The most amazing thing happened yesterday. House Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee voted to regulate the Internet. Really. So did Democrats, but many of them don’t find that as abhorrent as the Republicans say they find it.
After all their talk about how the government should stay out for fear of hurting technology, innovation, yada, yada, the Committee passed a bill put requirements on peer-to-peer (P2P) software passed by voice vote with enthusiastic endorsement from even the most dedicated opponents of making sure the Internet functions free of discriminatory control by the telephone and cable companies.
The bill the Committee passed, HR 1319 is, as my colleague Alex Curtis explained a bad idea for any number of reasons. It’s drafted too broadly, it won’t solve the problem it is supposed to solve, and the so-called “bad actors” in the peer-to-peer industry have done exactly what members of the Committee chastised them for not doing – they fixed the problem of inadvertent disclosure of files from the hard drive.
What it does so is to require developers of peer-to-peer software to meet certain requirements. The fact that most such developers have done this already is of no consequence to the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Mary Bono Back (R-CA) and other supporters. The fact that the Federal Trade Commission is also actively on the case also is apparently irrelevant.
Here’s what is relevant. First, that the bill is part of the efforts of Bono Mack, (Our Lady of Perpetual Copyright) to crack down on anything that might hurt Big Media. Peer-to-peer distributes video in an efficient manner. Her bill hobbles it, using the smokescreen of security issues that are well on their way to being resolved.
Second, the bill regulates the Internet. That’s right. All of those members of Congress who constantly rail against regulating the Internet in an effort to protect the businesses of AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and the rest are now doing what they said they would not do. For example, this from Bono Mack’s Web site: “The Internet has transformed the American and global economies. Today, commerce and communications move instantly from all points. A large reason this technology has become so integral to our lifestyle and grown so quickly is due to the government’s reluctance to regulate the internet. This hands-off approach has allowed the technology to achieve things no one could have expected.”
She also makes this exception, which is fine: “The Internet, however, is not without its bad actors. I am a strong advocate of privacy protections and cyber security. Whether it’s tracing online child predators or identity thieves, I believe law enforcement should have the tools they need to track down those who prey on the innocent.” Privacy protections and law enforcement are worthwhile exceptions to the rule. But telling software developers how to write their products? Even in the best case, this is intervention on the “hands-off approach” that no self-respecting opponent of Net Neutrality should endorse.
Bono Mack isn’t the only one, of course. To pick one other member of the Committee at random, look to another Californian, George Radanovich (R). He supported Bono Mack’s bill because of past problems with P2P software, saying the problem of files popping up where they shouldn’t is “inadvertently exacerbated by the architecture of the programs.” It’s unclear to users what files may be open to others on a network, and it’s difficult to change software settings, Radanovich explained.
How does that statement from the Sept. 30 markup square with this from a news release the Congressman released on Sept. 21: “Radanovich Objects to Genachowski’s Call for Increased Government Encroachment into the Internet.” He said that the Net Neutrality rulemaking that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski will introduce later this month is something “that could significantly expand the federal governments reach into the operation of the Internet.”
Radanovich said: “One of the internet’s most valuable qualities is that it has always been open and free from government intervention, which has driven innovation, created new opportunities and jobs, and guided the internet into the great success it is today.” Spoken like someone who a week later supports a bill that would set specific requirements within a piece of software that’s a connection to the Internet through P2P.
The Net Neutrality debate is getting stupidly ugly very quickly. The meme that AT&T, Verizon and their minions are spreading on Capitol Hill is that Net Neutrality is “anti-business.” On its face that’s laughable, but gullible legislators will buy it coming from all the bought-off business groups that the telcos and cable companies send up to lobby Congress. The big companies are floating that in an effort to gain support for an amendment to a spending bill that would prohibit the FCC from doing a Net Neutrality rulemaking. AT&T, Verizon and the rest are targeting the so-called “moderate Democrats” on the Senate Commerce Committee who consider themselves as business supporters, such as Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Mark Warner of Virginia or Mark Pryor of Arkansas. A member of Congress or Senator who hears “anti-business” in the middle of a recession will, without thinking, vote to stop the dreaded FCC. It’s time for them to stop and think.
A rule to make sure that everyone has equal access to the Internet and to everyone online is a great leveler. It is pro-business, in that it creates opportunities for those who can’t afford the favored treatments that would be available to some, but not to others, absent a firm Net Neutrality rule. Any small business owners who want to do business online without paying a “quality of service tax” or other extra charge should let their member of Congress know that Net Neutrality protects small business. AT&T’s arch-enemy, Google, is a fine example of a company that its founders say wouldn’t have been able to exist or to grow without unrestricted access to the Internet. Say what you will about the company now, but its growth is Exhibit A for what can happen under the neutral Internet when the company was created and growing.
The other scenario being thrown around is that a Congressional amendment would allow the FCC to proceed with Net Neutrality for wired services like DSL or cable, but not for wireless. That, similarly, makes no sense. A laptop connected to the Internet, is connected to the Internet, whether by a cord or by a modem. There should be no difference. AT&T shouldn’t be able to say that customers can receive AT&T’s video services, but not those of a competitor like Sling’s.
And yet, again, there might be some legislators who would vote for such a bill looking for that mythical compromise that in reality isn’t a compromise but would compromise the fastest growing part of the Internet.
House Republicans are circulating a letter aimed at slowing down the process by asking the FCC to conduct studies showing whether today’s Internet Service Providers have “market power” and asking the Commission to show that the broadband market isn’t as competitive nationally as the Commission said it was back in the Bush years when it deregulated cable modem, DSL, broadband over power lines and wireless broadband. Note to those House Republicans: If you really want to repudiate in an official record all that your FCC did, it can be done in the context of the Net Neutrality rulemaking. You won’t like the answers.
And all of this is happening before the FCC meeting on Oct. 22 to start the rulemaking. Then watch out.
Regulating P2P software is not regulating the Internet.
Instituting consumer protections for users of P2P software is no more regulating the Internet than is, say, doing the same for tax preparation software. (Leave it to Public Knowledge to try to create confusion by claiming otherwise.) It’s also pro-consumer, because the legislation requires that consumers be informed about what the software is doing on their machines. (The requirements should go farther, in my opinion, and ensure that P2P software cannot engage in covert activities or start up in the background on the user’s machine without his or her knowledge or consent.)
The only reason one would oppose protections for users of P2P software would be if one wanted to facilitate copyright infringement (as PK apparently does; it supported Vuze and BitTorrent when they sought to force ISPs to allow illegal piracy of music and movies).
Unnecessary “network neutrality” regulations, by contrast, are indeed regulation of the Internet. They’re both anti-business and anti-consumer. And they’d be extremely destructive. They’d raise the price of Internet service for consumers, lower quality of service, discourage deployment, and destroy competitive providers (and, hence, competition).
It’s ironic that PK talks, above, about “all the bought-off business groups that the telcos and cable companies send up to lobby Congress.” Those business groups, at least the ones of which I am aware, are genuinely representing their constituents.
On the other hand, Public Knowledge, Free Press, and the New America Foundation are so-called “public interest” groups that have been bought off by Google (in New America’s case, they have actually installed their CEO as Chairman) and are lobbying to regulate the Internet in ways that suit Google. Hence their push for “network neutrality,” which is not “neutral” at all but would tilt the playing field toward Google.
Art Brodsky is a Jackass
Art, you are so pro Google, that one would think that they are the major funding source for this site. The cable companies bought smaller cable companies and assets from dying telecom giants (AT&T - before SBC saved them from bankruptcy). And dying Telco’s were bought up by less regulated healthier telco’s, forming the current network infrastructure. You say that open access was a success for wire line, was it? I think not! That success weakened the Telco’s to the point that most became takeover targets. SBC and Verizon were the primary winners. From what I read AT&T and Verizon are still struggling with their business models, wireline is dying, however video is slowing that down some . It is well published that the key revenue generator is wireless. They invested in the infrastructure, they are in debt to pay for those investments, they are fighting for their survival! The fight the President, the FCC, and all the other Jackasses like you! Google had the opportunity last year to purchase spectrum, but choose to play games to force the other biddersr to share the winnings with them. Google didn’t make an earnest effort, they are smart enough to know that investing in an infrastructure that has to shared with competitors is bad an investment! I have asked this question many times, but none of you left wing activists seems to want to answer me, if the incumbents hadn’t built the network then who would? If wireless dies the same death as wireline who will maintain it? If the FCC takes over the infrastructure, shouldn’t the Telco’s be reimburst for their investment? Shouldn’t the government take ownership for the potential 100’s of thousands of job losses? Of course you don’t care about that, you only care about Google being about to provide free phone service! You, Obama, Genachowski, and Schmidt are all in bed together, rallying up the people to adopt communism to force the telcos into bankruptcy, then Google can take it over just like the government did with the financial sector. Sadly, you would love that wouldn’t you, you Jackass!
T. Wayne, Nen
PS, If this is reply is deleted then will know where you really stand on open internal principals