8 ms·
Tech firms write to U.S. FCC to oppose 'net neutrality' plan
- callesgg 12y agoDont know if this law is for or against, however the moment My isp starts charging both sides i would switch. That is not what i pay for. I would assume in the bigger picture this would not be very good for ISP's
- Omniusaspirer 12y agoWhile I'd do the same, due to the monopolistic nature of ISPs in the US they wouldn't have much choice beyond moving to a new location. As much as I'd like to think everyone else is like me and able to relocate easily I know that isn't the case for the vast majority of people.
- stdgy 12y agoLink to letter: http://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/assets/4422119/letter_to_FCC.pdf http://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/assets/4422119/letter_to_FCC.pdf Can anyone spot any big names that are absent, other than Apple?
- Igglyboo 12y agoOracle? Also, IBM, Intel, Nvidia, and pretty much any of the major hardware companies.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- nknighthb 12y agoAdobe, Valve, game companies in general, Akamai, Salesforce. By all rights, Cisco, Juniper, Foundry, etc. should be on there, since neutrality means more business for them, but they can't piss off their biggest customers. It's an impressive list, but there are a lot more big names in American tech than that.
- nness 12y agoI would imagine that an absence of neutrality is still well within Cisco's interests — its an opportunity to design and sell a whole new class of products and services specifically around throttling and limiting traffic.
- AnthonyMouse 12y agoNot necessarily. The current brand of neutrality violation seems to be an ISP allowing its peering connection(s) with transit providers to languish while charging large content providers like Netflix a fee to get a separate uncongested connection to their customers. That doesn't require a lick of packet inspection hardware and it involves the ISP buying less Cisco gear because they no longer need to carry packets from all the smaller content providers who wouldn't/couldn't pay and either went bankrupt or saw less usage as a result of the degraded performance.
- breischl 12y agoSeems like Akamai stands to gain from an un-neutral net. They provide a possible way to minimize the effects of congestion.
- nknighthb 12y agoAkamai stands to be either acquired by or crushed under the boot of the oligopoly. They're a big fat target. The ISPs will squeeze them for ridiculous fees, or just plain cut them off, while pushing content providers toward their own CDN offerings. AT&T has been offering CDN services for a while, and Verizon already bought EdgeCast. It's not going to end there.
- nness 12y agoWe should not be quick to assume that the absence of a company from the list means they agree with Wheeler's plan.
- stdgy 12y agoThat is a good point. Though, given the looming deadline, I would like to see announcements from companies explaining their positions.
- curveship 12y agoTrue, but it's also worth noting that there were rumors a month ago that Apple is trying to broker an anti-net-neutrality deal with Comcast whereby Apple traffic will get priority treatment: http://www.tuaw.com/2014/03/24/apple-comcast-and-net-neutrality/ http://www.tuaw.com/2014/03/24/apple-comcast-and-net-neutral... .
- gress 12y agoIn the same way that Netflix did?
- seacious 12y agoIt seems significant to mention that the tech firms are opposing ineffectual net neutrality plans. Not opposing net neutrality. edit: formatting
- dsr_ 12y agoHey, can someone rewrite Reuter's headline for them? These companies don't oppose Net Neutrality. They oppose Wheeler's anti-net-neutrality plan.
- crindit 12y agoI read the story twice and was none the wiser... Who was FOR net nutrality, and who was against? From previous knowledge I knew, but from the text it was impossible to say!
- josephlord 12y agoEveryone is for "net neutrality". The monopoly ISPs would like to redefine it as they don't mind who gives them money to avoid deliberately degraded connections.
- junto 12y agoI came here to say this. It isn't the first time I've been completely confused by headlines surrounding net neutrality. The general public must be completely baffled. Neutral sounds good right. Why oppose it? It needs to be renamed "internet speed bump bill" or something negative.
- logicalmind 12y agoHow about "the internet tollway". If you want to get fast speeds between locations, you'll have to pay the toll(s). Otherwise, you'll be taking side streets to your destination.
- junto 12y agoToll is a good word for this.
- prawks 12y agoUnfortunately registering for commenting is so convoluted it will take hours to comment on the article.
- justinph 12y agoThe letter stops short of asking the FCC to classify broadband and the internet with common carrier status. Bummer. http://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/assets/4422119/letter_to_FCC.pdf http://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/assets/4422119/letter_to_FCC.pdf
- pdkl95 12y agoEasy fix - just let the anti-porn faction of the religious-right go after the carriers. If they don't want to be "common carrier", then they can be responsible for the content, too. And no, I don't mean trivialities like copyright that they managed to get immunity from by passing the DMCA. IF they want demonstrate how strongly they control what is allowed through their network, then they must be the responsible party. There is not shortage of stuff on the net that - in the eyes of paranoid parent - "obviously" fails the Miller Test. If Comcast/etc really wants to play hardball, this idea can be extended to include all the child pornography they are surely trafficking. I'm sure they will the strict liability being used in such cases by some judges. There are a lot of reasons to want common carrier status, before you even get into the easy stuff like copyright and "streaming movies", and a giant line of people just waiting for just this kind of opportunity.
- knodi 12y agoSo is this really going to get Wheeler to stop the push? I don't think so the broadband provider have their hands up his ass up to his mouth. Fuck you Wheeler.
- DigitalSea 12y agoI think as has always been the case, money talks more then words ever could in a political system. If these 100+ tech companies each put in a few dollars, they would have enough lobbying money to swing the argument in the right direction. We are only at the current point in the anti-net neutrality argument because ISP's and telecommunication providers have been lobbying Washington rather successfully. It's a sad fact he with the biggest cheque book wins, especially when it comes to reform. Look at the whole music/movies piracy argument, it extends as far back as the late nineties; publisher groups, the likes of the RIAA suing people and skewing the legal system by throwing money at the right people who have the power to vote and act upon such decisions. It's happening all over again, except this time the repercussions will be far worse then any anti-piracy bill. I'm not saying lobbying is the only solution, but if the entities on the wrong side of the argument are doing it, does it matter if Google, Amazon, Facebook and other companies issue statements and express concerns to congress if it will only fall on deaf ears or be brushed off as a selfish act? It kind of reminds me of when Labor were in power in Australia before the recent election and were in the process of rolling out the National Broadband Network (NBN) which was a fibre to the premises plan the current party has basically scrapped. Google Australia issued a statement saying the current Government needs to understand the value of such a network, but they were shrugged off. If they opened up their cheque book and started donating to particular Government interests and districts, would they have been taken more seriously? Maybe.
- gaelian 12y agoTotally agree. If anything, the vested interests in this case are generally more obvious than they were/are with our ill-fated NBN. I think it's time for the big tech companies to put their lobbying efforts into overdrive and supplement that with another public awareness campaign across their web properties, modeled on the SOPA/PIPA protest.
- ralmidani 12y agoHere's an idea: Google, Twitter, FaceBook, Amazon, etc. all slow traffic to their sites, along with a clickable notice at the top suggesting they take action to prevent future slowdowns.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- drawnalong 12y agoCan someone with a bit of knowledge help me get a grip on Mozilla's Net Neutrality plan? I'm reading through this: https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/files/2014/05/Mozilla-Petition.pdf https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/files/2014/05/Mozilla-Pet... and the blog announcing it: https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2014/05/05/protecting-net-neutrality-and-the-open-internet/ https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2014/05/05/protecting-net... Anybody think this is a bad idea? Seems to be a safer bet than the more dangerous brush strokes others are painting the issue with.
- adamnemecek 12y agoApparently, Wheeler (the FCC chairman) used to work as a lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler_(lobbyist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler_(lobbyist)). That seems as a bit of a conflict of interest.
- tzs 12y agoFor cable, he was president of a major industry trade group that did lobbying, but that was from 1979 to 1984, which I believe predates the existence of cable ISPs. The internet then was still for research and military use.
- rayiner 12y agoRight. He was a lobbyist for the NCTA up to the year I was born, back when cable networks were just basically coax wires carrying OTA signals. Most recently, he was a managing director at Core Capital Partners, which is a VC firm that invests in a bunch of internet/cloud computing early-stage companies: http://www.core-capital.com/portfolio.aspx http://www.core-capital.com/portfolio.aspx. Arguably, his strongest bias should be towards internet companies, not against them.
- lawnchair_larry 12y agoNo, nobody can make that argument. And you're leaving out where he was CEO of the CTIA for 12 years until 2004. I encourage you to look at the patents for companies where he has a board seat. He's extremely biased to network operators.
- dthal 12y agoThere is a helpful chart here of the revolving door between the FCC, CTIA(cellular lobby) and NCTA(cable lobby): http://baselinescenario.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/fcc-round-robin.jpg http://baselinescenario.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/fcc-roun....
- silveira 12y agoWould be better says to oppose the "fast track" plan.
- blazespin 12y agoI'd like to see those 100 firms contribute to a co-op ISP which competes in the most profitable markets of Comcast and AT&T, etc.
- vinchuco 12y agoIn case you want to spread the importance of this to the general public, there's a simple video from vihart: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAxMyTwmu_M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAxMyTwmu_M https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7711635 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7711635
- kokey 12y agoSince this has been dragging on for about a decade now, what has been the effects in the US? Also, will net neutrality force cable companies to unblock port 25?
- NicoJuicy 12y agoIf tech has balls, they can get net neutrality back fast (couple of days): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7714204 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7714204
- liotier 12y agoOne set of corporate overlords is taking our side to enlarge their own coffers. Rejoice, peons !
- bchaney 12y agoYou think the people in politics understand the idea of "net neutrality" LOL. I'd be surprised if most Senators/House members knew the difference between USPS and email. Now if you were to tell them that the internet would go away unless they contributed $100mil maybe they'd open an IE6 window to Wikipedia to understand whats going on.