Skip to comments.FCC will vote on regulating Internet lines in December
Posted on 12/01/2010 7:59:31 AM PST by maggief
In an effort to meet an Obama campaign promise, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski indicated Wednesday that he will propose new regulations for Internet lines.
He is expected to give a speech at 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday laying out his proposal.
Genachowski's attempt to revive the long-delayed net-neutrality proceeding is a delicate balancing act designed to garner some industry and public interest support without completely satisfying anyone.
Genachowski has made concessions to AT&T, Verizon, and the cable industry that could forestall an all-out lobbying blitz by the nation's largest telecom providers.
But the concessions have done nothing to help him with House Republicans, who oppose net-neutrality rules as an "Internet takeover."
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
The Internet grew like wildfire without government involvement, yet, these pinheads want to take credit and take over.
As went the Bells will go the Net, all the same. The government got involved in telephony, regulated it, taxed its use, and telephony is on the wane. Technological advancement was preferred over a continuously increasing tax burden for use of communication devices. Thus cell phones and the Internet.
Now they want to regulate, restrict, and tax the use of another communication medium. I predict the proliferation of peer-to-peer wireless ad-hoc technology platforms.
"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people,
under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy."
Thomas Jefferson, 1802
I sense an FCC defunding coming soon...
It’s all a big powergrab.
The FCC sees radio/tv broadcasting going away (satellite broadcasts, like cable, are not regulated by the FCC).
They need to keep their agency, regulatory role, and jobs.
Same with the post office. Remember when the USPS had the idea of printing out emails for people and hand delivering them to your mailbox for $0.25 each?
The power-hungry megalomaniacs in our government always want to take over anything that gives the INDIVIDUAL some control over himself and his environment.
I predict the porn sites have nothing to worry about.
That's a good insight.
I've been hoping for such a thing.
Is a peer-to-peer world-wide (or coast-to-coast) web feasible? Seems like the latency issues would be insurmountable.
I'd put one up.
You mean like HAM radio?
Correction: The Internet grew like wildfire under government oversight. The government gave up as the key carrier of Internet traffic in 1994 by allowing other backbones aside from NSFNet, and dropped commercial restrictions in 1995. The government allowed the growth. But the granting of IP addresses and domain names is still done under federal contract.
There are interesting tests going on in some metros for consolidated MANs (Metropolitan Area Networks) that utilize switching equipment in most big city communication hubs (hospitals, for example) that act as isolated networks for business continuity purposes.
Large MANs in relatively close proximity to one another (i.e. Tampa and Orlando in Florida) could be linked through several major providers’ fiber backbones. Those backbones could provide fast Internet routes to other MANs with redundant discrete paths to provide fault tolerance. Laggy over long distances, but fast in the metro.
As government takes over the Internet, we’ll have to rely on local resources to connect. A good example of this is HAM radio. The HAM radio community is on the wane, but I’m of the belief that any true survival-minded American should be familiar with HAM radio operations. The government may license the airwaves, but they can’t shut them down.
As such, if we can build up a consumer market for personal wireless hubs that can ad-hoc with others in the area without any centralization (think: P2P), we can continue to communicate regardless of Internet connection availability. The Chinese can (illegally) circumvent their government web control through the use of satellite technology. The same could be applied here.
See my post #13.
EXACTLY like HAM radio.
I would want to see exactly what the FCC would control.
I don’t know who I trust less — the FCC or the cable/telephone Internet providers.
I do know my cable internet provider throttles down my connection speed to a crawl if I have a large number of downloads in a month.
This G-man is a good sock puppet and you know where Obama’s got his hand...
“The government allowed the growth. “
You made my point. It did not take off until the feds got out of its growth. It languished for several decades wtihout any growth while the governmentcontrolled it.
And let me rephrase your comment, “The government stopped preventing its growth”. They did not “allow it”. A government cannot “allow” anything. It can only prevent.
“The government may license the airwaves, but they cant shut them down.”
Well, yes, they can. They have jammers that can jam the entire frequency spectrum.
Latency would be measured in minutes, but that’s not the biggest problem. Where would you get connectivity to the internet? There are only a handful of companies that provide the base bandwidth we all use and which the ISPs and others all share, and once the FCC gets hands on the IXPs (internet exchange points) and backbone carriers, you’re screwed.
Hmmm. I’ll take your word on that. I’m not heavily invested in wireless technology.
“The HAM radio community is on the wane”
Not true: http://www.ah0a.org/FCC/Licenses.html
The military maintains fixed ground, airborne, and space based jammers. It might be tough for them to jam the entire spectrum nationwide all at once and continuously, even though they can do it, they can jam enough continuously to be effective.
In my neighborhood I can see thirty other routers.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if everybody in a city had an open mesh router. I'm not talking about sharing Internet access, I'm talking about using the mesh network as a local version of the Interwebs. If you could connect the local open mesh webs of all major cities together government control would be thwarted. About all they could do is use jammers.
As with every other Obama initiative, look for this one to satisfy nothing and no one, while, at the same time, solving nothing and, in fact, making everything worse.
At this point in the current administration, the moment Obama opens his big yap, you can set your watch by the decrease in the quality of life.
Would that include moonbounce or HF ionospheric propagation for long-distance communications? I would imagine with a directional yagi and enough power, one could get through somewhere. Jammers cannot be omnidirectional. They have to have a node somewhere.
DD-WRT is firmware for wireless routers and on most recent retail routers, you can create virtual WLANs.
I have several virtual WLANs using AP isolation to provide a few neighbors with secure but open wireless access. One of my neighbors is a tech geek, and we talked and agreed to team our routers for fault tolerance. We both use the same SSID, can access each others servers internally, and regardless of network availability (we have different ISPs) the routers know how to get out. When my network connection dropped last month, my connectivity was unaffected.
If we could have that sort of web set up in a small neighborhood, I don’t see why a team of local nerds couldn’t do the same thing in a much larger area.
Actually, it grew quite rapidly before then. What really spurred the growth you're thinking of, and coinciding with the government giving up as the sole backbone provider, was the invention of the WWW, the "killer app" that gave the average guy something to do in the Internet. The WWW was developed in Switzerland, so the Internet had obviously gone international.
Also spurring growth was allowing commerce on the Internet. Yes, allowing. You run it, you allow what you want. Using an Internet running under net neutrality, and still controlled by the government, companies figured out how to make a lot of money and futher expand the reasons for people to want to get an Internet connection.
Note, as I said, under net neutrality. It is net neutrality -- the neutrality of the network towards the content and services going over it -- that allowed the massive expansion of the Internet. Anybody could invent any service and know it could reach any online consumer. The little guy was suddenly on an equal playing field with the big guy. Barriers to entry in markets dropped drastically. Long established services like POTS telephone, newspapers and now cable TV could now be threatened by startup companies, or even free services.
It is this net neutrality that the telcos want to kill. It must be maintained to keep the growth and innovation going, even if that does mean the government telling the ISPs to quit trying to stifle the free flow of traffic on the Internet.
I have a Buffalo router that I have flashed with DD-WRT and Tomato for fun. Do those firmware versions basically give open mesh functionality?
Under current proposals there is nothing that the FCC would control. The proposals tell the IPSs to not restrict the free flow of information on the Internet on the basis of protocol, source or content, and to inform customers of their policies regarding network management. The former is net neutrality, the latter is more of a consumer protection measure. You won't wonder why things slow down, and what the limits are, it'll be right there in black and white for you.
The FCC's role would to be to take complaints of ISP violations from consumers and act on them.
Don’t quote me, but I believe Open Mesh is proprietary. DD-WRT is open source.
“Jammers cannot be omnidirectional.”
Some are (VHF/UHF), but to be more effective they scan and they scan fast. So, while 100% of the frequency is not jammed at all times, every frequency gets jammed at least a percentage and that percentage is enough to distrupt normal RF CW communications. This is why the military uses frequency hopping in the grass along with other techniques. It is unlikely that a jammer will hit the exact frequency as the transmitter at the same time. Getting jam proof communications is easy enough but we civilians do not have anything that does that.
Moon bounce is hard to accomplish all the time and is not a reliable communications technique. Plus, it can be jammed fairly easily.
I suspect we will have communications because if any enemy tries to jam us then we are no doubt in an all out war and we will take care of such transmissions.
Spread spectrum communication is effective for long-distance HF transmission of binary coded data (like faxes), and I’d imagine if the listening station could decode across a spread spectrum, they could decode a long-distance message. That’s also the beauty of Morse code. I can tap out long messages in code on HF and provided signal strength at the receiving end is at least audible, code can be understood by those who know it. I’ve communicated with stations in South Africa using HF wave propagation on clear nights with my yagi, and despite a lot of noise on the line, the code is easy to decipher.
I do wholeheartedly agree with your last assertion. If it gets to this point, we really are talking about tyranny in the country and I fear CWII will be in full swing by then.
Remember, however, that the initial conversation was surrounding the regulation of the Internet by the FCC. My point was that when they did the same thing to the Bells back in the 20th century, people seeking normal channels of communication invented ways to get around the taxes. For instance, how many people today have home phone service? I would bet the numbers are on the wane.
Necessity is the mother of invention, as Plato once said.
It says that “Congress shall pass no law”.
So we’ll take it by fiat. :)
Now pay your taxes...
They want to control it and if they can’t control it they want to destroy it.