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?"
Of COURSE wireless carriers are draconian.
They transmit everything through the air. Dragons fly in the air. Therefore they're draconian.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
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
I'm pretty sure thats why when we talk about netflix being forced to buy fast lane access to users in order to get video to their customers at the speeds the customers paid their ISPs for, we use negative and derogatory terms about the ISPs, especially Comcast.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
They're not necessarily in conflict. If I pay for X bandwidth, I should get that on a neutral basis - I'm in control of which content I ask for. If the ISPs want to charge someone else for bandwidth to me above and beyond what I'm already paying for - so for example, I get still good Netflix while simultaneously maxing out torrents on on the bandwidth I'm paying for - I have no problem with that. Of course, if I limit myself so Netflix has ample bandwidth within my subscribed bandwidth, that should be delivered without interference or cost to Netflix.
Netflix/torrents just as examples, I rarely max out my incoming bandwidth for other than short bursts. But perhaps someone wants to pay for minimal bandwidth (1 Mbps), but still get good Netflix (3 Mbps) and VoIP service. Providers should be able to pay for that additional bandwidth as part of a competitive offering. Similarly with QoS even inside the bandwidth I buy - I'd like my VoIP service to be able to have better QoS treatment, so a phone call doesn't degrade when someone else downloads a file. If all packets are treated equally, that's impossible.
The key, it seems to me, is to find some way to ensure that ISPs don't simply overprice bandwidth to the consumer in order to force providers to pay to deliver their content outside the subscribed bandwidth, and therefore gain a competitive advantage for their own offerings.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
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/
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.