Feeds

'Big Internet' wades into 'net neutrality' battle with the FCC

We'd love Class II reclassification – but just not yet. Oh hang on

Security for virtualized datacentres

Major internet companies have submitted their comments to the US Federal Communications Commission's consultation on new rules for internet discrimination and pricing – the so-called "net neutrality" consultation.

The Internet Association – which lobbies on behalf of Google, Amazon, Facebook and others including Reddit – said in its comments to the FCC [PDF] that it would mount a public campaign for its preferred vision of internet regulation, but wouldn't campaign for the reclassification of packet data services as old-school POTS-era regulations and obligations.

If the "net neutrality" campaign has any kind of coherent political goal in the US, then this is it.

Classifying broadband as a class II telecommunications service would bring regulations designed for the Bell monopoly to the broadband services market, and along with them, neutralists argue, greater control over the private agreements that broadband providers make.

Netflix recently struck an agreement with Comcast for faster and more reliable delivery of its popular internet streaming service, which accounts for one-third of peak time traffic in the USA. But Netflix didn't pay a "tax" to do so - it dropped the carrier it was using for a direct connection - and saved money doing so.

Since 1996, US data services providers have not been subject to such regulation, partly because packet data is different to switched networks - with a large dynamic wholesale market - and partly because the technology is still young, and Congress wants to encourage new entrants.

The FCC was given a mandate to increase broadband adoption, but that's about it.

FCC chairman is Tom Wheeler, and much of Congress is against Class II reclassification arguing that it wouldn't achieve anything strong business regulation can't already achieve.

Critics point out it would be likely to lock in today's Comcast/Verizon duopoly forever. It's doubtful whether the FCC has the authority to reclassify anyway, as this Verizon lawyer argues - this would require a revision to the 1996 Telecommunications Act. ®

Internet Security Threat Report 2014

More from The Register

next story
TEEN RAMPAGE: Kids in iPhone 6 'Will it bend' YouTube 'prank'
iPhones bent in Norwich? As if the place wasn't weird enough
Consumers agree to give up first-born child for free Wi-Fi – survey
This Herod network's ace – but crap reception in bullrushes
Crouching tiger, FAST ASLEEP dragon: Smugglers can't shift iPhone 6s
China's grey market reports 'sluggish' sales of Apple mobe
Sea-Me-We 5 construction starts
New sub cable to go live 2016
New EU digi-commish struggles with concepts of net neutrality
Oettinger all about the infrastructure – but not big on substance
PEAK IPV4? Global IPv6 traffic is growing, DDoS dying, says Akamai
First time the cache network has seen drop in use of 32-bit-wide IP addresses
EE coughs to BROKEN data usage metrics BLUNDER that short-changes customers
Carrier apologises for 'inflated' measurements cockup
Comcast: Help, help, FCC. Netflix and pals are EXTORTIONISTS
The others guys are being mean so therefore ... monopoly all good, yeah?
prev story

Whitepapers

A strategic approach to identity relationship management
ForgeRock commissioned Forrester to evaluate companies’ IAM practices and requirements when it comes to customer-facing scenarios versus employee-facing ones.
Storage capacity and performance optimization at Mizuno USA
Mizuno USA turn to Tegile storage technology to solve both their SAN and backup issues.
High Performance for All
While HPC is not new, it has traditionally been seen as a specialist area – is it now geared up to meet more mainstream requirements?
Beginner's guide to SSL certificates
De-mystify the technology involved and give you the information you need to make the best decision when considering your online security options.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.