Quote:

Original post by Antheus Quote: Original post by Khaiy Maybe you're being just a bit hyperbolic? After all, isn't it only the mobile broadband part that doesn't have to abide by net neurtrality? Non phone-based web still has to be treated neutrally, which is arguably more important. AT&T Press Release, Dec, 2014: Due to rising costs of infrastructure we're announcing immediate closing of cable service. All current subscribers will be transferred to our 5G wireless network at no extra charge (different plan may apply).

An entirely hypothetical situation years away may not be worth ratcheting up rhetoric for. The whole point of the current proposal (net neutral internet except for mobile networks) is because the main way of accessing the internet is not through mobile internet. Mobile internet is still a "new and developing whatever". I forget the specific BS the FCC used to describe it.

But the point is to keep the main portal for access neutral. If the main portal shifts to be mobile, then the all of the reasons for mobile internet to not be neutral disappear, and hopefully the government will act to keep everyone's main access neutral once again, with or without prodding from the population. If we're going to worry about developments that could potentially maybe happen that would be bad for us, the internet's an awfully dangerous place for us to be in the first place.

Well the trend is that the mobile internet is becoming a place where the Internet is accessed regularly. Also, with the restrictions on mobile internet, you've now introduced the slippery-slope of tiering non-mobile internet as well. And companies will go out of their way to slide on the slope.

Quote:

Original post by Antheus - youtube is $1/GB - ATTFunnies is free - Facebook is $14.99/month - ATTFriends is free - Netflix is $3.99/video (network cost) - ATTMovies is free

Sounds like the internet would get cheaper for me [grin]. I can understand the need for something like charging extra depending on the type of websites you use. Sites like Youtube have put a lot of strain on our infrastructure. One of the reasons AT&T went to shit, or got shittier, is that the amount of data being used on the network grew by leaps and bounds after the iphone came out. It's not just the number of users that is increasing, but the amount of data they consume is increasing as well. We're definitely going to need an infrastructure overhaul at some point.

Quote:

Also, any packet that cannot be decoded and deep inspected is silently dropped.

I call BS on this. That would prevent SSL from working and there is no way in hell they would get away with that.

Quote:

Original post by Alpha_ProgDes FCC 3 to 2 keeps net neutrality So it seems, the 'Net is still alive. For now.

I can see the republican's point better after reading that, but I definitely think the dc's are going the right way on this. Pro-corporation legislation should always be looked at with the expectation that corporations will maximize their profits.

Quote:

Original post by Alpha_ProgDes FCC 3 to 2 keeps net neutrality So it seems, the 'Net is still alive. For now.

Quote:

But the rules give broadband providers flexibility to manage data on their systems to deal with problems such as network congestion and unwanted traffic including spam as long as they publicly disclose their network management practices.

As long as that's in there, I definitely don't see a problem with net neutrality for the foreseeable future.

Quote:

Original post by Alpha_ProgDes Well the trend is that the mobile internet is becoming a place where the Internet is accessed regularly. Also, with the restrictions on mobile internet, you've now introduced the slippery-slope of tiering non-mobile internet as well. And companies will go out of their way to slide on the slope.

I'm not questioning that companies will do whatever they can to leverage greater profits and market share for themselves, nor that mobile internet is a significant method of access. But it's not the main one, and I don't see any reason to expect that it will completely, or even substantially, displace what is far and away the most widespread and robust method of access. But even considering the slippery slope, the FCC specifically acted to keep non-mobile internet neutral and not tiered at all. My point is not that the current proposal is great (I stated that I don't care for it myself), but rather that "Obama destroys net neutrailty" is really a gross misstatement of what happened.

Quote:

Original post by Khaiy I'm not questioning that companies will do whatever they can to leverage greater profits and market share for themselves, nor that mobile internet is a significant method of access. But it's not the main one, and I don't see any reason to expect that it will completely, or even substantially, displace what is far and away the most widespread and robust method of access. But even considering the slippery slope, the FCC specifically acted to keep non-mobile internet neutral and not tiered at all. My point is not that the current proposal is great (I stated that I don't care for it myself), but rather that "Obama destroys net neutrailty" is really a gross misstatement of what happened.

There is one huge reason that it will. It's far more convenient. The only reason people don't yet is because the speed you get for the cost is low compared to other ways right now. Once we get faster speeds and lower prices, wireless connectivity is FAR FAR more convenient than any wired connection.

I'd gladly snag a highspeed data plan and tether through my cell phone exclusively if it were available where I was before moving or if canadian carriers let me have a decent cell phone/plan :(.

Quote:

Original post by Khaiy Maybe you're being just a bit hyperbolic? After all, isn't it only the mobile broadband part that doesn't have to abide by net neurtrality? Non phone-based web still has to be treated neutrally, which is arguably more important. I'm not a fan of the proposal, because I do think that mobile web should be neutral just like the rest of it, and loopholes are generally not the friend of the consumer and citizen. But Obama (who didn't write the proposal) destroys net neutrality (it's still intact, just not on your phone) might be overstating things slightly.

Maybe not. The FCC was created on the premise that the airwaves belong to the public. That means the foundation for maintaining neutrality over wireless is even stronger than it is over wires. Ceding neutrality over mobile broadband today in effect hands tomorrow over to big business forever.

The rule will likely be challenged in court long before it ever takes effect.

---

FCC Chair Genachowski's Fake 'Net Neutrality' Scheme Threatens Internet Freedom, Digital Democracy

Quote:

... An analysis being circulated by the Save the Internet Coalition asserts that Genachowski's "proposed rule is riddled with loopholes, and falls far short of what's necessary to prevent phone and cable companies from turning the Internet into cable TV: where they decide what moves fast, what moves slow, and whether they can price gouge you or not: a shiny jewel for companies like AT&T and Comcast." Specifically, the analysis argues that the chairman's proposal: 1. Fails to restore the FCC's authority over Internet service providers (ISPs) like Comcast and AT&T. This guarantees that the new rules, if passed, will be swiftly rejected by the courts. Any other future rules related to the Internet, such as competition policy (which would give you more choices than your expensive monopoly cable and phone company) would suffer the same fate if the Chairman continues to avoid the simple procedure that would restore his agency's authority. 2. Allows the loophole of "specialized services," which effectively allows these companies to split the Internet into fast and slow lanes, violating the principle of net neutrality. To make matters worse, the proposal has weak protections against "paid prioritization." That is, ISPs' charging content providers extra to get their product to move quicker across the Net than others'. 3. Fails to make even Genachowski's tepid protections apply to wireless connections. With the inevitable explosion of super-fast wireless Internet connections during the next decade, it represents the most blatant sellout to the likes of Verizon and AT&T. Both companies view wireless Internet and phone service as the future of their companies. And both companies are amongst Washington's biggest spenders on PR firms, lobbyists and campaign contributions. Josh Silver, the president of Free Press (the media-reform group he co-founded with Robert McChesney and this writer), says Genochowski's proposal is "not even close to the real Net Neutrality that President Obama promised the American people." In fact, he calls the chairman's plan "fake Net Neutrality." ...

Telecoms Love Pretend Net Neutrality Proposal; Democratic FCC Commissioner Copps Doesn’t

Quote:

Here’s what the top telecom companies are saying about Julius Genachowski’s pretend net neutrality proposal. Time Warner Cable: “We would like to commend Chairman Genachowski, and everyone at the Commission, who have worked tirelessly to craft what we believe to be a fair resolution to these complex and controversial policy issues. We also want to thank the many Members of Congress who, on a bipartisan basis, urged the Commission to take a less regulatory path in order to ensure that the Internet continues its vibrant growth and development.” Comcast: “We believe Chairman Genachowski’s proposal, as described this morning, strikes a workable balance between the needs of the marketplace and the certainty that carefully-crafted and limited rules can provide to ensure that Internet freedom and openness are preserved.” AT&T: “Based on our understandings, this measure would avoid onerous Title II regulation; would be narrowly drawn along the lines of a compromise we have endorsed previously; would reject limits on our ability to properly manage our network and efficiently utilize our wireless spectrum; would recognize the capabilities and limitations of different broadband technologies; would ensure specialized services are protected against intrusive regulation; and would provide for a case-by-case resolution of complaints that also encourages non-governmental dispute settlement.” Verizon: “Verizon appreciates the efforts of Chairman Genachowski to seek a consensus on the contentious issue of net neutrality… [W]e urge the commissioners to recognize the limitations of the current statute and the rapidly changing conditions in the marketplace and make any rules it adopts interim, rather than permanent. Specifically, the commission should consider the framework of the Waxman proposal, including its sunset provision.” ...

Welcome to the plutonomy!

Here's more. The Internet Splits in Two

Quote:

Today’s FCC ruling on net neutrality shifts billions in profits and boils down to one fact: There will soon be a fast Internet for the rich and a slow Internet for the poor. The Federal Communications Commission approved a set of net neutrality rules today, and nobody is happy. While liberals claim the FCC has caved to pressure from carriers, right-wingers are calling the new rules a government takeover of the Internet. In their tea-addled brains, the new rules represent yet another example of creeping socialism taking over every aspect of our lives. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is "Julius Seizure." Cue the black helicopters. No matter what you think about the new rules, however, they signal an important turning point in the development of the Internet. We are going from Phase One, where everything is free and open and untamed, into Phase Two, which is all about centralization, consolidation, control—and money. Because don’t kid yourself. Money is driving all of this. As in: Hey, we’ve created this marvelous new platform for communicating with each other. We’ve demonstrated that very large sums of money can be generated by sending stuff over these wires. Now let’s figure out who gets what. Today’s new FCC rules grant two big concessions to carriers. First, the rules will apply to wired broadband connections, but they will pretty much leave wireless alone. Second, carriers remain free to create “fast lanes” on the Internet. They can charge Internet companies to ride on the faster pipes, and perhaps also charge consumers more money to get access to those speedy services. That is a huge deal. It means we are entering an age in which we will have two Internets—the fast one, with great content, that costs more (maybe a lot more) to use, and then the MuggleNet, which is free but slow and crappy. Cable TV vs. rabbit ears. On wireless—which eventually will be the more important platform—that disparity will be even more evident. The rich will get great stuff. The poor will get, well, what the poor usually get, which is not much. Oddly enough this bifurcation resonates beyond just the speed of our Internet connection. It also is happening to information itself. We could be heading into a world where the rich get better information, from a wider choice of sources, while the poor get less. ...

Welcome to the plutonomy!

Quote:

Original post by Khaiy But it's not the main one, and I don't see any reason to expect that it will completely, or even substantially, displace what is far and away the most widespread and robust method of access.

Look who called:


I give it 5 years in West and 10 in Korea. Everyone else is already on mobile only.

Land lines will still be available for corporate plans. Like it was 15 years ago.