For many Americans -- particularly those who live in rural areas -- the future of the Internet lies in mobile services. But the draft Order would effectively permit Internet providers to block lawful content, applications, and devices on mobile Internet connections.
Mobile networks like AT&T and Verizon Wireless would be able to shut off your access to content or applications for any reason. For instance, Verizon could prevent you from accessing Google Maps on your phone, forcing you to use their own mapping program, Verizon Navigator, even if it costs money to use and isn't nearly as good. Or a mobile provider with a political agenda could prevent you from downloading an app that connects you with the Obama campaign (or, for that matter, a Tea Party group in your area).
It gets worse. The FCC has never before explicitly allowed discrimination on the Internet -- but the draft Order takes a step backwards, merely stating that so-called "paid prioritization" (the creation of a "fast lane" for big corporations who can afford to pay for it) is cause for concern.
It sure is -- but that's exactly why the FCC should ban it. Instead, the draft Order would have the effect of actually relaxing restrictions on this kind of discrimination.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-franken/the-most-important-free-s_b_798984.html?ir=Politics
Gotta love it. The death of Freedom of Speech.
So, no one has read it yet, but everyone know what it will say?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 20, 2010, 04:04:55 PM
So, no one has read it yet, but everyone know what it will say?
Sounds like someone has been talking..........
Later this week, the FCC is set to vote on net neutrality rules, which would prohibit Internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon from discriminating in how they handle information traveling over their networks. Both supporters and opponents of net neutrality are unhappy with the FCC's plan, some arguing it is toothless while others asserting that the rules will stifle innovation. Al Franken called the draft regulations "worse than nothing," while McDowell accused FCC leadership of tackling an "imaginary problem."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/20/fcc-commissioner-net-neut_n_798998.html
More data on the issue. Still no copy of the regulation itself though.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/obama-fcc-caves-on-net-ne_b_799435.html
Brb learning to TOR
I'm going to wait till I actually get to see the rules to claim the sky is falling.
I do want to know why they haven't shown the public the legislation yet though. Isn't Obama even pretending to have transparent government anymore?
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 21, 2010, 02:53:13 AM
I'm going to wait till I actually get to see the rules to claim the sky is falling.
I do want to know why they haven't shown the public the legislation yet though. Isn't Obama even pretending to have transparent government anymore?
I dont think Obama cares about appeasing the masses anymore.
But some FCC members said the regulations, which won't be fully public for at least a few days after the vote, are an important first step for the government.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/20/AR2010122005769.html?hpid=topnews
Why can't we see the regs now? What happened to transparancy? :argh!:
The white house stopped doing that at least a week into the new administration.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 21, 2010, 03:10:34 PM
The white house stopped doing that at least a week into the new administration.
Oh snap, forgot about that.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 21, 2010, 02:53:13 AM
transparent government
Government you can see right through?
Quote from: Cain on December 21, 2010, 04:44:33 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 21, 2010, 02:53:13 AM
transparent government
Government you can see right through?
But...but...WE WERE PROMISED DAMMIT! :horrormirth:
Quote from: Cain on December 21, 2010, 04:44:33 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 21, 2010, 02:53:13 AM
transparent government
Government you can see right through?
:mittens:
Needs to somehow be made into a newsfeed.
WE WERE PROMISED A TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT THAT WE COULD SEE RIGHT THROUGH. OBAMA DELIVERED.
I'm torn on this.
On the one hand I am and always have been an avid supporter of no preferential traffic on the net. I've been on the net since 89 and to give preferential treatment would fundamentally change the entire concept of the internet.
On the other hand, wireless broadband is from a technical standpoint currently drowning in streaming video, to the point that there's some real risk to actual phone service. Cellular networks simply cannot keep up with the current wireless/mobile device usage. The network was never designed to facilitate web surfing, let alone streaming internet radio... and certainly the engineers never thought that someone would try to watch a 90 minute streaming video on their cell phone.
This new FCC ruling is a confused batch of nonsense... trying, IMO to address both of these issues.
According to what scant information we have... the FCC ruling will bar ISP's from limiting bandwidth for specific services, using QoS routing for specific sites or slow delivery of packets for any web service. This is basically what we wanted in net neutrality. Your provider cannot say "Well, we're gonna block torrents" or "We give preferred traffic access to Fox, but low access to Alternet, cause Fox paid us". Depending on how the order is written, this may well be a Good Thing.
The bad thing is that Wireless has different rules. IE, if you use VoIP, Streaming Video etc. on your phone or iPad your Service Provider could charge you more, than if you just surfed the web and checked email. They could even choose to block services like YouTube, unless they were allowing a competing product.
And this may be a bad thing, because more and more people access the net via wireless. However, from a technical position... this is a very good thing. The number of new wireless devices coming online, using broadband services are seriously impacting the wireless network. At some point in the near future, making a phone call may be difficult, because everyone else is watching Lord of the Rings on their new G2. This is really the part that I struggle with.
The primary purpose of the wireless cellular network is for voice service, should we allow streaming video to impact the availability of the networks primary purpose? Or should we allow people completely unfettered access to do whatever they want, even if it seriously impacts other users ability to make phone calls? We're already seeing local networks bomb under heavy load (Washington DC in the run up to the Obama Inauguration, for example).
I think it will heavily depend on exactly what is in the FCC ruling. Its a weird balance issue and not simply "THEY WANT TO CONTROL MY INTERNETS!!" (though depending on the actual ruling... it may be headed that way).
Interesting.
I'm not up on mobile phones and the internet (unsurprising, since I own an 8 year old Nokia model), but do mobile phones use the same wireless infrastructure as, say, wireless laptops? So if you were using a wireless connection at home to watch Youtube clips of Glee all night long, would this ruling affect you the same as if you did it on your iPhone?
Quote from: Cain on December 21, 2010, 05:27:59 PM
Interesting.
I'm not up on mobile phones and the internet (unsurprising, since I own an 8 year old Nokia model), but do mobile phones use the same wireless infrastructure as, say, wireless laptops? So if you were using a wireless connection at home to watch Youtube clips of Glee all night long, would this ruling affect you the same as if you did it on your iPhone?
Yes, they use the same transponders from the satellites. There are plenty of transponders that could be opened up but are being held in reserve.
Quote from: Cain on December 21, 2010, 05:27:59 PM
Interesting.
I'm not up on mobile phones and the internet (unsurprising, since I own an 8 year old Nokia model), but do mobile phones use the same wireless infrastructure as, say, wireless laptops? So if you were using a wireless connection at home to watch Youtube clips of Glee all night long, would this ruling affect you the same as if you did it on your iPhone?
If you are using a 3G or 4G AirCard, then yes, it works just like your cell phone. Of course, if you're using 802.11 wireless ethernet (via a local router) then that's not on the cell network. All iPads for example can talk on 802.11 and they work at Starbucks etc. If you buy the 3G enabled iPad, then it can also talk on AT&T's 3G cellular network.
If you have the new G2 smartphone from t-mobile, it communicates on the same network that your 8 year old Nokia from t-mobile uses AND the same network that your laptop with the t-mobile card/dongle uses. It now support 4G speeds (which is really about the bandwidth between the device and the tower), but its the same backbone and network getting munched.
Here's the thing: ETS, a so-called "non-profit" organization, prizes its tests and their confidentiality not just for CHEATING's sake but also for competition's sake. Any person rating their material in a non-secure connection is subject to dismissal and eventual termination. You have to be in a secure internet environment, not in a hotel, not at an internet cafe, etc. They also don't want you using digital internet phone service, either, you must also have a landline or a cell phone separately.
Isn't ATT waiting on a nice chunk of the wireless spectrum?
The same company that has quota payrates?
And that 90% of people don't use over 2 gigs
4g is a myth, normal traffic... just compressed
Quote from: Able on December 21, 2010, 07:35:47 PM
4g is a myth, normal traffic... just compressed
Yes... which is why I said its on the same network taking up the same backbone. Its just the bit between the phone and tower that is "4G".
Just saying the committee that usually decides the standards for these thing didn't
What I really want to know, is whether these rules will allow the telcoms to ignore existing contractual obligations. I don't really see what the net neutrality advocates are claiming being possible, the business partners of the last mile providers will flip their shit if AT&T et al really tried to pull that (they do it to Level 3 all the time, because Level 3 tries to pull shit), but if the FCC is passing rules that lets AT&T ignore its contracts with the other backbone providers it becomes a very real possibility.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 21, 2010, 08:32:50 PM
What I really want to know, is whether these rules will allow the telcoms to ignore existing contractual obligations. I don't really see what the net neutrality advocates are claiming being possible, the business partners of the last mile providers will flip their shit if AT&T et al really tried to pull that (they do it to Level 3 all the time, because Level 3 tries to pull shit), but if the FCC is passing rules that lets AT&T ignore its contracts with the other backbone providers it becomes a very real possibility.
Err... the 'last mile' generally refers to landline. As far as the rumors go, landline Internet (Cable, DSL, Satellite, dial-up) would NOT be allowed to block services, do QoS routing based on backroom deals or anything like that. It would ONLY be the wireless providers that could refuse to provide access to specific internet services/websites.
So AT&T DSL can't block, but AT&T Wireless Network can.
I think... based on rumor.
It pisses me off more that we don't even get to see this new rule until after it goes into effect.
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 21, 2010, 09:36:16 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 21, 2010, 08:32:50 PM
What I really want to know, is whether these rules will allow the telcoms to ignore existing contractual obligations. I don't really see what the net neutrality advocates are claiming being possible, the business partners of the last mile providers will flip their shit if AT&T et al really tried to pull that (they do it to Level 3 all the time, because Level 3 tries to pull shit), but if the FCC is passing rules that lets AT&T ignore its contracts with the other backbone providers it becomes a very real possibility.
Err... the 'last mile' generally refers to landline. As far as the rumors go, landline Internet (Cable, DSL, Satellite, dial-up) would NOT be allowed to block services, do QoS routing based on backroom deals or anything like that. It would ONLY be the wireless providers that could refuse to provide access to specific internet services/websites.
So AT&T DSL can't block, but AT&T Wireless Network can.
I think... based on rumor.
It pisses me off more that we don't even get to see this new rule until after it goes into effect.
Me too. It's bullshit.
What did you expect? A democracy of informed citizens?
Quote from: Sigmatic on December 21, 2010, 09:58:25 PM
What did you expect? A democracy of informed citizens?
You think this is a free country? HA!
Assange should be happy with this. /sarcasm/
President Barack Obama, in a written statement, called the rules an important part of his administration's goal of advancing "American innovation, economic growth and job creation."
"Today's decision will help preserve the free and open nature of the Internet while encouraging innovation, protecting consumer choice, and defending free speech," Obama said.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/12/21/fcc.net.neutrality/index.html?hpt=T1
Why does he even say those things? He's not telling us a damn thing. When politicians start with the whole "innovation, freedom, good stuff, et cetera", I just hear "We have control. We keep you safe." over and over.
Quote from: Sigmatic on December 21, 2010, 10:56:21 PM
Why does he even say those things? He's not telling us a damn thing. When politicians start with the whole "innovation, freedom, good stuff, et cetera", I just hear "We have control. We keep you safe." over and over.
Did you see the part where you are a 'consumer'? Language sure does change when its not an election year.
Unnnngg.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/fcc-priority-access-deals-unlikely-to-get-past-new-open-internet-rules.ars
Quotethe FCC's new rules forbid Internet providers from blocking lawful content and they require transparency from ISPs. They also require that network management and packet discrimination to be "reasonable," but that only applies to wireline broadband. Wireless operators gets a free pass on rationality; they're limited only to the transparency and blocking provisions.
Some quotes from the order in that article as well.
The new rules were apparently published 2 days *after* this was approved (again, wtf?). Reading them now.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.pdf