Net Neutrality. Are These New FCC Rules A Good Deal?

[lawman]

“Maybe you like Google Maps. Well, tough,” Mr. Franken said on Saturday on the Senate floor. “If the F.C.C. passes this weak rule, Verizon will be able to cut off access to the Google Maps app on your phone and force you to use their own mapping program, Verizon Navigator, even if it is not as good. And even if they charge money, when Google Maps is free.”

[nytimes.com...]

<added> When this thread was started, the changes were pending. New rules have since passed </added>

[edited by: lawman at 11:48 pm (utc) on Dec 22, 2010]

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Say it with me - BUH BYE VERIZGONE !

Government just gave big telco a new revenue source for no added value, end of story.

I guess we'll have to add internet next to health care on the list of things Canadians do better for free, lol.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

How long before we see "Big Telco - If you charge visitors to see my site, in any way, I plan on blocking you even if it means losing visitors. My site is not yours to make money from for free, I will redirect your traffic to an appropriate landing page message to inform them of such. thank you" messages all over the net?

[TypicalSurfer]

This is just another regulatory scheme designed to give political cronies an upper hand over their less well connected competitors/vendors.

Believe me when I say...This NOT about you, the peon will suffer once the bureaucrats/lobbyists get their filthy hands on your freedoms.

[lawman]

Update:

Telcos are angry, net neutrality purists are irate, but these new FCC rules are a pretty good deal for the average American.

[pcmag.com...]

[TypicalSurfer]

Telcos are angry, net neutrality purists are irate, but these new FCC rules are a pretty good deal for the average American.

hehe, the hullabaloo is about some very large entities trying to gain a regulatory upper hand. The best freedom is keeping FCC, and every other alphabet agency out of it. The average American doesn't have a dog in this fight.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help you...


LOL

[freejung]

The current system is working fine right now.

Indeed. That's the problem. The current system _is_ net neutrality, it's just not mandated by law in the US. Funny how net neutrality gets spun as a government takeover to change the way the internet works, whereas in principle it would simply mean making the current situation legally required.

In practice, of course, TypicalSurfer is basically more or less right. In the end this will probably amount to using the law to enshrine the monopoly power of existing providers. That's why neutrality purists don't like this, nor will they like any deal that will actually happen.

[aleksl]

Sgt_Kickaxe: Say it with me - BUH BYE VERIZGONE !

Nope. Say good bye to free SKYPE.

Because this is what Verizon and AT&T are going to do by lobbying this law. They are going to fiddle with the signal enough to make free or cheap internet phone unusable. And will make you pay for it their own rates.

And there is nothing - NOTHING - any of you can do.

Imagine $450/month discount to every small business. Today. What would that do to economy?

Imagine very cheap international calls, not 50 cent or 1 dollar a minute grotesque, scumbag Verizon rate "because they have a monopoly agreement with a company across the border and just because they can".

Imagined? That alone would probably get US out of depression gutter.

BUT NOPE, THAT'S not gonna happen, because "Net Neutrality" is out there to kill it.

[tangor]

Google has reached new heights in its effort to fool the world into believing that Android is so "open" it can singlehandedly deliver us from any and all forms of mobile tyranny.

In its first official "net neutrality" rules, the US Federal Communications Commission says it doesn't prohibit wireless providers from blocking or discriminating against network traffic in part because of the "openness" of Android.

As Mozilla man Asa Dotzler puts it: "#*$! does android have to do with net neutrality?"

When the FCC uploaded its net neutrality rules on Tuesday, it pissed off even the net neutrality zealots, and much of this was down to its wireless leniency. The rules prohibit wireline providers from blocking "lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices" or discriminating against network traffic, but wireless providers are merely prohibited from preventing "consumers from accessing lawful websites."

[theregister.co.uk...]

[ergophobe]

Can someone answer two questions?

1. Why the difference between landline and wireless? Other than vaguely cited "technical issues" in the NYT article, I don't see any discussion. Do I translate "technical issues" as landline providers didn't donate as much money in the 2010 elections?

2. Where does satellite internet come in this?

[ergophobe]

OK - it's fixed versus mobile, so though wireless, I guess satelite is mostly considered "fixed" even though there are mobile systems.

So why the distinction between mobile and fixed I should have said

[Lorel]

I still can't figure out how this will affect web designers who spend most of the day online. Can someone explain?

[tangor]

Ultimately it will about what kind of content is offered. Some want to muzzle, others want to free speak... and those who want to muzzle just voted themselves in charge.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

think packages. They'll MONITOR where you go and decide which sites they want offered in basic packages and which sites they'll want to charge premium prices for.

Do they even have a legal right to monitor people in this manner?

[HRoth]

I saw an article recently where Verizon was quoted as saying they would like to dump landlines altogether. So that would fit with the insistence that mobile not be regulated the say way as wires.

[Wlauzon]

This was a solution in search of a problem that never existed.

What's next - Search Engine Neutrality"?

[thecoalman]

think packages. They'll MONITOR where you go and decide which sites they want offered in basic packages and which sites they'll want to charge premium prices for

AFAIK they won't be able to do that, most of these rules simply formalize the status quo. From what I'm reading the two important changes is they formalized allowing them to offer tiered packages to the consumer which is a move in the right direction IMO. The problem here might be they use the current package as the base package which isn't going to save the person just getting email and looking at a few pages anything. My 92 year old Grandmother doesn't need 8MB connection with 250GB of bandwidth but that is all she can get besides dial up.

As I already mentioned the one thing I'm reading that gives me great concern is them allowing companies to purchase higher speeds to deliver their content to consumers more quickly than than the competition. I still need to research it more to understand exactly what they doing here.

[Edge]

for fixed-line providers and the other for the wireless Net.

Sounds sneaky to me - technology is going wireless...

[lawman]

[webmasterworld.com...]

[ergophobe]

Thanks for the link - that's what I was trying to figure out.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

GET READY TO SCRAP FACEBOOK, YOUTUBE ETC.

oops, caps. Anyway, what I mean is that if your website runs a "like" button or youtube video or other fancy social tool you may want to consider removing those if Verizon starts charging rates for some sites in whatever "packages" they come up with. Those gizmos and such run off servers on those sites and if someone visits your site but isn't subscribed to those packages who knows what will happen.

Blank space at best, a page that won't load at worst. These rules are a disaster, the internet wasn't broken.

Wouldn't it be a kick in the pants if this backfired on Google, who have been proponents of this, if Google gets added to any non-free package and adsense starts showing up blank on websites for non-paying visitors?

[FourDegreez]

The most succinct description of network neutrality (the principle, not necessarily the FCC decision) I've heard comes from Tim Berners-Lee:

"Net neutrality is this: if I pay to connect to the 'net with a given quality of service, and you pay to connect to the 'net at the same or higher quality of service, then you and I can communicate across the 'net at that quality of service. That's all."

Any disruptive interference by ISPs, who may like to use their market position as leverage to skim profits off of web businesses that are already paying bandwidth bills, is unwelcome.