3 ms·

Any speculations on if/how this affects wireless providers, particularly in regards to the recent iPhone/Google Voice/ATT hullabaloo? If you read the full spee

Any speculations on if/how this affects wireless providers, particularly in regards to the recent iPhone/Google Voice/ATT hullabaloo? If you read the full speeech (http://www.openinternet.gov/read-speech.html http://www.openinternet.gov/read-speech.html) it's clear that this policy states that consumers should pick the winners and losers, not providers, and networks must allow 'non-harmful' devices to connect to the network...

jhancock 17y ago
Best news in a long time!! At first glance it would seem this policy effects ATT more than Apple. The devil is in the details. It will be very interesting to see how this pans out.
wmf 17y ago
Note that they aren't talking about regulating non-ISPs like Apple. Apple won't sell iPhones to T-Mobile? Nothing to do with net neutrality. Apple rejects (er, not accepts) Google Voice? Ditto. When it comes to 3G, this part worries me a little: "there may be benefits to innovation and investment of broadband providers offering managed services in limited circumstances. ... I believe such services can supplement -- but must not supplant -- free and open Internet access..." I can see it now: Crippled 3G? $50/month. Neutral 3G? $200/month (because "that's what it costs us to provide it").
- jrwoodruff 17y ago
  I noticed that too. I'm also interested in what the definition of 'non-harmful' devices is. This seems like a possible loop hole to argue for restricted devices, as in "allowing live streaming video from 3G devices will harm the network." I'm not positive, but I'd be willing to bet this is how cable providers are allowed to disable some functionality of set-top boxes...? Overall I think it's a very good thing, but it will be interesting to see how it plays out as case law defines these guidelines.
  - wmf 17y ago
    I think the device issue can be solved with a little trickery as well. AT&T could allow you to use any unlocked GSM phone on their network but just not advertise it so that virtually no one takes advantage of it. As for cable STBs, they don't even connect to the Internet and thus are exempt from net neutrality. And if you don't like your crippled Cisco/Moto cable box you can always buy a Moxi... for $800... that will be obsolete in a year.
    - jrockway 17y ago
      AT&T could allow you to use any unlocked GSM phone on their network but just not advertise it so that virtually no one takes advantage of it. Untrue. Nobody takes advantage of it because it costs $100/year extra. (You pay the $200 subsidy on your "free phone" every 2 years as part of your monthly bill. If you bring your own phone, you pay for that "free phone" anyway.) Since most people don't like throwing away $200, most people use a subsidized phone.

jhancock 17y ago

Best news in a long time!! At first glance it would seem this policy effects ATT more than Apple. The devil is in the details. It will be very interesting to see how this pans out.

wmf 17y ago

Note that they aren't talking about regulating non-ISPs like Apple. Apple won't sell iPhones to T-Mobile? Nothing to do with net neutrality. Apple rejects (er, not accepts) Google Voice? Ditto. When it comes to 3G, this part worries me a little: "there may be benefits to innovation and investment of broadband providers offering managed services in limited circumstances. ... I believe such services can supplement -- but must not supplant -- free and open Internet access..." I can see it now: Crippled 3G? $50/month. Neutral 3G? $200/month (because "that's what it costs us to provide it").

jrwoodruff 17y ago
I noticed that too. I'm also interested in what the definition of 'non-harmful' devices is. This seems like a possible loop hole to argue for restricted devices, as in "allowing live streaming video from 3G devices will harm the network." I'm not positive, but I'd be willing to bet this is how cable providers are allowed to disable some functionality of set-top boxes...? Overall I think it's a very good thing, but it will be interesting to see how it plays out as case law defines these guidelines.
- wmf 17y ago
  I think the device issue can be solved with a little trickery as well. AT&T could allow you to use any unlocked GSM phone on their network but just not advertise it so that virtually no one takes advantage of it. As for cable STBs, they don't even connect to the Internet and thus are exempt from net neutrality. And if you don't like your crippled Cisco/Moto cable box you can always buy a Moxi... for $800... that will be obsolete in a year.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    AT&T could allow you to use any unlocked GSM phone on their network but just not advertise it so that virtually no one takes advantage of it. Untrue. Nobody takes advantage of it because it costs $100/year extra. (You pay the $200 subsidy on your "free phone" every 2 years as part of your monthly bill. If you bring your own phone, you pay for that "free phone" anyway.) Since most people don't like throwing away $200, most people use a subsidized phone.