FCC Is Sorry, But OpenInternet.gov Cannot Be Found

from the what-open-internet? dept

Update: Well, look at that. A few hours after this post went live, OpenInternet.gov magically got redirected to some actual content...

Want to know what the current FCC thinks of an open internet? The FCC used to run a website at OpenInternet.gov, in which it talked up the importance of an open internet. Here's what the page used to look like:
In that blank blue spot, I believe there was this video of former FCC chair Julius Genachowski highlighting the importance of an open internet.
Of course, as pointed out by Ryan Singel, if you visit OpenInternet.gov right now, it looks like this:
Yes, that's right: the FCC is sorry, but OpenInternet.gov cannot be found. To be fair, it's not as if Genachowski ever really did that much to preserve an open internet, preferring to work out a bogus "deal" on open internet principles with Verizon and AT&T, with loopholes large enough to drive much of the internet through -- and which were put together so poorly that Verizon (yes, the same Verzion that helped create them in the first place) successfully sued to get the rules thrown out as the FCC going too far. Similarly, new FCC boss Tom Wheeler has a blog post insisting that he too is really committed to an open internet, but we've heard that song and dance before.

In the end, it's more symbolic than anything else. The fact that the FCC has basically shuttered OpenInternet.gov with no forwarding address just kind of highlights how seriously the FCC really seems to take these issues.

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Violynne (profile), Mar 25th, 2014 @ 5:33am

    The FCC has no power to regulate anything, anyway.

    So what's the problem here? The entire government office can shut down and no one would notice a thing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Mar 25th, 2014 @ 6:24am

    Re:

    The entire government can shut down and no one would notice a thing.

    FIFY

    Jokes apart there are some parts of the Government that if shutdown would make our lives much, much better.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Ehud Gavron (profile), Mar 25th, 2014 @ 7:02am

    No power to regulate

    Previous poster Violynne correctly pointed out the FCC [currently] has no power to regulate the Internet.

    A long time ago the FCC made the specious ruling that Internet service isn't a common-carrier thing but rather an information service. [Ars covered this recently at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/01/drop-regulatory-hammer-on-internet-providers-says-former- fcc-commish/ ]

    HOWEVER people are now saying "Yes! FCC! Ho! Just reclassify ISPs as common carriers and look! You can then regulate them! Yo!" [stupid exclamatory words and marks all mine]

    This will not happen and here's why. Common carriers have a huge lobbying power and while they are indeed regulated by the FCC they've carved out enormous powers and freedoms for themselves. If every ISP was a common carrier, the current carriers would leave skidmarks in their shareholder-shorts.

    They have worked long and hard so that the process to become a common carrier requires LENGTHY and EXPENSIVE regulatory and legal work in each and every state.


    In case you're wondering who the current common carriers, they are the BOCs, ILECs, CLECs, IXCs, and their owners. Think ILECs like AT&T, Verizon [Business not Wireless], Frontier, Windstream, CenturyLink, etc. A list of CLECs at
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_local_exchange_carrier#Current_operating_CLEC_companies_in_ America
    include Integra, TW Telecom, Level3, etc.

    These companies would rather not that "anyone who wants to become a carrier can skip all that legal and regulatory work and just offer Inner-net."

    These companies reap tremendous benefits, such as under-priced real-estate in Central Offices, access to building common areas and governmental rights-of-way, and others. THEY DO NOT WANT TO GIVE THAT UP. They have lobbyists to ensure that the US Congress and the Administrations FCC arm know this.

    Look to ISPs to remain NOT a common carrier going forward for another ten years.

    Ehud

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 25th, 2014 @ 7:23am

    Re: No power to regulate

    I agree with this assessment. But I'd also add that the ISP themselves will fight tooth-and-nail to avoid becoming regulated common carriers and the existing common carriers will be (stupidly) lobbying to keep them out.

    Net neutrality is a lost cause.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 25th, 2014 @ 9:27am

    Net neutrality is a lost cause.

    Congress is still an option for network neutrality regulation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 25th, 2014 @ 9:48am

    The FCC got handed a small brown envelope full of incriminating photographs cloned from the e-mails of all FCC employees.

    The return address on the envelope is Comcast's HQ, courtesy of the NSA.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Mar 25th, 2014 @ 9:48am

    Re:

    We don't need net neutrality laws, we need more competition.

    Look at Pittsburgh (where I live now). We have at last count 6 different ISPs to choose from all offering broadband (3 DSL, 1 coax, and 2 fiber). When Comcast started capping downloads, never happened here. When the six strikes thing started, never happened here. Bittorrent throttling never happened here. If our ISP pisses us off, we can just say screw them and pick a different one (three of them are confirmed dumb pipes).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Paul Reid, Mar 25th, 2014 @ 10:07am

    Re: Re:

    During the government shutdown, neither I nor most people I know noticed any difference when the "non-essential" government employees weren't working.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Mar 25th, 2014 @ 10:22am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I and many of the people I know sure noticed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 25th, 2014 @ 10:39am

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 25th, 2014 @ 10:40am

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Mr. Applegate, Mar 25th, 2014 @ 2:12pm

    Re: Re:

    While I will agree that competition lessens the need for net neutrality laws at least at the consumer level, competition hardly means Net Netrality laws aren't needed.

    Level 3 is a Tier 1 provider, they sell services to many ISPs that consumers and small to medium businesses use. Should Level 3 decide to limit P2P traffic... the customers who have ISPs that pass traffic to Level 3 would be affected even though the consumer ISP is doing everything it can to be competitive.

    This is true even in cases where a consumer ISP has multiple backbone connections to different Tier 1 or Tier 2 carriers. Your ISP may not clamp P2P traffic but if the ISP's provider does the point is mute. Suppose your ISP uses two Tier 1 providers Company A does not clamp any traffic but Company B does clamp P2P. This could result in your P2P traffic sometimes being limited and other times not bases on which Tier 1 Provider ends up passing the traffic. If it goes out Company A you are fine, if it goes out Company B your throughput suffers.

    Then there is the problem of 'double dipping'. There is a certain well known provider who has been accused of limiting the bandwidth available to Youtube, because they feel Youtube should pay them to pass the traffic. So even though you have paid your provider for an internet connection your provider may choose to limit the traffic if the remote site doesn't pay up too. Then you get into a situation where a content provider has to pay for the bandwidth twice. They have to pay their ISP for an outgoing connection, then they have to make deals with individual ISPs to prevent them from clamping their traffic. If the content provider doesn't pay your ISP then their content delivery could suffer even though you already paid for your bandwidth.

    So the bottom line is we need Net Neutrality laws to keep a level playing field for everyone. Then you need lots of competition to give the consumer adequate choice to keep consumer providers honest.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 25th, 2014 @ 3:06pm

    Re: Re:

    Look at Pittsburgh N'at (where I live now) ..fixed that for ya, n'at.

    I am greatly disappointed that not one N'at showed up in your post.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Derek Kerton (profile), Mar 25th, 2014 @ 4:43pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Funny how you don't notice when:

    1) it's either too brief to notice
    2) it's not a service you rely on. Of course, it's all fun and games until it's a service YOU rely on.

    Similarly, you would barely notice if I took a pint of blood from your body, or $100 from your bank account. But if I kept on doing it, the effects would become more obvious. I suppose you are someone that needs things to be obvious to understand that they matter.

    Good for you. Don't sweat the small stuff!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 25th, 2014 @ 4:52pm

    Workinig for me

    @ 8:52 3/26/2014 Korea standard time, site is working

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 26th, 2014 @ 12:25am

    Re: Workinig for me

    Hahah! They redirected it! Hilarious. It was *not* working when we wrote this post.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 27th, 2014 @ 8:37am

    Re: Re: Workinig for me

    They seem to have un-redirected it. I just clicked on your link & got the screen you illustrate. 10:36 a.m.(Central) 3/27/2014

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Mr. Applegate, Mar 27th, 2014 @ 11:19am

    Re: Re:

    Here is EXACTLY why we need Net Neutrality laws.

    http://bgr.com/2014/03/26/att-netflix-capacity-fees/

    If Netflix has to buy bandwidth from individual ISPs (that you have already paid for) then Netflix will have to charge you more for their service. No one should have to pay twice!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
Advertisement
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Support Techdirt - Get Great Stuff!

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.