Congress tinkers with Internet regulations

If you were wondering, as I was, that in Washington planned to do something to protect the interests of individuals and companies that use Internet services--rather than ones that sell them--the answer is descended from Campidoglio Friday: none.

Friday the Republican-dominated House has approved a bill that included a provision prohibiting the FCC by using its budget to ensure compliance with the rules concerning Internet of government funding.

The FCC ruled last December are ridiculously weak and favourable for telcos who are the backbone of the Internet. At least, make the case that the FCC should be able to regulate ISPs, if only to ensure that consumers and businesses using the Internet legally can do it according to their own desires, rather than on the basis of their policies Hobbes Internet provider.

There is a role that the House you recognize immediately, however.

Among the 67 amendments that tacked on to the Government Finance bill include many who prohibit federal agencies to spend the money that Congress is giving them.

It does not directly counter the Obama health care plan, but deny the salaries to employees of the Government to take him out, or agencies to fund programs to make it work, for example.

They prohibit the Department of Defense to finance political parties for the defense of senior officials. But prohibit expenditures to apply regulations of pollution of air and water regulations, mining or for carrying out the inspections and regulation of food supplies.

Prohibit expenditures for things that are issues of bumper sticker for the Conservatives, as the Intergovernmental Panel on climate change--which is responsible for the creation of scientific assessments on global warming that many conservatives regarded as false as evolution and to the rent or the restructuring of the United Nations

Judged by the principle that the Government should have no role in ensuring that its citizens have access to clean air, water and food that is relatively unpoisoned, makes perfect sense to tell you that the FCC should not have any role in regulating the industry that was created to regulate.

ISP Gone Wild?

The company that built and own the backbone of the Internet are mainly suppliers of telecommunications--which But Bell anti-consumer monopolistic behavior made it impossible for clients even use a phone sold by a third party, let alone obtain services But Bell herself has not provided.

FCC's right to regulate was based on the enormous resources that has benefited from AT&T (and other telcos and cable companies) after AT&T was demolished.

The wires as well as costly phone and Internet service stream bump into public lands benefit from priority granted by the Federal Government, were often paid directly from funding to extend telephone service in rural America. Communications that run through them are regulated under federal law, as letters or packages transported by the U.S. Postal Service.

So saying the FCC should not be able to regulate anti-competitive behaviour on the Internet because communications are in the form of data instead of voice--even though both are often very same cables, or at least those held by the same--is circular and contradictory.

Not that the regulations themselves are so great. The FCC pussy longipes around the whole issue for years before issuing regulations are based largely on suggestions from the telcos.

Theoretically create a level playing field by the carriers prohibited by block or impede traffic from competitors, but allow you to manage your network "reasonable," meaning block or impede traffic from competitors, in order to keep their networks running up to speed.

Theoretically, Comcast should be prohibited from limiting traffic videos from Netflix just to make sure your video-on-demand is more attractive to consumers. In fact, any traffic from outside qualifies to be managed, as Comcast can continue its policy of long years of slowing traffic as it goes through the infrastructure of Comcast.

That seems to be primarily a matter of consumer and one that could get you more if you were at home a Comcast Subscriber (in which case you would have a lot of reason to be annoyed).

Applies to business Internet connections, as well, however, including the mobile networks that are almost completely exempt from even the weak FCC regs already released.

Bandwidth needs attention

Carriers are running full tilt to expand their networks of mobile and attract new customers by cash on the Mania/iPad/iNeed-another-Wireless-device iPhone, so you're adding, subtracting not speed. In a year if growth slows, mobile data begin swamping the existing networks or are business customers aren't buying services with the highest margins, which are free of butterfly back.

If you want to buy a certain amount of bandwidth used by Verizon mobile and other providers of mobile VoIP, VPN, security, data or other services, would be free to say no. Or charge you if you were using its services in order to run concurrent versions somewhere else.

Not that Verizon would squeeze customers for a few dollars extra using dirty tricks like that, of course.

With no permanent regulate the Internet, the FCC may not be able to respond to situations like this, as it did with the Verizon apparently intentional creation of a revenue stream from "bad data costs."

In addition to providing much of the input for net neutrality regulations the FCC loopholed, Verizon is suing the FCC in Federal Court to try to determine the law that the FCC has no jurisdiction over capacity to gouge customers Verizon online.

If the Senate approves the bill, House financing or fails to remove net-neutrality amendment, the FCC could it also be able to pay lawyers to defend in court the right to do the job already is, let alone adding Internet explicitly his portfolio.

Washington D.C. Circuit Court, which ruled in the past in favor of telephone operators, will be the only thing standing between those who use the Internet and an era of predation laissez-faire full Internet providers.

Anything you do online should have been in accordance with public policy set by your ISP and the ISP that you connect (all).

Sure it would be better, the House would agree, because the Government would be outside the regulatory activities of the Internet.

Because public policy established by the company with a financial interest to either allow or deny the right to do what you want online is more fair than rules created by an elected Government whose goal is supposed to be serving and protecting the people who elected him.

Kevin Fogarty writes about enterprise to ITworld. Follow him on Twitter @ KevinFogarty.

Subscribe to ITworld's daily newsletter
Follow ITworld on Twitter @ ITworld

For more information, visit ITworld news. Story copyright © 2010 ITworld Inc. All rights reserved.