I've yet to hear any details on the subject, just that it's good or bad in general. I still admit that I don't fully understand it all but when I hear things like "reasonable" used in the language I just think of the cartel that Time Warner, Charter, etc, have in the market and wonder how that is currently considered "reasonable"
I'm disappointed with the rules, but I have to admit that something is better than nothing when it comes to regulation of Internet Service Providers. At least the government is admitting that the Internet is different from both phone and broadcast services. That's a start, at any rate.
Well, as far as a legacy, its one that I would be proud of. All too many politicians leave their constituents worse off for having elected them. If a politician or policymaker makes life better, but not as much better as they promised, I still consider that a job well done.
You should consider holding people to higher standards. "something" is not a job well done, it is essentially just passing the threshold between nothing and anything - something is a job done, not well, not as promised and barely worth mentioning.
The amount of FUD from both sides has left me pretty much impartial to the entire debate now. On one side, with Net Neutrality regulations, at least we'll have a way to stop the mega-monopolies from completely skinning us alive and finally opening the way for there to finally be some sort of competition in this space.
On the other side, with no Net Neutrality regulations at all, the mega-opolies will continue to try to strangle the Internet teet, which will end up pissing off enough of the right people that things will get really nasty for a while, opening up a way for competitors to get into the space again.
Either way, you can't stop the Internet. It's too big and diverse to be anything that can be controlled by any one individual. That said, no matter happens, we (the customers) are still screwed until we can finally say "No [Comcast/Charter/etc], screw you! This company has a better product, good bye."
This sets the wrong anchor point. Most non-technical types will probably see "compromise" and assume some level of fairness, when in reality it's a blow against today's status quo. Going forward, this will make achieving true neutrality more of an uphill battle than ever.
Going forward, this will make achieving true neutrality more of an uphill battle than ever.
How so? Most change and reform happens incrementally, rather than in a big-bang revolution. Yes, this particular set of rules may not get us to the ideal set of policies for the Internet, but it is an improvement on the current condition. If the new rules are wanting, push for further change.
For one, networks have to be at least transparently non-neutral. That is an improvement over the current state of affairs, where networks can discriminate against traffic without notifying the user in any way.
I see the fight now moving to the "managed services" space. As Netflix warned earlier, this is where ISP start to really cash in and squash competition, and there's nothing in these new rules that watchdog that.
As seriously troubling as the explicit approval of non-neutral wireless internet is, the good thing is that the ISPs' old standby line that "the market will punish a provider that unfairly discriminates" actually applies here. Unlike the ISP business, where, in many residential markets, there is no market, there are still several choices for mobile internet in most markets.
If my AT&T DSL suddenly starts throttling Netflix, I don't have a whole lot of options apart from moving. If my AT&T 3G starts throttling Netflix (let's imagine for a moment that Netflix is watchable over 3G), I have a few options: I can wait until my contract is over and switch then, I can pay an ETF and switch now, and chances are, there are two or three other viable competitors in my market once I'm off contract. And none of these can just silently start throttling either, per the transparency requirement.
Of course, the dangers are still there: The market could decide together to start throttling and dealing, some more carrier mergers could sweet-talk their way past the SEC, and a highly un-neutral net could become yet another stifling fact of life in the US wireless market.
One could even argue that AT&T violated their end of the contract by throttling NetFlix (they no longer provide you with the same service they did the month before) and you should be able to get out ETF free (IANAL)
You understood correctly -- has Netflix since added a lower bitrate for 3G? The last time I tried to stream over AT&T it would buffer about five seconds for every one second of video.
I've only really started using it recently, and I can watch an entire Doctor Who episode at full quality with only 4 bars of service (iPhone 4). At weaker signals the quality drops before it buffers (I'd honestly rather it buffered).
Of course, I'm not in SF or NYC or anywhere else with notorious bad AT&T service.
Can you really afford to have your political enemies getting a hold of power and start to abuse the privileges you have created (in good faith)?
"No regulations, no censorship!" is a hard and fast rule that can be followed easily.
The correct political solution is for the FCC to open up larger swaths of spectrum for unlicensed use (call it WiFi on steroids). That way, if a particular ISP decides to screw their customers, there would always be a baseline wireless mesh internet that people could use.
Unfortunately, it is not a rule that can be applied to every economic situation. In particular, utilities, such as electricity, water, and telecoms form natural monopolies. One a set of infrastructure is built, the company controlling said infrastructure can put up massive barriers to entry, as they control the physical devices that provide the good or service to the consumers. Even your example of unregulated spectrum would require a significant investment in repeaters and antennae. Once a company or consortium built out that infrastructure, what prevents them from denying that infrastructure to competitors, just as traditional ISPs are doing today?
Perhaps, though the it's of little relevance given all the government-granted monopolies. It would be nice to see "net neutrality" legislation advocates first look at what extant legislation interferes with competitive forces before proposing further legislation.
I realize it's a large and complicated regulatory situation, but it has been in the news quite a lot this year. I don't see why you've assumed the worst without looking into the factual background at all.
I think we're perhaps talking about two different things.
There's a big difference between the massive chunk of valuable 700Mhz spectrum that the FCC auctioned off in 2008 (with much fanfare), and the recent decision to formally allow unlicensed use of the "white spaces" between existing licensed frequencies.
Two things: First, they haven't published the actual rules yet, so no one really knows what devil is in the details. (My guess is the rules are published on Christmas Eve...which tells you something about how they think they'll go over.)
Second, the rules will be challenged in court and it's entirely possible they will be overturned. This is because the FCC somewhat inexplicably backed down on an earlier promise to reclassify the Internet as a telecommunications service. As such, their legal authority for regulating it is a bit shaky.
On every single important and controversial question on what an “open Internet” actually means, — such as whether companies can create “fast lanes” for “prioritized” content or what exactly wireless providers can and cannot do — the actual language of the rules is silent, ambiguous, or even at odds with the text of the implementing Order. The only way to find out what protections consumers actually have will be through a series of adjudications at the FCC.
That seems to me the worst possible outcome; regulations (if legitimate at all) ought to offer clarity so companies don't have to wait for test cases to know what's allowed.
But vagueness is good for increasing the power and discretion of the FCC, and shaking out contributions to the political parties that appoint FCC commissioners. If it's all left up to FCC case-by-case discretion from here on out, businesses need the FCC to think warmly of them.
35 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 90.6 ms ] threadThe legacy of Obama (so far)
On the other side, with no Net Neutrality regulations at all, the mega-opolies will continue to try to strangle the Internet teet, which will end up pissing off enough of the right people that things will get really nasty for a while, opening up a way for competitors to get into the space again.
Either way, you can't stop the Internet. It's too big and diverse to be anything that can be controlled by any one individual. That said, no matter happens, we (the customers) are still screwed until we can finally say "No [Comcast/Charter/etc], screw you! This company has a better product, good bye."
How so? Most change and reform happens incrementally, rather than in a big-bang revolution. Yes, this particular set of rules may not get us to the ideal set of policies for the Internet, but it is an improvement on the current condition. If the new rules are wanting, push for further change.
If my AT&T DSL suddenly starts throttling Netflix, I don't have a whole lot of options apart from moving. If my AT&T 3G starts throttling Netflix (let's imagine for a moment that Netflix is watchable over 3G), I have a few options: I can wait until my contract is over and switch then, I can pay an ETF and switch now, and chances are, there are two or three other viable competitors in my market once I'm off contract. And none of these can just silently start throttling either, per the transparency requirement.
Of course, the dangers are still there: The market could decide together to start throttling and dealing, some more carrier mergers could sweet-talk their way past the SEC, and a highly un-neutral net could become yet another stifling fact of life in the US wireless market.
Of course, I'm not in SF or NYC or anywhere else with notorious bad AT&T service.
"No regulations, no censorship!" is a hard and fast rule that can be followed easily.
The correct political solution is for the FCC to open up larger swaths of spectrum for unlicensed use (call it WiFi on steroids). That way, if a particular ISP decides to screw their customers, there would always be a baseline wireless mesh internet that people could use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_valley_authority
Perhaps, though the it's of little relevance given all the government-granted monopolies. It would be nice to see "net neutrality" legislation advocates first look at what extant legislation interferes with competitive forces before proposing further legislation.
You mean like this?
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1130...
1. INTRODUCTION 1. By this action, we are finalizing rules to make the unused spectrum in the TV bands available for unlicensed broadband wireless devices. http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1025...
I realize it's a large and complicated regulatory situation, but it has been in the news quite a lot this year. I don't see why you've assumed the worst without looking into the factual background at all.
There's a big difference between the massive chunk of valuable 700Mhz spectrum that the FCC auctioned off in 2008 (with much fanfare), and the recent decision to formally allow unlicensed use of the "white spaces" between existing licensed frequencies.
Second, the rules will be challenged in court and it's entirely possible they will be overturned. This is because the FCC somewhat inexplicably backed down on an earlier promise to reclassify the Internet as a telecommunications service. As such, their legal authority for regulating it is a bit shaky.
http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/fcc-network-neutrality-o...
On every single important and controversial question on what an “open Internet” actually means, — such as whether companies can create “fast lanes” for “prioritized” content or what exactly wireless providers can and cannot do — the actual language of the rules is silent, ambiguous, or even at odds with the text of the implementing Order. The only way to find out what protections consumers actually have will be through a series of adjudications at the FCC.
That seems to me the worst possible outcome; regulations (if legitimate at all) ought to offer clarity so companies don't have to wait for test cases to know what's allowed.
But vagueness is good for increasing the power and discretion of the FCC, and shaking out contributions to the political parties that appoint FCC commissioners. If it's all left up to FCC case-by-case discretion from here on out, businesses need the FCC to think warmly of them.