Slashdot Mirror
Wireless Industry Lobbying Hard to Keep Net Neutrality Out
Taco Cowboy writes: The net neutrality issue has become a hot topic recently, but on the mobile side, net neutrality rules are absent. Why? The wireless companies successfully convinced regulators four years ago to keep mobile networks mostly free of net neutrality rules. Now that FCC officials are looking into whether wireless networks should remain exempt from net neutrality rules, the mobile carriers are lobbying hard to maintain the status quo. "Wireless is different ... it is dependent on finite spectrum," said Meredith Attwell Baker, the new head of CTIA, the wireless industry's lobbying arm. Baker previously served as an FCC commissioner. On the other side of the issue, net neutrality advocates are "hoping to convince regulators to include wireless networks more fully under any new proposed rules. They are pushing for the FCC to re-regulate broadband Internet under a section of the law (called Title II), which was written with old phone networks in mind. ... The FCC will be taking public comments about what it should do about new net neutrality rules through the end of July." You can comment by emailing to openinternet@fcc.gov or go to file a Consumer Informal Complaint on the FCC's wesbite.
Meanwhile, AT&T says that strong net neutrality regulations will ruin the internet.
AT&T also said their service representative would be there at 10:00am. How'd that work out?
Crap...mis-posted comment.
Of course AT&T is going to say that.
They're one of the entities who stands to profit from no net neutrality, and they're one of the companies who are actually ruining the internet.
Net neutrality is an assault on the business model of gouging successful ventures, because it prevents the extra rent-seeking they like to do.
I've never understood how ISPs aren't common carriers.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
With wireless data caps are already so low, what do they care?
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Meanwhile, AT&T says that strong net neutrality regulations will ruin their ability to squeeze more profit from the internet.
There, fixed it.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
She approved the NBC-Comcast merger, then immediately quit the FCC and started working for NBC! I wouldn't trust a single thing she says since she's a poster child for corruption in the FCC and a prime example of the revolving door problems. While Congress is elected and has to try and hide its corrupt doings by making confusing laws no one can understand except lawyers and the corporations that wrote them, the FCC is on a tear of doing whatever it pleases. Believe it or not, there's still some people who think governmental officials are acting for the good of people, but the more the FCC brazenly does actions that are for their corporate overlords and not for the good of the people, the more people are losing faith in the government.
God spoke to me
"Wireless is different ... it is dependent on finite spectrum," said Meredith Attwell Baker, the new head of CTIA, the wireless industry's lobbying arm.
There is absolutely nothing about Net Neutrality that affects the final leg of transmission. Doing away with Net Neutrality helps a bit with peering issues. Limited bandwidth from the tower to the phone, or in the final mile of wired service would be almost totally unaffected by any change in net neutrality. You'll still have limited bandwidth, you'll still have people poorly served during peak usage. Net Neutrality simply changes WHO gets poorly served.
> "Wireless is different ... it is dependent on finite spectrum,"
Everybody knows that when the tubes are smaller the only packets that will fit are the ones from companies that have been extorted to pay extra. All that extra money they lose to the wireless carriers is just a side-effect of slimming down their packets in order to fit!
Are you implying that because the Amazon Fire phone will likely be made in China, and due to the pervasive nature of the Great Firewall, Japan might need a strong military to protect itself from Jeff Bezos?
Wireless is different ... it is dependent on finite spectrum.
This is precisely why it needs net neutrality. If they are allowed to create high priority "lanes," there will be nothing left for anyone else. Everyone will be forced to pay extra or effectively have no access at all.
I am pretty sure that if/whenever net neutrality gets passed, it will be something that does exactly the opposite of what it's initial proponents wanted (i.e. worse than if no law at all were passed), and the politicians will be able to claim to be heroes for passing net neutrality. Look at who we are dealing with. Republicans and democrats. I think the goal of net neutrality is perfectly good, I just don't trust politicians to know anything about how to regulate the internet. It's pretty safe to say that they have already demonstrated that they don't.
I wish the current debate would be over REAL net neutrality, and not the co-opted one we're having today.
Real net neutrality would mean internet access is effectively a public utility.
The "net neutrality" argument we're having now is effectively nothing more than who has to pay for Netflix's et al non-symmetrical bandwidth usage, where each side has hired guns trying to bribe lawmakers.
The thing about corruption is that it will fester wherever it is allowed to fester. The only question we must answer is if we will tolerate a corrupt world or if we will cure the patient BEFORE the cure would KILL the patient. So far the big money is on keeping the world corrupt.
Why would mobile networks be any different than other networks? What possible intrinsic technical difference that applies to our privacy or traffic speed have to do with the difference between a computer plugged into the net or a cell phone connecting remotely? None? Okay at least we passed Grade 9 technology class.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
If the terrestrial cable had unlimited bandwidth, we wouldn't be worried about net neutrality because there would be room for everyone. It's just amplified over wireless.
The one place they could have a point is for VoLTE, where the voice network probably should have priority over other traffic. But, slippery slopes and such...
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
A strong AT&T has been the Internet ruin for a long time. They have lobbyests and have far more input than most. It's their fine work that kept the telephone under their control for almost 100 years. A strong AT&T is part of the reason South Korea has Intenet speeds 200 times faster at half the price. AT&T doesn't care about anyone other than AT&T and have proven this over and over again whenever they can.
Basically, here AT&T and the wireless carriers are asking the vioctim to go out of a 2nd date with their rapest.
The US and the world would be a better place without AT&T. It's time we grow up and throw out the monoplies, and the congressmen they own.
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
Face it if you're an AT&T customer you're helping them.
Since Net-Neutrality is largely an issue of "I own this last mile, if you want my 'customers' pay me to reach them", it seems that wireless is less of an issue, since if one company has a reputation for providing poor Netfilx performance (for instance), people that care about that can switch to a different provider.
Contrasting this with people that have to option to switch from Comcast to... Comcast?
Well, Amazon is developing drones capable of delivering heavy "packages" with pinpoint precision. They just need to make sure their control commands to the drones have priority on wireless channels so they work uninterrupted.
Nothing spoils an invasion worse than your mechanized troops crashing into walls because your target was watching netflix.
Netflix and the FCC, working tirelessly to protect Japan.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
How does one write "net neutrality" rules which accommodate voice on modern cellular networks, when it's carried as data? Customers expect their voice calls to always work, and not get interference from an email getting downloaded in the background.
With carriers moving toward VoLTE for voice services, there's a legitimate desire to apply QoS for the voice services the carriers themselves offer. QoS is an integral part of VoLTE, so there may be legitimate concern that net neutrality rules will get in the way of VoLTE rollouts.
OTOH, net neutrality could be met in a reasonably equitable manner by allowing each device to mark, say, up to x% (or x bps) of its traffic for preferential QoS treatment. That would allow third-party VoIP apps to somewhat compete with carrier VoLTE services. VoLTE would still receive preferential treatment due to the IMS support it receives for things like roaming and handoff. But considering that cellular network are not obligated to provide data service, that doesn't seem unreasonable.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
With BLAST, how can they claim to be spectrum limited?
I fully expect him to cave to whatever the lobbyiest want just like with Patent reform bill
Which is exactly why the customer should be deciding how they want to use their finite slice of bandwidth, not their cellular provider dictating what is more important.
that whenever Google rolls into town carrying a wad of Fiber over their backs, suddenly the stagnant ISPs in the area start ponying up competitive services at a competitive price, screaming "WE WERE WORKING ON IT".
Net Neutrality .... (paste catchy phrase here).
:)
But seriously, whatever argument they come up with, I am sure it has been discussed in Europe where the same lobbyists were active, but *failed* to kill real net-neutrality. I suggest the politicians and those interested read the reports on that debate.
Good luck US, in the mean-time: here's to European Internet leadership !
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
Frankly I think we all need strong military protection from Jeff Bezos.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
AT&T and others stand to profit billions of dollars by creating slow lanes and fast lanes on the internet. The real issue here is that customer already paid for an internet connection at a certain speed, so its some level of fraud or deception (false advertising, bait-and-switch) to be selling a service at a certain speed and then not delivering the service that the customer is paying for.
> "Wireless is different ... it is dependent on finite spectrum,"
um, ok. I suspect she means by this that for a given area, there is finite data carrying capacity to cellular phones.
Ok. Name the network that doesn't have a finite data carrying capacity. Of course it might be more than the capacity of a cell tower, but in no cases is it not finite.
Probably it would have been more correct to say "the maximum data carrying capacity of wireless is significantly less than traditional network connections" but I'm not even sure that's true.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Anyone who listens to telco companies is an idiot, and I say that as someone who worked in one for a decade.
Wireless carriers are the worst. You should assume they're crooks until they've proven the opposite.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I think you've hit upon an important point. I believe many ISPs are actively sabotaging customer's connections to some of the internet's content. Since ISPs now have bundled services that they can make good money on, the ISPs have incentive to slow and sabotage their customer's connections to internet based competing services. This would cause customers to quit the competing services in disgust and use ISP services instead.
Except the FCC and Mr. Obama failed to mention that THEIR version of "Net Neutrality" has a bunch of controls in it to give the FCC effective control over the Internet, require the ISPs to record your online information, so police can go direclty to them without a warrant.
It does a lot more than that, but it's all bad!
Referencing an earlier /. article: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/04/24/1918240/verizon-and-new-jersey-agree-4g-service-equivalent-to-broadband-internet
The fact that Title II rules were written so long ago is a point that net neutrality opponents like to hammer on all the live long day. If you want to aggravate them quickly just point out how some like to say the same about the second amendment. That argument aside, though, I do often wonder: Why not rewrite Title II altogether? Even if for no other reason than to close the argument about 'outdated' regulations.
If socialism is defined as being opposed to free markets/capitalism, then regulation to create markets isn't socialism. Regulating to limit the number of players or put in coercive pricing could be. (Companies lobbying to keep players out/keep prices up can at least be considered anti-free market and anti-consumer.)
The fundamental problem is that Comcast, Time Warner, and the others are too big and too willing to use their market position to beef themselves up. Comcast produces movies/content, distributes it with cable, and provides internet access over that same cable. Time Warner does the same, though they are trying to sell their cable/internet portion. So when they start limiting Netflix's bandwidth, it's not just them doing business, it's an anti-competitive action.
We do see questionable business practices in other sectors. Apple notoriously overcharges for storage on its iPhone and iPad line, but there's competition from Android and even Windows phones/tablets. Android phones/tablets frequently come with microSD card slots which allow for cheap and convenient storage. You can live anywhere in the US, buy the tablet of your choice, and expect it to work.
When it comes to telecomms, that's not always the case. In many areas, there's only one network that provides decent access. A lot of times this is Comcast (cable internet) or Verizon Wireless (cell phone). These networks aren't bad, but their prices are.
However, in Verizon Wireless's case, it's possible to use an MVNO to buy cell phone service instead of from Verizon directly. They commonly cost about half what Verizon charges. (If it weren't for MVNOs, I wouldn't have a cell phone.) In Comcast's case, there is no such option, but I have a feeling we'd see a similar effect if there were virtual ISPs/networks.
Back in the '90s on dial-up, the ISPs were vertically separated from the phone companies. The modems used phone lines, but weren't owned by them. Consumers had some choice in which ISP they used. These days, it's just whatever regional companies are available. Allowing third parties access to these networks could help.
In the long run, breaking up this vertically integrated companies could help the market and consumers overall.
They don't have to. The protocols we use are more than capable of screwing with things.
Consider TCP: the protocol is BY DESIGN meant to exponentially increase the amount of data dumped on a link until it overloads and begins dropping packets. TCP then throttles for a little while and then soon goes back to bashing the network with packets until it breaks again.
Even for VoLTE, why should your voice get priority over my data? What if my "data" is actually voice via a different app?
Arguably, all packets should be shaped initially based on the subscription plans of the subscribers without regard for data type. Then *within the packet stream of an individual subscriber* they could prioritize based on traffic type, but it should be up to the subscriber to indicate whether they want this to be done, what should be prioritized, etc.
AT&T thinks that the Internet is an amusing toy, but real men use switched circuits.