SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the it-takes-300-pages-to-redefine-neutrality dept.
The bloom may have already fallen off the Net Neutrality rose. As reported yesterday in the Wall Street Journal (paywalled):
When Google's Eric Schmidt called White House officials a few weeks ago to oppose President Obama's demand that the Internet be regulated as a utility, they told him to buzz off. The chairman of the company that led lobbying for "net neutrality" learned the Obama plan made in its name instead micromanages the Internet.
Mr. Schmidt is not the only liberal mugged by the reality of Obamanet, approved on party lines last week by the Federal Communications Commission. The 300-plus pages of regulations remain secret, but as details leak out, liberals have joined the opposition to ending the Internet as we know it.
It seems as though, in their zeal to "stick it" to the ISPs, most proponents didn't consider that when you allow 3 unelected people to issue rulings on something as large and ubiquitous as the Internet, bad things can happen:
Until Congress or the courts block Obamanet, expect less innovation. During a TechFreedom conference last week, dissenting FCC commissioner Ajit Pai asked: "If you were an entrepreneur trying to make a splash in a marketplace that's already competitive, how are you going to differentiate yourself if you have to build into your equation whether or not regulatory permission is going to be forthcoming from the FCC? According to this, permissionless innovation is a thing of the past."
The other dissenting Republican commissioner, Michael O'Rielly, warned: "When you see this document, it's worse than you imagine." The FCC has no estimate on when it will make the rules public.
(Score: 5, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday March 03 2015, @12:07PM
Better an organization that is answerable to the people, than a monopolist. You think phone service is bad now? Try the bad old days before the breakup of Ma Bell in 1984. We had to fight their ridiculous rules. The acoustic modem was created only to get around AT&T rules that nothing except their property and their approved devices could be connected to a phone jack. You had to keep quiet about using a modem. If AT&T found out, they used that as an excuse to move you to a "better" quality line and charge you more, never mind that the modem didn't need it. You could not add another phone to your line without AT&T charging you more, and they would check up on you by sending a little trickle down the line to see how many ringers you had. Many a time I heard the phone ring with just one soft tap on the bell at 1 AM. So people made sure the extension had an off switch for the ringer. You could not even switch to a longer cord for the handset without AT&T wanting to charge more money. Another excuse for rent seeking was an upgrade from pulse dialing to touch tone. Oh, and if you wanted to call overseas? Does $3 per minute sound like a fair price? Then there was the whole hacker sub culture of phone phreaking, in part a response to such high rates. AT&T took a very dim view of that and would sic the FBI on phreaks.
After Ma Bell was broken up, phone service was liberated, and innovation really took off. All kinds of phones appeared on the market. Cell phone service started. Competition for long distance service started.
That's not to say that there haven't been some backward steps. However, the net result has been a huge plus for us all. AT&T was stifling innovation. If they'd had their way, the BBS scene of the 1980s would have never happened, as they would have kept modems too expensive for most people.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday March 03 2015, @05:32PM
All good points.
But the internet is different. It comes with the presumption that anything can travel on the internet. Its all just data packets.
All we really need is to protect that.
Force them to compete on price and speed alone.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Daiv on Tuesday March 03 2015, @06:04PM
Force them to compete on price and speed alone.
That sure as hell isn't/wasn't happening now and before whatever comes of this. How exactly do we do what you suggest?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday March 03 2015, @06:21PM
Go read the things that the new ruling subjects ISPs to.
Not only does the FCC rules prevent preferential treatment of some traffic over others, it also mandates cable/fiber companies access to the physical plants, (at reasonable price) the same way as different phone companies are required to share the local loop.
It worked for phones. Could not that work for internet connections?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by fnj on Tuesday March 03 2015, @07:13PM
Could you provide an authoritative citation for your wild-ass claim? The FCC decision SPECIFICALLY SAYS it is NOT unbundling the local loop for broadband.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday March 03 2015, @08:14PM
Can you cite something believable?
If you like your Doctor, you can keep your Doctor.
What they assert they are doing (well ahead of the actual regulations being released) has no bearing on what will be in the final regulations.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.