5 ms·

FCC Adopts Net Neutrality Lite

37 points by shawnee_ 16y ago

phillijw 16y ago
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"
quanticle 16y ago
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.
- j2d2j2d2 16y ago
  something is better than nothing The legacy of Obama (so far)
  - quanticle 16y ago
    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.
    - chopsueyar 16y ago
      I consider it a lie and a coincidence.
      - quanticle 16y ago
        As opposed to making your life worse, which would be the lie without the coincidence? What would you rather have?
        n-ion 16y ago
        That's a false dichotomy. Personally, I'd rather live free or die.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
    - OpieCunningham 16y ago
      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.
jameskilton 16y ago
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."
Encosia 16y ago
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.
- quanticle 16y ago
  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.
  - chopsueyar 16y ago
    How is it an improvement?
    - quanticle 16y ago
      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.
cuppster 16y ago
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.
mortenjorck 16y ago
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.
- larrik 16y ago
  For the record, I watch Netflix over AT&T 3G all the time, and it works very well for me.
  - thebooktocome 16y ago
    It was a hypothetical situation. "If [AT&T] suddenly starts throttling..."
    - larrik 16y ago
      I guess I misunderstood the part that said "(let's imagine for a moment that Netflix is watchable over 3G)"...
      - mortenjorck 16y ago
        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.
iwwr 16y ago
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.
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  The correct political solution is for the FCC to open up larger swaths of spectrum for unlicensed use (call it WiFi on steroids). You mean like this? http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1130/DOC-303095A1.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1130...
  - eli 16y ago
    Pretty sure all that spectrum is licensed and auctioned off... not opened to unlicensed use.
    - anigbrowl 16y ago
      I'm pretty sure you didn't bother to check, then: 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/FCC-10-174A1.pdf 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.
      - eli 16y ago
        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.
idive 16y ago
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.
gojomo 16y ago
Here's a troubling analysis from a net neutrality supporter (who also supports this step): http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/fcc-network-neutrality-order-possible-adequac 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.

37 points by shawnee_ 16y ago

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"

quanticle 16y ago

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.

j2d2j2d2 16y ago
something is better than nothing The legacy of Obama (so far)
- quanticle 16y ago
  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.
  - chopsueyar 16y ago
    I consider it a lie and a coincidence.
    - quanticle 16y ago
      As opposed to making your life worse, which would be the lie without the coincidence? What would you rather have?
      - n-ion 16y ago
        That's a false dichotomy. Personally, I'd rather live free or die.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
  - OpieCunningham 16y ago
    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.

jameskilton 16y ago

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."

Encosia 16y ago

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.

quanticle 16y ago
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.
- chopsueyar 16y ago
  How is it an improvement?
  - quanticle 16y ago
    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.

cuppster 16y ago

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.

mortenjorck 16y ago

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.

larrik 16y ago
For the record, I watch Netflix over AT&T 3G all the time, and it works very well for me.
- thebooktocome 16y ago
  It was a hypothetical situation. "If [AT&T] suddenly starts throttling..."
  - larrik 16y ago
    I guess I misunderstood the part that said "(let's imagine for a moment that Netflix is watchable over 3G)"...
    - mortenjorck 16y ago
      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.

iwwr 16y ago

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.

anigbrowl 16y ago
The correct political solution is for the FCC to open up larger swaths of spectrum for unlicensed use (call it WiFi on steroids). You mean like this? http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1130/DOC-303095A1.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1130...
- eli 16y ago
  Pretty sure all that spectrum is licensed and auctioned off... not opened to unlicensed use.
  - anigbrowl 16y ago
    I'm pretty sure you didn't bother to check, then: 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/FCC-10-174A1.pdf 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.
    - eli 16y ago
      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.

idive 16y ago

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.

gojomo 16y ago

Here's a troubling analysis from a net neutrality supporter (who also supports this step): http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/fcc-network-neutrality-order-possible-adequac 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.