Obama caves on Internet neutrality.

[dantheman40k]

http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/10/ ... al-assured

Obama caves on net neutrality. And so our slide into a quasi-police-state begins. (or rather, continues)

[SirNitram]

This thread should really be titled something to indicate it's about the FCC going down to corporate money. And I'll pull a less one-sided source. Link

(CNN) -- The Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday approved "high-level rules of the road" designed to ensure that internet providers grant everyone equal access to the Web.

But the 3-2 vote immediately came under attack from both flanks, with internet-freedom advocates saying the new rules don't go far enough and critics saying the government should stay out of online business altogether.

In announcing the proposed rules this month, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said they would require high-speed internet providers to treat all types of Web content equally.

The rules are designed to, in effect, keep the companies that own the internet's real-world infrastructure from slowing down some types of websites or apps -- say, those belonging to a competitor -- or speeding up others for high-paying clients.

For average internet users, the vote affects whether government will guarantee they'll continue to have access to all Web content, regardless of their internet provider's wishes, and whether they'll get that content as quickly as businesses or individuals able to pay more for it.

The commission's agenda said the vote addressed "basic rules of the road to preserve the open internet as a platform for innovation, investment, competition and free expression."

Web freedom advocates argue the vote doesn't do that.

Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat, signed off on the rules but called them only a "first step in the right direction."

"In my book, today's action could have, and should have, gone further," he said. "Going as far as I would have liked was, however, not in the cards."

For example, he said, the rules won't absolutely prevent broadband providers from "pay for priority" -- giving faster service to those able to pay for it, or to one favored business over another.

Instead, the regulations say those practices "generally violate" nondiscrimination rules.

The vote was along party lines, with the commission's three Democrats voting to "concur" with the rules and its two Republicans voting against them.

Commissioner Robert McDowell, a Republican, called the vote a "radical step" and said it puts the FCC "on a collision course" with the courts, which he predicted will throw the rules out.

"The FCC is not Congress," he said. "We cannot make laws."

Republicans have largely argued the government has no right to interfere with business practices online.

McDowell said "nothing is broken in the internet-access market that needs fixing."

President Barack Obama, in a written statement, called the rules an important part of his administration's goal of advancing "American innovation, economic growth and job creation."

"Today's decision will help preserve the free and open nature of the Internet while encouraging innovation, protecting consumer choice, and defending free speech," Obama said.

As a candidate, Obama pledged to support open-internet policies.

Although the commission approved the rules, Congress could still act to amend or weaken them. Members of the House and Senate, from both sides of the aisle, have expressed concerns for different reasons.

Internet proposal sets off political firestorm

Lawmakers already are considering legislation that would, in effect, repeal the rules. And at least one is threatening to cut off funding to the FCC to implement
the rules.

The proposal also doesn't set the same set of rules for mobile communications as it does for Web-based ones. So, the rules protecting information on a home computer might not keep the same data free on a mobile phone.

Sen. Al Franken, a Minnesota Democrat and one of Congress' most vocal net-neutrality advocates, calls the issue "the most important free-speech issue of our time."

In a column Monday for The Huffington Post, Franken said some of the current proposal's language could actually weaken protections.

"(T)his Tuesday, when the FCC meets to discuss this badly flawed proposal, I'll be watching," he wrote. "If they approve it as is, I'll be outraged. And you should be, too."

Copps, however, said that "if vigilantly and vigorously implemented by the commission -- and if upheld by the courts -- it could represent an important milestone in the ongoing struggle to safeguard the awesome opportunity-creating power of the open internet."

Genachowski, the FCC chairman argued that currently there are no rules governing internet freedom and that the regulations strike a balance between the two extremes of opinion. He also noted they include new rules for mobile that address some critics' concerns.

He called the policies "high-level rules of the road" and called internet freedom an ongoing issue for the commission.

IF Genachowski really will continue work on it, yay. But otherwise, this is a crappy compromise. The biggest problem is the lack of harder rules on wireless providers. It is going to be a real issue, as wireless is likely to become the major market share.

[Mr Bean]

It's more than that SirNitram. First off the wireless issue is HUGE. We've already been putting up for years now the fact that text messages which are roughly 200 bytes in size (Text only) cost without a plan on average .11 cents per message without a plan. If you run the numbers on that it means 115,343 $ in charges for one megabyte worth of text messages.

Or you could pay 9.99$ a month for unlimited texting on most US based carriers. Considering the amount of data it takes to send text messages even if you send it means a massive markup. A markup that frankly does not exist in any other goods market. The profit to cost ration on texting plans is literally without equal in modern history in terms of the real cost to send one text message (Estimations are in the 0.0 plus ten mores zeros of one cent to only seven zeros of one cent) to the amount they charge is crazy. And it's not the only example of where wireless providers have massive markups because of AT&T & Verizon and all the other telecoms out there practice blatant price fixing. And again we are in an area where this is biggest problem is that as devices get smarter and faster the telecoms companies are doing their best to lock you and in phone into an exclusive network. And the commission decides that the biggest area where net neutrality is needed most... to do nothing, not only to do nothing but to signal that nothing will be done.

Toss in de-facto agreement to create a tiered Internet system and more loopholes than a whiffle ball and your in for not a half a loaf compromise but rather a compromise where I take your money and give you nothing in exchange for you going me they money for another loaf of bread I also won't give you.

[SirNitram]

I did make it clear wireless is the biggest problem, did I not? I thought I was pretty clear. It's a shitty deal, but not surprising when you have five folks who the telecomms can directly influence. The best we can hope for with this is the GOP killing it, or the Progressive Caucus making this one of their 'our way or the highway' stands. But most of all, I expect all of this will be flushed via court.

[Guardsman Bass]

I suppose it could be worse. The ISPs could have gotten the whole thing, including the ability to slow down and speed up websites depending on who is paying them more. Imagine an Internet where you go to, say, ESPN.com, and find out that the videos won't show up and the whole page takes five minutes to load, because your ISP cut a deal with NFL.com to give them priority access in that area.

As it is, we're stuck with the ISPs being able to charge companies and individuals more in exchange for greater bandwidth use, and an unregulated wireless internet scheme. Not so great in the short term, and horrible in the long term when you consider how much growth the mobile internet market is supposed to have.

[Tanasinn]

It could definitely be worse, when you consider our country is literally run by servile vermin desperate to suck the corporate cock, be they legislators claiming unfair persecution against BP or remarkably audacious Supreme Court justices declaring infinite corporate bribery a First Amendment right.

[Thanas]

Edited the title for clarity reasons.

[The Kernel]

The wireless issue may or may not turn out to be a big problem, it really depends on a number of factors. Today wireless data is purely an access method for handheld and tablet devices, and even LTE is unlikely to be competing directly with DOCSIS 3.0 and FTTH "wired" broadband to the home anytime soon.

Yes, technically LTE has peak bandwidth numbers in the 100Mbps range and LTE-Advanced (5G) could potentially top out at 1Gbps but these numbers are total fantasies right now. For the first incarnations of 4G, you are looking at sustaining numbers less than 10Mbps which while impressive for wireless is not going to keep up with the demand for high definition video pipes to the home.

Worse still, these technologies are so expensive to deploy that the cost per MB is going to stay absurdly high compared to traditional broadband. I think that 4G networks are going to be a boon for wireless access on the next wave of smart devices (phones, tablets, cars, etc) but it's going to be a while before they are ready to take on Fiber and Cable. Regulations evolve and by the time they are ready to take on the home broadband market the FCC can adjust the regulations accordingly.

It may turn out to be a non-issue anyway. The benefit of wireless broadband access is that you can pick and choose your provider among the big 4 whereas with traditional broadband you are really stuck with a single carrier (maybe two if you are lucky). This increased competition should help somewhat in creating a more level playing field.