Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wireless Industry Lobbying Hard to Keep Net Neutrality Out

Posted by Soulskill on from the all-about-the-benjamins dept.

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.

14 of 85 comments (clear)

  1. sometime... by guygo · · Score: 5, Funny

    AT&T also said their service representative would be there at 10:00am. How'd that work out?

  2. Of course they do ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Of course they do ... by timrod · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ISPs aren't common carriers only because the FCC saw some of the issues that AT&T's CEO pointed out - Title II isn't perfect for regulating ISPs because of its origins as a means of regulating telephones - and tried to find a way to work around that. Unfortunately, the Circuit Court of Appeals ruined that when they said that the FCC had exactly three choices: Get Congress to give them explicit authorization to regulate net neutrality without classifying ISPs as common carriers, classify ISPs as common carriers under Title II and use that to regulate them, or don't regulate at all.

      Title II should still be implemented as a stopgap measure to prevent ISPs from ruining the internet. However, the FCC would probably need to selectively enforce some things which will probably be challenged in court and have a small chance of being won by the ISPs. This is why Congress should give the FCC the explicit authority to regulate ISPs and internet service, so that the ISPs can never hope to get their way again.

    2. Re:Of course they do ... by Immerman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >...so that the ISPs can never hope to get their way again.

      I agree with the sentiment, but that seems optimistic. After all, if at first you don't succeed, lobby, lobby again. Sooner or later the public will get tired of protesting and you can slip your new rules into the system. At least that seems to be a common strategy across the board in recent years.

      Still, no sense making it easy for them. The battle to maintain any semblance of a functional democracy is never-ending, and we can't hope to win if we don't fight.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  3. Data caps by NotDrWho · · Score: 3, Informative

    With wireless data caps are already so low, what do they care?

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:Data caps by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because, if they launch their own video streaming service for their clients, for instance, they wouldn't be able to give it preferential treatment to their packets over those of Netflix.

      If there was net neutrality, the ISPs wouldn't be able to push their own services to compete with others, and they'd have to do it on merit.

      Same goes for music, TV shows, and possibly even app stores.

      If they serve the interwebs to people equally, they have less of a way to make sure it's easier for the consumer to use their products, and instead they might use those of someone else ... and then executive bonuses might suffer as their offerings flop.

      Won't someone think about the executive bonuses?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Data caps by Phreakiture · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Easy. With the exception of Verizon*, they can charge extra for things like tethering your phone. I'm sure there are other examples as well, but there's a starting point.

      (* VZ got their hands slapped for charging extra for tethering. They got slapped because VZ is using some spectrum which, thanks to Google's playing in the auction, has a net neutrality string attached to it. The other three carriers are not bound by this provision)

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    3. Re:Data caps by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

      This is totally untrue and unfair. Executive bonuses won't suffer; they'll lay off significant portions of their US workforce before they let that happen. And they'll only do that if they can't avoid putting that money into promised infrastructure upgrades that the government loaned them money to do 20 years ago Yes, the money that currently goes into the investment portfolio that pays off the annual executive bonuses..

    4. Re:Data caps by whistlingtony · · Score: 2

      No, that's pretty much it, at all. Right there. If there's no regulation, they can launch and push their own services and degrade everybody else's services.

      regulation or no, all companies seek to turn themselves into monopolies, so as to maximize profits. We regulate to prevent monopoly behavior.

      As for your dirty diaper law analogy? What? That made as much sense as a hat on a llama. Actually, less. And then it leaped to regulation limits options is always bad, which does NOT logically follow. You need to read up on your logical fallacies. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

  4. Typo in Summary by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.
  5. Oh seriously, her again? by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  6. having it both ways by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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.

  7. Re:Under the increasing pressure from China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    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?

  8. The exact reason we need net neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.