is this kind of like charging passenger cars $1 per gallon of gas, but then charging a bus $5 per gallon for the same gas?
So, by raising the gas prices for busses, they hope to force the buss lines to reduce the number of busses on the highway, and therby increasing the overall flow of traffic for car drivers?

It's just an analogy, but it still sounds stupid to me...

[shelbyGT]

www.wearetheweb.org

Click on "Go" underneath Watch the Video on the bottom left.

[Doramius]

Is this kind of like charging passenger cars $1 per gallon of gas, but then charging a bus $5 per gallon for the same gas?
So, by raising the gas prices for busses, they hope to force the buss lines to reduce the number of busses on the highway, and therby increasing the overall flow of traffic for car drivers?

It's just an analogy, but it still sounds stupid to me...

You're on the right track, but thinking backwards. Charge $1 per gallon per person. The bus holds 50 people and would get $50. It rides the short routes (special bus routes). a 5 person car gets to ride the carpool lane, and a 1 person car is in normal traffic. If you a single car and you decide to pay $50 to ride in the short routes, that's $50 per gallon for that person. They can do it if they want, but it'll cost them. That's if there's one gas company and they are running the roads. Add multiple gas companies and you have price competition. They may sacrifice road quality to keep profits high and elude that their prices are lower (IE: $.75 per person per gallon). Government then becomes in control of the roads. They stay maintained, but a tax is imposed (IE: $.25 per person per gallon). In actuality the cost to maintain is only $.20. Why charge the dollar? Companies offer light competition to keep prices at $1 per person per gallon. Now add airplanes (As you would satellite broadband). catch the similarity now?