Legal Issues concerning the Internet

edited June 2010 in General Chat
I was listening to NPR earlier today, and they reported on an upcoming issue regarding ISP's and US Telecommunication Laws:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126978125

Next month, [The United States] Congress will meet to discuss proposals to revamp current telecommunication laws that were last examined in 1996. The current laws hardly mention the Internet [...]; the meetings announced yesterday will examine whether they address current consumer needs.

Earlier this month, the Federal Communications Commission announced that it plans to reclassify broadband Internet service as a telecommunications service so that high-speed Internet would be closely monitored by the FCC. The reclassification would also give the FCC control over net neutrality, [which is] the idea that information on the Web should be treated equally and cannot be blocked by broadband providers.

Journalist Amy Schatz explains the conflicts between the FCC, Internet companies and telecommunications providers like Comcast and Verizon — and how their battle might determine what the future of the Internet looks like.

"Basically, the idea here is: Who is going to control those lines that go into your house? And there's never really been any rules that talk expressly to Internet lines because we've relied on rules that were [applicable to] phones, but it really gets into a really big issue as more Americans use the Internet to make phone calls or watch movies or just connect with their kids and e-mail and things like that, so it's becoming a really big issue."


On what the current laws say about Internet regulation


"The communication laws we have were actually built in the 1930s and they've been updated a few times since then, but ... the last time they were rewritten was back in 1996 and the Internet was barely around at that point and it wasn't really even mentioned in the law. ... [T]hat's one of the issues they're running into — they tried to apply these rules to Internet lines and they weren't really written for those. They were written for the very specific things that happened with phone lines or cable lines and so ... they're running into a lot of problems because this was just never meant to be this way and they were never meant to try to apply them in this way."


On why consumer groups fear corporate control of the Internet

"With consumer groups, they're really concerned that the Comcasts and the AT&Ts of the world are going to restrict what consumers can do in their homes and what they can access on the Internet. So there is a fear that if Comcast cuts a deal with Amazon, you may not be able to buy a book from Barnes & Noble as easily as you could with Amazon.com. And so there are these kinds of issues where it's not necessarily happening right now, but there is a fear that if you give too much power to the phone and cable companies over the lines that are coming into consumers' homes ... that could be really bad for consumers and ... could restrict consumer choice."


On the concerns of companies like Google and Amazon


"Companies like Amazon or Google or eBay don't want phone companies putting up toll booths in between them and consumers. And they don't want the Comcasts of the world or AT&T or whoever to be able to charge them more to reach you. And so, they want to make sure the FCC or somebody is in the way to prevent that from happening."


On what telecommunications companies want

"The major concern is: How much control does the government want to have over what practices they're doing? So you know, if you listen to some of the lobbying and some of the hand-wringing that's going on with Comcast and everybody — they're saying that the FCC wants to run all their lines and the network traffic and do all this stuff, and that's not necessarily the case. Basically what the FCC and the Obama administration are really saying is: Somebody has to be the cop on the beat here. Someone has to be the authority to stop bad practices if they start happening and if that's the case, then it needs to be the FCC."
I know that's a long quote, but I found the discussion interesting. What are your opinions about this?

Comments

  • edited May 2010
    It sounds interesting, although of course it's about the Internet in the US and doesn't apply to me in either France or Canada. I'm curious about it though.
  • edited May 2010
    In Australia we have this impending doom hovering over our heads called the "CleanFeed" basically it blocks out whatever the government doesn't like. It's gay.
  • TorTor
    edited May 2010
    I'm a somewhat concerned about this. It looks like net neutrality is at stake, several congressmen apparently want to drop net neutrality because of some vague claim that it "jeopardizes jobs". What happens in the US may end up being important to internet users in the rest of the world because of America's influential nature in this field.

    Net neutrality is of vital importance, it is basically the right for you as the customer of an ISP to be able to access the content you want, not just the content of the ISP's partners. Without net neutrality, an ISP may for example decide to partner with a certain number of news sites, one or two search engines etc., and block all competing websites. They may partner with a certain VoIP provider and and down-prioritize traffic from all others, making them unusable. Or you could end up with a tiered plan where all non-partner websites cost extra.

    [An artist mock-up of what a world without net neutrality might look like]
  • edited May 2010
    If net neutrality is lost I'm abandoning the internet forever. It also means that online gaming and online DRM activation would kill my gaming as a whole. But it'll never happen.
  • edited May 2010
    We had a similair act passed here in the UK a few months back, called the Digital Economy Act 2010 Which was partially about blocking sites with copyrighted content on them without permission, (so limewire, piracy sites etc). I believe there was also something in their about forcing ISP's to disclose information if they break copyright law (individuals being fined a few hundred, ISP's would be fined thousands if they don't comply).

    And an irish ISP has started a 3 strikes and your out policy.
  • edited June 2010
    It's gay.
    Please dont use 'gay' as a derogatory term, its immature.
  • edited June 2010
    Fortunately the United States congress is utterly incapable of getting anything done, so this will likely hover in limbo for years as politicians make high minded, meaningless speeches about how the internetz are stealing our jobs.
  • edited June 2010
    The best is when people confuse "net neutrality" with "total censorship".
  • edited June 2010
    Pale Man wrote: »
    The best is when people confuse "net neutrality" with "total censorship".
    It would be hard to confuse the two, considering they are polar opposites...
  • edited June 2010
    KuroShiro wrote: »
    It would be hard to confuse the two, considering they are polar opposites...

    And yet Fox News manages to do so on a regular basis.
  • edited June 2010
    Yeah, I look at stuff against this and I think "Why? Why do you want it to be harder to get to certain websites?"
Sign in to comment in this discussion.