Slashdot Mirror
FCC Rescinds Claim That AT&T, Verizon Violated Net Neutrality (arstechnica.com)
jriding writes: The Federal Communications Commission's new Republican leadership has rescinded a determination that ATT and Verizon Wireless violated net neutrality rules with paid data cap exemptions. The FCC also rescinded several other Wheeler-era reports and actions. The FCC released its report on the data cap exemptions (aka "zero-rating") in the final days of Democrat Tom Wheeler's chairmanship. Because new Chairman Ajit Pai opposed the investigation, the FCC has now formally closed the proceeding. The FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau sent letters to ATT, Verizon, and T-Mobile USA notifying the carriers "that the Bureau has closed this inquiry. Any conclusions, preliminary or otherwise, expressed during the course of the inquiry will have no legal or other meaning or effect going forward." The FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau also sent a letter to Comcast closing an inquiry into the company's Stream TV cable service, which does not count against data caps. The FCC issued an order that "sets aside and rescinds" the Wheeler-era report on zero-rating. All "guidance, determinations, and conclusions" from that report are rescinded, and it will have no legal bearing on FCC proceedings going forward, the order said. ATT and Verizon allow their own video services (DirecTV and Go90, respectively) to stream on their mobile networks without counting against customers' data caps, while charging other video providers for the same data cap exemptions. The FCC under Wheeler determined that ATT and Verizon unreasonably interfered with online video providers' ability to compete against the carriers' video services.
Well, gentleman, we've been sold out.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Agreed. This is a sad first turn -- Trump's FCC may as well have sent a letter to the major ISPs saying "Hunting season on American Internet consumers is open! No tag limit!"
I was very skeptical when Wheeler was appointed to chair the FCC, given his corporate background, but he ended up being one of the most consumer-focused and practically progressive people in Obama's government.
And now? May as well say goodbye to net neutrality.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
they are changing their name to the Ministry of Communication.
Do we start peering a new Internet to steer around The Matrix? Routers of The World Unite? Or worse.. HAM radios and QPSK modulators? One can only hope it won't to that point. We shall see.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have backups to corrupt.
You numpty. How else are you going to "go about" net neutrality without regulation?
There has never been any net neutrality "legislation". It's only been regulation. If you can't even get the basic facts straight, you should stay out of this discussion.
Who are these "economists" who felt net neutrality was unnecessary and counter-productive?
Say, are you having Kellyanne Conway write your Slashdot posts now?
You are welcome on my lawn.
You could certainly achieve net neutrality without regulating it. It's fairly simple, and many other countries have done it, by making sure that there is competition in the internet service provider space, and breaking up the monopoly/duopoly structure.
And yet, the self-proclaimed champions of the free market haven't done jack squat to try to put that into effect, and are instead happy to proclaim that the status quo of third-world internet service and bloated profits from rent-seeking monopolists is the "free market" at work, and needs to be defended against those evil leftists. In short, denying that there's any problem at all, instead of offering up alternate/better solutions.
Dr. Mark Jamison is multiple economists in one body? I wonder if he knows? Thank you for sharing this obviously true fact from your amazing internet resource! Hope they make enough money to pay your internet provider for you to be able to continue reading their articles, or you may not be able to reach them for much longer. The website I work for is one piece of proof for that point. I've been there 18 years and I like the work. I'm the third most senior person in the company. But I'm also a single dad, already make little enough that I'll likely never afford to buy a new car, can barely afford upkeep on my 1970s house, never take a vacation and don't expect ever to be able to retire. If we have to start paying for access to our readers, the well will dry up overnight and I'll find myself without a job and with no safety rope. And the millions of readers who value our content will suddenly find it gone. I can't make less than I do now and get by, full stop. That the leader of the USA now wants to help Comcast and their ilk do that to me tells me everything I need to know about Donald Trump and his government, not to mention the Republican party.
As they defend anything the cheeto insurgent does. Oh, you cry about Democrats, the corruption and how they forget the little guy, and give your vote to the guy that was already price checking stuff like this for his corporate buddies during the campaign. But this is really what you wanted, isn't it? As long as you can fuck over the liberals in your head, as long as you can stomp on people that do nothing to you, you will readily sell down the river all the principles you claimed to stand for here on Slashdot. Net neutrality? Fuck that! Who cares about that nerd shit as long as Trump does the MAGA song and dance?
You certainly don't. And we are paying for your incompetence as voters.
Perhaps the best compromise is to allow differential treatment of TYPES of packets / packet streams, but not allow differential treatment of packets /streams FROM particular source IPs / identities / organizations nor allow differential treatment of packets / streams TO particular IPs / identities / organizations.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
> Huh? We haven't HAD net neutrality regulations "all these years"
We had it until 2005 when the SCOTUS ruled in Brand X that the republican-controlled FCC could reclassify ISPs as "information services" instead of "communications services." Which promptly killed all of those companies like Mindspring that relied on the right to lease telco lines. So lack of net neutrality basically killed competition in the ISP business.
Trump begins to prove he is just another liar in office.
The whole reason the republican party is so willing to tolerate his bullshit theatrics is that his actual policies are a wet dream come true for the people who have been fertilizing the swamp. They are letting coal mines pollute streams again, repealing laws that protect grandmothers from being ripped off by "financial planners." And reducing the safeguards on the kind of real-estate bank lending that caused the housing meltdown. Its open season on the little guy like never before.
Are you mad? There hasn't been any improvements to infrastructure because Republicans refuse to pay for anything. They have been actively been working against the executive branch for 8 years precisely so that you can make the above statement. They controlled the purse. If they had worked with the President we would have seen something. The Republicans are not set up to legislate anything, instead, you see Trump talking about toll roads, so yes, you will see infrastructure but likely given to private parties in which you will be paying tolls on. In fact, I will bet you, your taxes won't be going down anytime soon either, but a lot of things are going to be expensive.
In theory, you can have the general concept of network neutrality, and also have QoS.
In practice you can too. Net neutrality is about the source of the data. QoS is about the content. They are very easily distinguished by law.