“The 360-page NBB plan recommends extensive overhaul of the FCC itself and the regulations it enforces. It ignores very few issues regarding access to broadband, the future of explosive wireless usage and the need to ensure that creativity is not handicapped by lack of bandwidth. Everything seems to be covered, even the issue of taxes and the impact of how that could impact internet growth. One issue that is well covered is reform of the Universal Service Fund, which enables funding used strictly for telephone service to be used for broadband build out or upgrades. Congressman Rick Boucher (D-VA) has drafted legislation in preparation of reform policy proposals by the FCC,” Hanchard reports. “Thus it appears all issues as per the executive summary to be a well documented plan with clear goals. Except one. Net Neutrality.”
Hanchard reports, “You won’t find a single notation or specific comment about Net Neutrality. Did the FCC kill it? Did industry lobby to keep it out of the report? Were the Commissioners divided on the issue? There are several possible answers. The answer is probably all three.”
Full, comprehensive article, in which Hanchard states a fundamental problem, “Everyone has their own definition of what ‘Net Neutrality’ truly means,” here.
MacDailyNews Take: As we wrote nearly four years ago: “We don’t presume to know the best way to get there, but we support the concept of ‘Net Neutrality’ especially as it pertains to preventing the idea of ISP’s blocking or otherwise impeding sites that don’t pay the ISP to ensure equal access. That said, we usually prefer the government to be hands-off wherever possible, Laissez-faire, except in cases where the free market obviously cannot adequately self-regulate (antitrust, for just one example). Regulations are static and the marketplace is fluid, so extensive regulations can have unintended, unforeseen results down the road. We sincerely hope that there are enough forces in place and/or that the balances adjust in such a manner as to keep the ‘Net neutral.”
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “iWill” for the heads up.]
Aaaaand here we go. Another political thread on MDN.
How about we talk about tech and ONLY tech?
If we could get enough Democrats and Republicans to work together and stop the ideological posturing, we could potentially enter into an era of what I like to call “reregulation.” I realize that regulations can often be contradictory and stifling to growth. Regulations need to be overhauled and streamlined throughout many different industries, agencies need to be merged, and in many cases, rules should be replaced with oversight.
Unfortunately, we’ve got two dysfunctional ideological approaches to regulation. One party that adds regulations as post-crisis punitive measures even though the the regulations often do not address the actual problems and the perpetrators have long since cashed out. And we have another party that acts like children ripping up the rules without putting anything in their place except the honor system as they wink and nod at the multi-nationals that the coast is clear.
Everyone wants businesses to succeed. We should have a summit on how to streamline our regulatory structure bring both sides of Congress, the President, CEOs and small business people. Unfortunately, that would be way to level-headed for the politicians or the electorate at this point. So if we have to choose between stifling growth and allowing people to destroy the system, I think we have to side with stifling growth.
I realize I got off the topic a tad.
Also, I know my comment will probably be deleted because I seem to disagree with the MDN take.
All I can say is please don’t ban me! I’ve had a bad day.
@Macromancer
Yes, it is politics, but it affects tech in every way. MDN wasn’t grandstanding, they clearly stated their opinion which, from my point of view, sounds reasonable, balanced, and level-headed.
OK MrMcLargeHuge:
Did the FCC’s National Broadband Plan kill ‘Net Neutrality?’
@Ampar
Not sure what you’re getting at, but I haven’t read the plan, so I have no way of knowing.
Hi guys,
We have emailed back and forth before regarding economic and tax issues, and I would like to provide some insight as to the complexity involved I the national broadband plan, and view of government regulations.
While your general premise that ‘the market place is fluid and regulations are static’ is correct, the consequences are not always bad or unintended. Regulations, by nature, have to remain static to provide a floor of what absolutely MUST be done. i.e.-the sidelines and first down markers in a football game. Without those, there is no game, just a loosley organized fight. While some of the rules may change (helmets, pass interference, holding, knee shots on QB’s) they almost always have an intended consequence and outcome. But the basics must remain in place in order for all other parts of the game to function.
This same principle applies to the SEC, IRS, FTC, and FCC. while legislation cannot always forsee everything, rules have to be in place to define the playing field, otherwise there no game or market to play in.
What this broadband plan does, in effect,is lay out the basics of the adoption of high speed Internet throughout the nation for the next decade. It is not a final word, just a plan. And plans change constantly
Part of the problem with jumping on specific words, or the lack of words/descriptive terms in long range planning is that nothing is final. Unless congress passes the bill and the signs it, there is no law, there is only a plan.
So while ‘net neutrality’ advocates will go insane over this, it’s really not that nefarious or that big of a deal. The general problem with keeping the Internet neutral is striking a balance between the public need for the service , and the private industry who has to provide said service. This is the same debate that was had over telecommunications a century ago, and television in the late 40’s.
Provided all parties can come to an agreement on how to proceed, without insane rhetoric, everthing will work out fine. But we must give this plan time to breathe.
PS- spirited debate is welcomed, but crazy stuff is not. I have read the whole plan, so if you’re going to argue please be informed, do not quote opionions that are not your own.
Jefe, do you even know what it means to have a plethora?
Because I would hate to think that someone would say that they had a plethora, without even knowing what it means to have a plethora…
Sure, just like deregulation, can also have unintended consequences, like to big to fail banks and the like.
@ Voice of reason
Sounds reasonable!
You wrote: “Everyone wants businesses to succeed.”
From what I can tell, that’s the LAST thing the radical socialist liberal democrats want to have happen.
@Thomas – Ditto
Cable TV is not an option where I live and is unlikely to be available any time in the near or not-so-near future, but either way it doesn’t make much difference.
We dropped satellite service in Jan 09 due partly to customer service issues, but mostly due to the cost (about $90/month). We also dropped our wireless broadband provider due to the cost (about $70/month).
Since then our TV news and entertainment is via OTA digital broadcasts, and costs $0.
I do have broadband internet access (at least the best that’s available in our area from Qwest, which isn’t saying much), or rather we pay a tenant to share theirs. We have two houses on our property.
While sharing a wireless connection between a video game system and five to six computers doesn’t give the speediest connection, at least it’s something. Except when we use our microwave oven, then my computers web access speed drops to zero as long as the oven runs. For this we pay half of their internet service, about $25/month.
Beyond the issue of this NBB plan eventually raising my cost for internet access… what I don’t care for in the NBB plan is that part that basically spells the end of OTA free broadcast TV.
What really burns me is that this was all was planned by an “enlightened” FCC bureaucracy in the early 90s.
Here’s some details: http://www.tvnewscheck.com/articles/2010/03/12/daily.4/
This is absolutely outrageous. One more example of government deception, not to mention wastefulness. Remember the digital switch over and all those coupons for digital converter boxes? What was the point?
And one more thing… when this is all done it’s going to give the FCC (or whatever they choose to call it’s successor federal organization) oversight and power over the internet.
Just like the power the FCC has today over broadcast TV, but doesn’t quite have over cable, satellite or the internet.
Now why do you suppose they would want to do that?
As opposed to the Christian Taliban Right banana republicans…See I can name call too.
I woke up with a throbbing plethora this morning….
@leodavinci
Im sorry to hear what happened to your service, that sucks. But when I said bring opinions that are your own, I don’t expect to read linked articles that take quotes out of context and have many elipses (…) between words to serve the authors or publications agenda.
Read the PLAN and then tell me what you think, not an article that has ‘quotes’ from 20 years ago which have been shortened and manipulated.
Ah, a plethora. I suppose that “Net Neutrality” is the personal El Guapo of many.
@ ‘@Thomas’ and Drew
One can only imagine the plethora of personal El Guapos that you two share…
@Voice of Reason
Did you read the article, or check the linked video there?
Those quotes weren’t from 20 years ago. They were from a recent speech (just before the NBB plan was revealed) by Reed Hundt about his involvement as the FCC chairman in formulating the NBB plan… 20 years ago.
So what if the author has an agenda? It doesn’t make them wrong about conclusions they drew from Hundt’s speech.
Particularly when Hundt plainly states what their intentions were.
I get information from a variety of sources and come to my own conclusions/opinions about things. Sometimes they just happen to coincide with others… which doesn’t make them any less my own.
FWIW, I don’t have an issue with a NBB plan, per se. Just this one and the methods being used to institute it.
“Hanchard reports, “You won’t find a single notation or specific comment about Net Neutrality. Did the FCC kill it? Did industry lobby to keep it out of the report?”
Answer: YES.
The industry lobby to kill off Net Neutrality is massive. They managed to pervert my Congressman, (D) Dan Maffei, in their deceitful direction. This totally ticked off his constituents as he ran in opposition to the Oligarchy clone behavior of his (R) prececessor.
IOW: YES.
@Leo davinci
I did read the linked article, and it said the quotes were from 1994. I could have read that wrong but that’s what I thought it said
@leodavinci
the reason I brought up am agenda was not to insult you, but I have read a lot of things on that site that push an agenda. I don’t think they’re very straightforward about things, that’s all.
And when I see quotes with elipses in them it always makes me curious/skeptical as to the motivation for eliminating the words that were in that space.
Righties want it both ways. They don’t look in a mirror and see that they have their religious, racist, similarities to Taliban, Iranian religious right, Sunni Muslim extremest. The want to force their ideologies on others. The say the want govt out, but they want to shield the rich, the want government that protects their money and that’s it. During the late fifties to the early 80’s our economy saw it’s longest and largest expansion of the middle class in history. The top tax rate for those making over $3,000,000 were subjected to 74% tax on any income above that. We ran up the largest debt in history under Reagan! We have not looked back since. We need pre Reagan tax rates or even Eisenhower top rate 90%! We wouldn’t need to worry about Net Neutrality if our country could afford to kelp infrastructure up with the times. Europe provides better services to their citizens like fantastic rail and highway system. Their Internet is better than ours also.
To get back to the topic:
From where I stand, the topic of “net neutrality” is really simple: a packet is a packet is a packet. If there is to be any “throttling” of packets introduced to the Internet, it should happen as close to the source as possible – that is, at the ISP, or the ISP’s ISP. Once it’s in, though, there should be no discrimination.
I’m one of those “that government governs best that governs least” types, but here I see a role for the government simply mandating a hands-off policy concerning data discrimination unless there is an overriding technical reason to do so.
@Ben Dover
some people forget history, or simply have a vested interest in not knowing the facts of the past. you’re correct.