FCC Struck down on Net Neutrality

[Shaikoten]

So while you guys are all worried about the newest, most brutish DRM on your mainstream PC titles, a more nefarious threat to the way you access your internet is creeping around. I've deliberately chosen to link to an article contrary to my position, just so you can read the slimeball language on this end of the author. This is the sort of terms telecom companies think of their customers in, or at least the customers who view things they don't like. The WSJ's most recent editorial on Net Neutrality.

For those of you who aren't too familiar with Net Neutrality, it is the issue the great Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens once so eloquently summed up in the statement "the Internet is not a big truck, it's not something you just dump something on. It's a series of tubes!" Ted Stevens was the man in charge of the net neutrality commission back some years ago, so you can see the sort of serious attention this issue was getting in Senate.

Now summed up for sane people who already know what the internet is, what Net Neutrality would do in ensure that telecom corps who effectively have a monopoly can not throttle down or disable services on the internet that they don't like: that they cannot censor, or favor their own, self-backed web service. For example, let's say for the sake of argument Comcast has an HD movie streaming service, in direct competition with Netflix. If Comcast is your ISP, without net neutrality's protection, it could be possible for Comcast to downthrottle the speed at which you connect to Netflix. Sure, the first target now are the "antisocial" users of Bittorrent, but what this leads to inevitably is a sidelining of content that is not corporation produced, effectively sidelining free speech for people who have less money. A very anti-competitive strategy.

The editorial's author seems to assure us in the United States that telecom competition is healthy here, but I'm sure any of us who have ever gone shopping for broadband can attest that's not the case. Generally we have overpriced cable company and overpriced phone company, and sometimes overpriced satellite company to contend with. We do not, in the United States, have multiple companies of the same type competing. We don't, anymore, have standalone ISPs. They're all tied to Cable or Telephone now. So what the striking down of Net Neutrality effectively does is preserve regional monopolies that, in the long run, are just as bad as national monopolies. Since there's no competition for these companies within their region, both Comcast and, say, Charter cable screw you over equal amounts, just in different parts of the US.

The reason the US has infantile internet infrastructure in comparison to certain European and East Asian countries is because we have no damn competition. As we become less and less wired this could change, but our mobile companies are still atrocious compared to other parts of the world, and competition in our arena is not as healthy. Jenkins' assertion that the iPad somehow changes this, however, is asinine. Quickly disappearing is the age of the free internet: we are entering an era of content-restricted devices, where you can only see what the company who makes the device wants you to see--and pay for. Striking down net neutrality is another nail in the coffin for anyone who wants to avoid this fate.

[Quasar]

Gee I never saw THIS coming.

[Gez]

What's dumb is that the FCC opened this loophole themselves, and they can perfectly close it down by simply reclassifying broadband Internet access as a telecommunication utility, like phone. And bam!, instantly net neutrality becomes again a lawful obligation.

They're funny in the WSJ when they claim that this is a defeat of unelected leaders and lobbyists. As if the lobbies were on the side of the "net neut fetishists" as he quaintly calls them.

[Csonicgo]

Wow, are they lobbying judges now?

[Shaikoten]

The problem is, judges don't understand this problem. Neither do Senators, or representatives. These people are old. Most of them couldn't be fucked less to understand how the internet works. Most of them have no need for the internet except for the most mundane and mainstream applications, and don't understand how the people on the cutting edge NEED access to all parts of the internet in order to keep our country out of the technological stone age. What they do understand is cash, and telecoms are more representative of that than individual consumers. "Well, if it's good for these companies, it's good for the economy!" And I'm pretty sure these companies can afford all the lobbyists they want too.

People know the internet is different than other forms of communication, it's just that most don't understand how.

[Bank]

Shaikoten said:

People know the internet is different than other forms of communication, it's just that most don't understand how.

I don't know the answer to this question, but did phone companies ever claim ownership of the conversations that took place over their lines? That might be an easy precedent to fight this ruling with.

[stewboy]

This may seem like a silly question, but how do I access the full article? It stops at "The court ruled in considerable detail that ..."

[Technician]

Seems fair. After all, America did invent the internet.

[Craigs]

stewboy said:

This may seem like a silly question, but how do I access the full article? It stops at "The court ruled in considerable detail that ..."

Viacom requires you to pay $20 fee to view the entire article.

[exp(x)]

Did someone say FCC?

[Shaikoten]

It's pretty surprising though, the FCC was on the "good guys" side this time.

[Sharessa]

On the plus side, I might get more exercise now.

[GreyGhost]

Craigs said:

Viacom requires you to pay $20 fee to view the entire article.

$20 to read an opinion piece written by someone who doesn't understand the subject matter? No thanks - I can do that here for free. :-)

[Never_Again]

[Belial]

All while Europe is discussing making Internet access one of the fundamental human rights.

WTG US

[DooMikE]

Never_Again: Thank you for linking to a "free version" of the article, as i also didn´t feel like subscribing to the WSJ for any amount of time to get the information.

...

Bad decision. I´m sure internet-providers world wide will take note of this. Thanks ChinAmerica!

[sarcasm]I really want to trust major corporations to decide what´s best for me and what information is availiable to me...let´s just give them free hands, no regulations. [/sarcasm]

Offering your own product while hiding the alternatives or making them harder to spot or simply keeping the competition away from the market will strengthen any business. Obvious stuff. Microsoft have done this for over a decade and they´re pretty well off i would say.

I wonder if the recent ruling against MS ( the browser alternative-ruling ), can be used in this matter, as i assume this is not the end of it.

There was a "funny" hidden in that article, an unintentional one, but never the less:

From the article: "The company is currently seeking federal approval for its proposed acquisition of a majority stake in NBC Universal, the parent of the NBC broadcast network and a cadre of popular cable channels. Some members of Congress and consumer groups have opposed the merger, saying that it would enable Comcast to favor its own cable channels and discriminate against those owned by competitors — something the company has said it does not intend to do."

Yeah right!

Now...look at the peacock...look cl0sely at the colourful peacock...the peacock is your frieend...trust the peacock...just...sit back, relax, take a load off them dogs, don´t worry so much about things...

Jeez!

[the_lurker]

Now the FCC wants to go to congress for more authority to overrule this, but that would give the FCC the ability to regulate the internet as well.

Who do we trust to regulate our internet? The FCC or your cable provider? Hm....

[Sharessa]

This might help fight this ruling. Or at least make us feel better if we do it.

[Quasar]

Danarchy said:

This might help fight this ruling. Or at least make us feel better if we do it.

Way ahead of you on that. I get CREDO notifications in my email so I took care of that a couple nights ago. I slipped some bitchin' about ACTA in there for good measure too.

[the_lurker]

[Quasar]

the_lurker said:

(image I've seen before)

Yeah, that's the future if this isn't stopped now. Apple's already turned the internet into a bunch of proprietary apps on its walled-in devices, so we're well more than half-way there.

[the_lurker]

The scary part of that is that one could not only easily imagine that, but cable companies most likely have plans like this drawn up, the same way that most newspapers already have obituaries written up for celebrities when they kick it.

I'm still curious to see how google influences this. Given that it's the world's most used search engine, and most used website, they could easily step in and lobby for some opposing legislation. Why they haven't yet shocks me. Then again, they're not exactly well known for net neutrality either

[Quasar]

the_lurker said:

Then again, they're not exactly well known for net neutrality either

They should be, however. They stand to be one of the biggest losers in this affair, as YouTube is one of the chief sites that will be targeted by this nonsense.

[Maes]

Quasar said:

Yeah, that's the future if this isn't stopped now. Apple's already turned the internet into a bunch of proprietary apps on its walled-in devices, so we're well more than half-way there.

At least it only affects Steve Jobs's knob polishers, for now.

[Graf Zahl]

There's still too many of them though.

[Maes]

Graf Zahl said:

There's still too many of them though.

I'm a bit back on statistics, but did Apple really every get beyond that infamous 10% of "hardcore" users that have sworn allegiance to Steve Jobs's Super Knob, at least in the PC market?

Sure, there are many more iPhone and iPod users...but seriously, these products are not for everyone, primarily price wise and usability wise. E.g. the iPod is about THE WORSE media player you can get if you have no guaranteed internet connection, and the iPhone is similarly broken unless you also have a mobile internet plan. They are -so to speak- "high echelon" products.

[Sharessa]

the_lurker said:
(img)

The funny thing is that the top-end selection there is actually $10 less than I was paying for internet when I was living alone.

[Quasar]

Danarchy said:

The funny thing is that the top-end selection there is actually $10 less than I was paying for internet when I was living alone.

Well it would be considering that with that imaginary plan you could only access 2000 websites, which is about one billionth of the material actually on the web.

Not to mention access to anything ELSE would be cut off. No IRC, no file sharing, maybe even per-minute charges on select other types of traffic such as games, which could be denied except to specific games for which the creators have paid the ISPs to enable access.

You better believe they're having wet dreams over ideas like that.

[GreyGhost]

Danarchy said:

The funny thing is that the top-end selection there is actually $10 less than I was paying for internet when I was living alone.

That top-end selection might pay for an entry-level ADSL2 plan in Australia - if it's available at your local exchange. 2000 websites sounds about right, once the government's switched on it's firewall. :(

[BrokeAndDrive]

http://www.cracked.com/article_18453_5-reasons-internet-could-die-at-any-moment_p2.html

Pay special attention to #1.