Slashdot Mirror
Internet Companies Want Wireless Net Neutrality Too
jfruh writes As it looks more likely that the U.S. will impose net neutrality rules on landline ISPs, big Web companies are aiming to get wireless data providers under the same regulatory umbrella. The Internet Association, a trade group that includes Google, Facebook, Amazon.com, and eBay, wants the FCC to "harmonize" the treatment of mobile and wired broadband providers in its net neutrality rules. Wireless providers are fighting back, claiming their networks are fundamentally different.
"fiercely competitive,"....aww.
"Give us monopolies and then you can regulate us. Deal?"
> As it looks more likely that the U.S. will impose net neutrality rules on landline ISPs
Is there a citation?
Bark less. Wag more.
...the free market? In a capitalistic society wouldn't the market support net neutrality only if the market will bear it?
There seems to be two disjoint discussions on the same thing around here...
When we talk Net Neutrality we talk about giving every node on the Internet an equal chance to speak.
When we talk about Netflix/Google/Amazon buying fast lane access to users, we're violating the rules of Net Neutrality to give people what they're paying for faster.
Do you see how when we celebrate one side of this, the other side loses?
Fundamentally different, as in, they ultimately use a lot of the same protocols to get things done. But wireless carriers want to continue being draconian.
Net neutrality is not what the name implies, at least not to the end user. How one can come up with a set of rules that are "neutral" to all users and providers is going to look like the IPv6 equivalent of a rube Goldberg machine, or it's going to be very disruptive to the internet in the USA.
You can mandate "equal packet routing treatment", but that doesn't mean a network operator has to keep the links between the source and destination from being saturated (as in the Netflix/Verizon dispute). You can mandate bandwidth between the source and destination but that will require significant costs for providers and preclude a lot of traffic management techniques from being used. You need QoS on that VOIP call? Tough, we have net neutrality!
Then there is the real problem with keeping regulations relevant to the technology they are supposed to control. Who knows what the state of the art will really be in 5 or 10 years? How will IPv6 change how the internet works? What will IPv6 do to routing and a whole host of network technologies? Nobody really knows and that makes it really hard to write effective regulations which do what we need today, next week, next decade and on..
I don't see the government being able to thread the needle here and come up with regulations that are not going to stifle technology development, really free up competition on the internet, and not be woefully out of date in 5 years... If they do, it won't be easy to understand what the rules actually mean. Complexity is never a good thing.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
If you as a wireless ISP offer unmetered usage of select services over the Internet, you lose the "our networks are different" argument.
Anyone offering select unmetered services such as music pass access, etc. should be prepared to lose this battle.
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
Seems like they're all maxxed out and congested until they want to offer a great deal on data for the new iPhone. Suddenly, additional bandwidth is available for these new subscribers.
Wireless bandwidth is limited by the allocated spectrum. With landlines, you can always drag more fiber or copper, hook it up, and expand your bandwidth. You can't do that with wireless.
But I expect to be modded down because I'm not jumping on the "everything should be unlimited" bandwagon.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
That no one seems to get this? We have a tiered system now for internet access and it works damn good I believe. I get the bandwidth I pay for, If I want more speed, I pay more. Once you add in "net neutrality" it all turns to a pay for what you use system which will most definitely drive up prices. How the hell do people not see that? This is one big scam to bilk more money out of the consumer in the end. Does anyone really think that Google, Facebook, Amazon.com, and eBay are looking out for consumers on this one?
The problem is I have a whole two choices for connecting to the internet in a major metropolis due to government regulations. And this is more than most have in other parts of the country.
Thanks to Moore's Law, cheap modems allow several megabits/sec data to be transported over mediocre twisted pair cable of a couple miles of length, or 100 megabits/sec for a third of a mile length. If the cable is fiber optic, it can be a few gigabits/sec over several miles. If you're willing to spend several hundred thousand on modems, a fiber optic cable can transmit a couple hundred gigabits/sec over longer distances.
Cell phone networks cost significantly more to move data via the last mile. Consequently, they should not be as strongly regulated.
If the carriers are marketing "Internet access" then it's deceptive to be anything other than "net-neutral" and the FTC should use its existing powers to force them to at least change their marketing.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Develop the mesh networks outside of their control. If those companies try to disrupt the people, I would not be surprised to see people disrupt or destroy their networks.