ie8 fix

The FCC's taking another run at net neutrality: good or bad?

By | December 20, 2010, 4:22am PST

Summary: There’s a lot happening this week in the net neutrality argument.

There’s a lot happening this week in the net neutrality argument. The FCC is takng another run at trying to impose some regulatory sense over the Internet — which could be good and bad for Internet users and site providers.

There’s a lot of both informed and inflamed discussion on the topic you might find interesting.

In addition, both the UK and Venezuela (Venezuela?) are getting into the Internet regulation act this week:

So, what do you think?

Poll

Do you support the FCC's position on net neutrality?

As you can see, this is a very hot issue. Stay tuned.

Share your thoughts below.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

David Gewirtz, Distinguished Lecturer at CBS Interactive, is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets.

Disclosure

David Gewirtz

At various times during his adult life, David has voted for both Democrats and Republicans, and has been disappointed by both. He is deeply disturbed by how partisanship has come before patriotism in America, which gives him the freedom to pick on both sides.

David is a frequent guest on TV and radio stations across America and can usually be heard or seen on-the-air at least once a week. He writes weekly commentary and analysis for CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 and has been interviewed by Fox News, CNN, various ABC and NBC affiliates, and Canada’s Global TV. He has been a featured guest on National Public Radio and has also been featured on Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberty where his commentaries on technology, industry, and emerging nations have been broadcast into 46 countries (all in their own unique translations).

David is the executive director of U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute, a nonprofit research and policy organization. He is the Cyberterrorism Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security and a special contributor to Frontline Security Magazine. He is a member of the FBI’s InfraGard program, the security partnership between the FBI and industry. David is also a member of the U.S. Naval Institute and the National Defense Industrial Association, the leading defense industry association promoting national security.

David is an advisory board member for the Technical Communications and Management Certificate program at the University of California, Berkeley extension. He is also a member of the instructional faculty at the University of California, Berkeley extension.

David’s “day job” is as publisher and editor-in-chief of ZATZ publishing, an online publisher of technical magazines. Other than than his ownership stake in Component Enterprises, Inc. (the parent company of ZATZ), David has no additional industry investments.

ZATZ has many advertisers who do, in part, provide for David’s lush income and extravagant lifestyle. Most of them are IBM and Lotus aftermarket suppliers, some of them make goodies for Microsoft Outlook, and a few make all sorts of strange mobile devices and add-on products. David has been a regular judge of the IBM Awards, but has no formal financial interest in or with IBM.

Because the ZATZ online magazines often review products, David and ZATZ are sent an overwhelming stream of unsolicited, silly, and often useless products to review. Because they’re such a pain to track and ship back, these products often wind up in a dumpster or fill up the corner of a large closet. Although David has no plans to review products in connection to his ZDNet blog, if he does do a product review, he will disclose any relationship completely in that posting.

Both through ZATZ and independently, David derives a small income through various advertising and sales relationships with Amazon.com and Google. These are minor relationships and they will not impede his willingness or ability to chastise either company should they deserve it.

David has many other business relationships, but none of them relate to anything he covers in his ZDNet blog. David does have a bit of the sales-guy bug and if he’s not doing a sales deal with someone at least once a month, he goes through withdrawal. He has a number of consulting clients, but none of them relate to anything he covers for ZDNet (and if they ever do, he will either disclose that fact, or decline to write about them).

Back in the 1980s, David held the unusual title of “Godfather” at Apple. He has written and published 40 incredibly simplistic applications for Apple’s iPhone.

Although David is forbidden to disclose the terms of his iPhone developer agreement, he isn’t drinking the Apple Kool Aid, will never be confused with a metrosexual, and feels free to mock Apple, and Apple users, any time the occasion permits, on alternate Tuesdays, or if he’s bored.

Biography

David Gewirtz

In addition to hosting the ZDNet Government and ZDNet DIY-IT blogs, CBS Interactive's Distinguished Lecturer David Gewirtz is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets, is one of America's foremost cyber-security experts, and is a top expert on saving and creating jobs. He is also director of the U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute as well as the founder of ZATZ Publishing.

David is a member of FBI InfraGard, the Cyberwarfare Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security, and has been a regular CNN contributor, and a guest commentator for the Nieman Watchdog of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. He is the author of Where Have All the Emails Gone?, the definitive study of email in the White House, as well as How To Save Jobs and The Flexible Enterprise, the classic book that served as a foundation for today's agile business movement.

30
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

I wonder: where is that "DESIGN" of the internet that you mention?
adornoe@... 27th Dec 2010
Who "designed" it, and where is the "original" design specs?
xvcxvx
@skjfhdkf Could this be an act of governmental regulation because of the problem posed with Wikileaks recently?
I agree if it is, however, if the intent of the government is to limit the abillity to post opinion, get email that shows prejudice or any other mode associated with the freedom of speech I disagree.
Just where do we draw the line in government regulation. I think our US Constitution makes a very good graph by which to allow and disallow governmental regulation.
Maybe we should pay more attention to what it says!
0 Votes
+ -
Power to the FCC
johnfenjackson@... 20th Dec 2010
The Techcrunch article by Borthwick sums up the historical, actual and potential scenarios perfectly ...
... "There is a natural evolutionary path through which a large company becomes less likely to let edge-based innovations flourish and more likely to preserve the status quo. There is currently an over-representation of the center in Washington DC and the edge needs a louder voice."

M$'$ idea of a 'natural path' is to destroy all competitors in their current market and then milk a monopolistic position. Then move into new markets and repeat.

Apple's idea of a 'natural path' is a silo of expensive, non-interoperable products and services.

INTEL's idea of a 'natural path' is INTEL INSIDE (EVERYTHING) ... often abbreviated for user convenience.

"We can support the FCC in putting in place ?rules of the road? to enforce basic tenants or we can continue down a path that de-facto leaves these decisions in the hands of large companies with limited oversight, no transparency, and no means of enforcement. "
One of the best articles on ZDNET this year was by Mirchandani who argued for a restoration of balance in the IT sector ... the vendors have way too much power.

I vote POWER to the FCC, the only way to balance the growing stranglehold of a small number of greedy global corporates.
0 Votes
+ -
Power ... or CHOICE
johnfenjackson@... 20th Dec 2010
The principal difference between Apple's censorship of adult material ... and the opt-in/opt-out scheme being proposed here in the UK ... is that the 'edge' has a choice.

If we leave it to the corporates then it's ... Hobson's choice.
0 Votes
+ -
No immunity
Robert Hahn Updated - 20th Dec 2010
It is a fantasy to think that a large government bureaucracy is not subject to exactly the same forces that propel corporations. There is, therefore, "a natural evolutionary path through which a large bureaucracy becomes less likely to let edge-based innovations flourish and more likely to preserve the status quo." Anyone who remembers "the good old days" when Ma Bell was a heavily-regulated monopoly that had to petition the government just to sneeze knows that "innovation" in that environment takes huge leaps every fifty years or so, like allowing people to rent phones in colors other than black.

Government is ultimately about laws and lawyers, and these are not the forces you want operating your technological progress. Demonize corporations all you want, but the government is usually worse.

The good news about corporations is that eventually they always get up-ended. Microsoft topples IBM, Apple is in the process of toppling Microsoft, Google will probably topple Apple, and somebody will ultimately overtake Google. But once the government gets involved, there's no getting rid of them. Look up the Railroad Retirement Board: they're still at it, spending your dollars and mine on a cause that was obsolete by 1950.

As for "regulation" helping anything, there are no fewer than nine federal agencies charged with regulating the banks, Wall Street, and other financial institutions. The SEC couldn't even see Bernie Madoff, let alone the coming melt-down. Regulation is a placebo that makes people think they're being protected... until they find out The Hard Way that they weren't. Whether it's junk bonds, the Savings and Loan scandal, or the recent banking collapse, your government was on the case... doing nothing.
0 Votes
+ -
Snake oil
TriangleDoor Updated - 20th Dec 2010
Only communication via radio waves is net-neutral. Pushing communication through a hose instantly creates the business of stepping on the hose and then taking bids on the price of lifting one's foot. (Notice how well "network neutrality" worked even before cable TV went digital? Digital communication via protocols and packetized networks raises stepping on the hose and demanding payment to reopen it to a fine art, the first-line ham-fisted practitioner of which is the lout with a home router. Don't want anyone downstream to see pages with the words *utter* and/or *nonsense*? Just type, point, and click.)

Network neutrality is snake oil and the biggest boon to the legal profession since the breakup of AT&T.
0 Votes
+ -
Just do it.
Tommy S. 20th Dec 2010
Why do they even care about what the industry says. Just shove the damned legislation through their throat.
@Tommy S.

and the corporations employ people. and if those people's incomes are adversely affected, so will those of the politicians that caused it.
If it ain't broke don't fix it...

If Government gets involved it *will* get broken!
Pass it alredy!! This is a realy, realy, realy, great move!!!
control of the internet.

Heck, if government is "of the people, and by the people, and for the people", it means that government is the "people", therefore, let's let them have complete control of everything on the internet, including everything we do on the internet.

Though, initially, net neutrality through government regulations might not change things drastically, it's only a foot in the door, and "we the people" need that foot in the door in order to sneak more legislation through, little by little, until, wah-lah!, we the people, aka: the government, will have complete control. And, hey, after all, "we" (through government) did build the "internet", even if it's a lot bigger by now, so we should have complete control.

And, hey, never mind the content, since we the people will decide what content will be, even if we the people are represented by those in government (that we elected).

I can't wait for everything to be neutral and free, even if we have to take control from the ISPs and the content providers.
Is the same government that gave us TSA? Left S/S just like Rosevelt designed it, Managed to deliver mail for .05$, Reduced our cost of Telephone, passes bill to protect the unions at everybody else cost. Keeps unemployment at less than 5%, Balances the budget every year.

It must be somewhere else becuse the US Government has fixed none of them. Think "Trust Me".
jackf427@bellsouth.net
0 Votes
+ -
On the other hand
harrim47 20th Dec 2010
Those with no other options are left at the mercy of those like Comcast and AT&T! I may not trust the government but at least when it screws things up it is usually for a more altruistic reason. Those corporations with no competition have no other motive other than greed.
At least we can vote the politicians in or out.
And, hey, for the most part, you can vote out the evil corporations from your life by using alternatives. Competition does exist in many markets for most products and services. On the other hand, there is no competition at all when government is running any aspect of your life. For example, when is the last time that you were able to decide that you didn't want government handling social security for you? While there are alternatives in the private sector for retirement programs, when is the last time you were able to tell the government that you didn't need or wanted their "retirement" program, and therefore, you weren't going to pay into the system?
0 Votes
+ -
More bs from the teabagger
search & destroy Updated - 20th Dec 2010
@harrim47 said it best, which is why I'm 100% in favor of Net Neutrality.

And, hey, for the most part, you can vote out the evil corporations from your life by using alternatives. Competition does exist in many markets for most products and services.

Well, since you're a pretty dense fellow, I'll explain it to you once again. When only one ISP provider is allowed to franchise your geographical area, then there is no competition . There no alternative to that provider. NONE.

You can thank local government for the intransigent franchise exclusivity agreements & sweetheart deals they've made with the cable companies over the last few decades for that. They still think of cable companies as if it were 1985.

The rest of your post is your usual off-topic, teabag bloviation and not worth a response.
0 Votes
+ -
Well, since you're a pretty dense fellow, I'll explain it to you once again. .

Oh, boy! That would be like having a two year old explain the math behind the big bang.

You lack the knowledge and capacity to explain anything. Your approach on the issues is strictly on the ideological, and not at all logical.

You can thank local government for the intransigent franchise exclusivity agreements & sweetheart deals they've made with the cable companies over the last few decades for that.

Well, dude, I wasn't arguing that point. In fact, on that point, I totally agree with you. But, your initial reaction was to try to attack and insult instead of using your head to analyze what I was actually saying.

But, it's nice to have you actually acknowledge and admit that it was government that created the problems. So, why have more government making things worse?

They still think of cable companies as if it were 1985.

It's been a long time since 1985, and government has changed hands a few times since then. But, we still have too many people, such as you, still stupidly believing that government has the answers we need to solve our problems. Yet, no matter how much worse they make our lives, there are still those, like you, who still believe in getting government involved to "fix" the problems they created. That's so illogical. But, since you're very illogical, and basically very stupid, I wouldn't expect anything less from the likes of you.

The rest of your post is your usual off-topic, teabag bloviation and not worth a response.

I'll bet that you don't even know where a "teabagger" stands on the issues.

Are you aware that, if the "founding fathers" were still around, that they would be leaders of the tea-party movement? You would be one of those referring to the founding fathers as "radical" anti-big-government right-wingers.

Guess what?

Though I'm not active in the tea-party movement, I wholeheartedly support what they stand for. So, rather than it being an "insult", I take it as a label to be proud of.

The true patriots in politics today are the "teabaggers", as you refer to them. "We" are changing things for the better and nobody in government today does anything without first asking how the tea-party people feel about what government does. With that in mind, it would seem that it is you that is out of touch with what the people in America want.

It's time that you thought about educating yourself about the realities around you.

Get your head out of your azz!
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
The fascist teabagger lashes back
search & destroy Updated - 21st Dec 2010
Oh, boy! That would be like having a two year old explain the math behind the big bang.

Well that's what you need since you can't seem to stay on topic besides bloviating all over the place about your stupid political philosophy.

You lack the knowledge and capacity to explain anything. Your approach on the issues is strictly on the ideological, and not at all logical.

So says the teabagger who can't stay on topic. Who blathers around here giving off more neocon political speeches.

Well, dude, I wasn't arguing that point. In fact, on that point, I totally agree with you. But, your initial reaction was to try to attack and insult instead of using your head to analyze what I was actually saying.

I know what you were saying. You were ridiculing @harrim47 and the point he made, and I called you on it. Too bad. Tough.

But, it's nice to have you actually acknowledge and admit that it was government that created the problems. So, why have more government making things worse?

And it will take government to un-do the mess they made. And if the states and localities can't (or are unwilling to do it) then the Feds will have to do it.

And it's not going to happen because @adornoe@.. the teabagging idiot is expecting an act of god to force change this man-made situation.

And it's not going to happen because @adornoe@.. the teabagging idiot believes these evil corporations are really nice guys and be willing to voluntarily give up the cash cow they've had for the last 30 years.

No @adornoe@...the teabagging idiot, it's going to take new regulation in order to change the situation. New regulation .

Do you understand? DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

See? I even bolded it for you in case your failing eyesight didn't catch it in time.

It's been a long time since 1985, and government has changed hands a few times since then. But, we still have too many people, such as you...snip...snip...

Blah blah blah blah-blah ba blah...

Blah blah blah blah-blah ba blah...

Blah blah blah blah-blah ba blah...

More off-topic ideological horsesh!t from the teabagger...

Once again, the rest of your post is your usual off-topic, right-wing bloviation and not worth a response.
0 Votes
+ -
@search&destroy (since I can't seem to reply directly to you)

You're upset that there is insufficient competition in ISP providers, and you're mad that government has made crony-capitolism sweet-heart deals to ensure you don't get competition. Now, you seem to think the evils that arise from that can be handled by handing regulation of the Internet over to that same government? It seems to me that if the FCC was fighting to increase competition, the whole thing would work itself out, but that is not what they are trying to do. I'm afraid this is the proverbial camel's nose coming under the edge of the tent in terms of the government butting into regulating anything and everything regarding the Internet. Take a look at what Congress had deemed to emanate from the penumbra of the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution.
and coherent discussions, and all that you're doing is polluting the conversation with your childish rants.

Thus far, you haven't had a single salient point to make. The only point you've made so far is the "leave it to government to fix the problem". Yet, that is so stupid on so many levels, being that, it was government that created the problems to begin with. How much more stupid can one get?!

And then, you proceed by labeling me as a "teabagger", believing that trying to insult or label someone is going to win you the argument. Schoolyard tactics may make you feel better about yourself, but you're not going to win any argument where logic and knowledge and wisdom are necessary. You still have a lot of growing up to do. Why not come back to the discussions when you've gained more knowledge and more maturity.
0 Votes
+ -
Aw shaddup, @adornoe@...
search & destroy Updated - 22nd Dec 2010
You're nothing but a ideological drip for the likes of stale teabags.

lol... grin
You're upset that there is insufficient competition in ISP providers, and you're mad that government has made crony-capitolism sweet-heart deals to ensure you don't get competition.

Local government, yes.

Now, you seem to think the evils that arise from that can be handled by handing regulation of the Internet over to that same government?

Nope, only the Feds seem to be able to force this issue.

It seems to me that if the FCC was fighting to increase competition, the whole thing would work itself out, but that is not what they are trying to do.

The whole thing would "work itself out"? LOL...

Well broadband has been around since the mid-90s and here it is now going into 2011. If we relied on the whole thing "working itself out", we'd have a lot of time watching paint peel with no movement whatsoever.

It's neocons like you who don't want to see universal net access made available to everybody, so why should a local ISP secured monopoly invest money to upgrade their old copper lines to fiber optic when there's no incentive to do so? They don't have any reason to modernize. There's no competition in place as an incentive for them to do so.

Only legislation (or the real threat of legislation) will force them to change.

I'm afraid this is the proverbial camel's nose coming under the edge of the tent in terms of the government butting into regulating anything and everything regarding the Internet.

Good!

Take a look at what Congress had deemed to emanate from the penumbra of the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution.

Well it's either Congress (who are held accountable to us) that have to do it, or the fat cable monopolies who aren't held accountable to anybody else except their stockholders.

That choice is easy for me.
0 Votes
+ -
Hehehe! So you all think this comes down to either The Big Corporations or the Big Government controlling the Internet for you? CAN I MAKE A SUGGESTION!!!!???? There is a third option here that you all are forgetting: Free and open source software not designed or controlled by any companies nor governments like Linux, BSD (no, NOT APPLE), and other software out there can free up control from the Big corporations. While nothing can free up the government's control, save a big FAT _NO_ VOTE from the people.

MY vote will ALWAYS BE: NO to the FCC!!!

AND no, I am not a tea bagger. I am a democrat actually.
0 Votes
+ -
bull.
mykmlr@... 26th Dec 2010
You're a teabagger.
No one else believes that the DEregulated banks kept us from crashing the entire world economy and no reasonable person believes that corporations will restrict their ability to regulate and control net content in order to return to a 'distribution for maximum profit' business model.
The net was DESIGNED to prevent that model.
By controlling the last mile, the Comcasts of the world intend to thwart the purpose of the net.
Who "designed" it, and where is the "original" design specs?
If you need this much of a nanny state in you life you have not grown up yet and certainly not old enough to lead you children.
I can't believe 26% of people support this. Maybe they misread the question.
FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL

Any regulation should be to stop companies interfering with net neutrality.
Their financial incentive is to impose priority classifications on bandwidth in order to segregate usage types to enable monetizing voice & video comms.
They will keep banging on that door until it is well and truly locked.
0 Votes
+ -
FCC Internet Grab a Christmas Nightmare
adornoe@... 21st Dec 2010
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/12/21/fcc_internet_grab_a_christmas_nightmare_108311.html

This article is a better explanation about how FCC is overstepping its boundaries and why its regulations are unnecessary and will, at best, be damaging. The people at the FCC are scrambling wildly to institute their regulations before the new congress is sworn in and has a chance to put the FCC in its place. The final solution to the FCC power grab will have to come from congress, and anything that the FCC does, without congressional approval/regulations, will have to be undone once the new congress is installed.
Search & destroy says we must approve net neutrality because the govt. is going to limit our internet service provider choices so the only fix is to allow MORE govt control of the internet. What a bunch of Soros funded double speak. It seems to me that we need less govt. intervention in the internet, then no one will have a monopoly.
0 Votes
+ -
Face it folks. There is either a free and equal net (neutrality) or there is Corporate censorship for fun and profit.
As the Comcast TorrentKilli proves, Corporations are only too happy to play 'government' in the interest of higher profits.
Yet, the FCC is not without guilt here. Their refusal to properly classify the non-broadcast carriers as CLEC's ensures that this republican (corporate) Supreme Court will strike down any profit-limiting regulations.
Get ready for pay-cable net, with only corporate approved sources available and only when the CEO thinks you 'should' be allowed to speak.
Then again, this is the same FCC rule board appointed by "There ought to be limits to freedom" G.W. Bush.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix