Federal Court Kills Net Neutrality, Says FCC Lacks Authority. 383
An anonymous reader writes "According to a report from Gizmodo, a U.S. Appeals Court has invalidated the FCC's Net Neutrality rules. From the decision: 'Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such. Because the Commission has failed to establish that the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules do not impose per se common carrier obligations, we vacate those portions of the Open Internet Order.' Could this be the final nail in the coffin for Net Neutrality? Or will the FCC fight back? This submitter really, really hopes they fight back..."
common carrier (Score:5, Insightful)
It's past time to just classify them as common carriers and stop trying to make an end-run around the rules.
Re:common carrier (Score:4, Interesting)
This always seemed like the obvious move.
Can someone explain why they didn't just do this instead? Does this classification require legislation or something?
Re:common carrier (Score:4, Interesting)
It isn't 100% clear that an ISP would have the authority to boot spammers if it was classified as a common carrier. They probably would but it isn't certain.
Re: (Score:2)
running robodialers gets you usually the boot... as seen on simpsons.
Re: (Score:3)
You could always throttle them down to 1byte/s =)
Re: (Score:2)
On better yet, 1 bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:common carrier (Score:4, Insightful)
No, actually that's the crux of the issue. Common carriers CAN'T fuck with the packages. Fedex isn't liable for all the crazy shit you ship through them and they can't fuck with your packages. They can't delay all packages sent from Texas because their legislaters aren't playing ball and they can't charge extra to deliver to abortion clinics because they're a common carrier. Fedex isn't hauled to court for drug dealers shipping drugs, or for game companies shipping brass knuckles to game reviewers in California.
Likewise if your ISP was a common carrier, it can't fuck with the messages just because they think JohnnyMcSpammalot is being obnoxious and loud. And that includes throttling.
And arguably can't perform any "quality of service". Then again, Fedex really does handle packages differently depending on where they're going, but it's cool because they're not dicks about it and they're just trying to do better business. If ISPs were upfront about their QoS, then they'd probably dodge that bullet too.
Re: (Score:3)
But doesn't e.g. FEDEX "throttle" packages by default? You have to pay extra to get express delivery.
Re:common carrier (Score:4, Interesting)
It isn't 100% clear that an ISP would have the authority to boot spammers if it was classified as a common carrier. They probably would but it isn't certain.
And you know what would happen then? The spammers would be prosecuted, because customers don't like being charged for bandwidth that wasn't desired or initiated by them. The current method of spam-fighting that involves the ISP having arbitrary power to boot whatever speech from its wires that it finds 'undesirable' is HORRIBLE from a global free speech perspective. If the situation you feared came about, the instant a few people saw a few dollars on their ISP bill due to bandwidth, or a flood of spam in their inbox due to this- the spammers would be _sought out and prosecuted as they always should have been_. The current method is like making it legal (or an unenforced law) to pollute chemicals into a river, since all the downstream water treatment plants can just filter out the pollution. The right thing to do is to go after the polluters to stop polluting, and not depend on the last mile infrastructure to mitigate the consequences of the core problem. And given the free speech issues at hand, it is all the worse doing things this way on the internet.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:common carrier (Score:5, Insightful)
Does this classification require legislation or something?
Hopefully. After all, bureaucrats shouldn't be able to just pass any regulations they feel like. Instead, they should be bound by the bills that the Congress passes and the President signs.
Likewise, the Courts should not invent new law based upon their own feelings of what's Right and Wrong, but on the actual text of Laws and the Constitution.
Re:common carrier (Score:5, Informative)
The legislation required was passed decades ago. The FCC has the authority to designate a communications service either a common carrier or an information service.
Re:common carrier (Score:5, Informative)
The FCC has the authority to designate a communications service either a common carrier or an information service. Reply to This Share
In the GENERAL case, yes. But Congress specifically exempted Internet businesses from Title II. It was one of the stupidest things Congress has ever done, and the decision was (of course) prompted by lobbyist money.
Re:common carrier (Score:5, Insightful)
Hence the court ruling that it was, in fact, not fair. Which is why the FCC should redefine Internet transit services (services which "connect" you to the Internet) as common carriers.
Re:common carrier (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:common carrier (Score:4, Insightful)
This always seemed like the obvious move.
Can someone explain why they didn't just do this instead? Does this classification require legislation or something?
They typical reason given is that they can't be classified as *BOTH* "common carrier" and "information service", and by virtue of using the same infrastructure and corporate entity for both sets of service, they get to be classified as one or the other, with different rules applied.
As a common carrier, they would be required to allow other cable providers to sell cable TV services over their physical infrastructure, and so they themselves have been objecting to reclassification, not just because of net neutrality, but as an anticompetition lockout.
Re:common carrier (Score:4, Informative)
Can someone explain why they didn't just do this instead? Does this classification require legislation or something?
They didn't do this because Congress explicitly exempted Internet businesses from Common Carrier classification (known as Title II).
The FCC has several times since tried to classify ISPs as common carriers, but Congress (almost certainly due to lobbying) has refused to allow it.
I definitely agree. Classifying ISPs as Title II Common Carriers would eliminate a great many of today's ills. It would just take enough people to badger Congress (or alternatively, a Congress with the cojones to stand up to lobbyists) to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's called "compromise". You have to do it to get anything done in DC. Nobody is king (except maybe those with deep pockets, who buy laws).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Obama administration doesn't compromise. They give ultimatums, and when they don't pass he circumvents the law by using executive orders.
Re: (Score:3)
How much Fox News do you watch a day? I just really like to gather data on that fact when I see such a polarized person.
How can you spot a liberal? They always go right to fox news.
Funny that it's at the supreme court [thehill.com] huh? And this isn't even the first time, it's the 6th or 7th time that his use of XO's to bypass the law has gone to court.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:common carrier (Score:4)
Re:Cable versus Broadcast (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That's how it was in the US back in the late 90's and early '00s. I remember seeing billboards everywhere when I was traveling, such as: DSL 6/1 for $9/mo, or 10/512 Cable for $19.95/mo from *dozens* of companies. What happened? Well those companies went tits up because back in '05ish the government scrapped regulation on selling the last mile. Similar to what we didn't have in Canada for a long time. You could only get broadband through the major players--or through local telcos who invested heavily in
Choice of providers? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a comment in the article stating that the court found the FCC regulations are not needed because consumers have a choice in broadband providers. That argument always make me shake my head. I have one broadband option - Comcast. Verizon FIOS isn't here. I suspect most people are actually in the same boat as me. There really is no viable broadband option to my local cable provider. Who/where are these people that have these so-called choices?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Choice of providers? (Score:5, Informative)
No, that's a franchise monopoly.
A natural monopoly isn't granted, it's simply the situation that occurs when economic factors hand such an advantage to incumbents that no other may effectively compete.
Franchise monopoly: City government goes to Big Cable Co and says 'you, and only you, are permitted to run cables in this city.'
Natural monopoly: Big Cable Co invests in a load of cable-laying. As they are the only choice, they secure every subscriber. When others wish to enter the market, they realize that they'd also have to spend just as much in cable-laying, but that everyone who wants internet service is already a Big Cable Co customer, and switching is a lot of trouble - there's no way they could make back the cost of digging up the roads and laying cable as a newcomer to the market.
Re:Choice of providers? (Score:4, Informative)
I cannot believe how common this misconception is. A franchise agreement CANNOT stop an over-builder. That would be a major violation of the constitution, particularly equal protection under the law. Such localities that have tried to do so have been sued into oblivion by the over-builder. Local government cannot legally exclude a public utility from using public ROW without violating equal protection. What a franchise agreement DOES do is streamline the process of building and installing. For example a general permit for construction is issued rather than requiring an separate construction permit for every day (or section) of work in the ROW.
So yes, the franchise agreement is a valuable commodity but it is NOT a prohibition on secondary providers using the ROW.
Re:Choice of providers? (Score:4, Informative)
I have exactly two options. AT&T (whose fastest speed in my area, last time I checked, was 6mbps) and Comcast, which is my only option for anything over 6mpbs.
So yeah, whole lotta competition to choose from.
Re:Choice of providers? (Score:4, Insightful)
At least it's some choice... the same ones I have. If I could half of comcast's speed from someone else, I'd be there - I already canned their asses for the lousy TV service I got, but if I want to work at home occasionally then I need better than what I can get from AT&T. Aside from them, there's satellite (really expensive and high latency), and nothing else.
As I mentioned in another post - I am Comcast's customer, not Netflix or Hulu or anybody else. I am the customer and if I am choosing to use the bandwidth that I paid for by using Netflix, then that's my prerogative. If Comcast has a problem with it, the problem is with me, not the content provider I chose.
Re: (Score:2)
Generally you need roughly at least 7 competitors to get decent choice, in my experience. Any fewer, and they mutually slack in order to mutually fleece customers.
Re:Choice of providers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe your area is too rural to support more than one broadband provider, just like it might be too rural to support more than one freeway, or gas station, or supermarket, or school. Some things are more economical in cities, so consider the lack of broadband providers one of the costs of living close to nature.
Or maybe your neighborhood signed a contract with a broadband provider that prevents others from competing. Such contracts ought to be illegal, but they aren't. Until the FCC makes such contracts illegal, if such a contract is in force in your community, you should lobby your community representative to end that contract.
Meanwhile, you're always free to setup a community broadband co-op. Just don't ask the city to pay for it or the incumbent communication company will have a fit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Choice of providers? (Score:4, Informative)
You have a choice, you can choose to move to where there is a different ISP.
Like Canada.
Re:Choice of providers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Many people either use a cellphone or use VOIP in some form or another. It's time to declare internet service providers a Public Utility and be done with it. You can't even effectively get a job anymore unless you have access to the internet! Even your cellphone is useless without the internet! How many people still pay their gas and electric bills through snail mail? Not many, I'll bet you. It's time!
Re: (Score:3)
It's dead (Score:2)
It's dead, it died years ago.
This page cannot be found (Score:5, Funny)
smallwebsite.ext cannot be found. Please verify you have bribed your ISP to allow access, and that you have typed the domain correctly.
If you are still having trouble, try being a larger corporation again later.
Free market.. (Score:5, Funny)
The free market, especially in the broadband sector, has shown time and again, across all state lines, through cities, and in local neighborhoods, to be a fair, equal-service provider to all customers.
When I had Cox Cable, and they were the only provider available other than Dial Up, i was treated with respect, my calls were answered promptly, and my network node was NOT overloaded for months.
As soon as Verizon FIOS moved in, however, it was hell. Prices doubled, speeds were cut to 1/5th what they used to be, and service calls took 2 weeks longer to get answers on...
I, for one, wish they'd bring back the monopoly carrier. At least then I was treated fairly. I mean, just look at what Google is doing -- they moved in, and prices went up 3-4x ! and the speeds are 10x slower!
Re:Free market.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I loved the sarcasm, it was not immediately obvious -- which is absolutely the best kind.
Granted, on a tech site full of Sheldons, it might be a good idea to throw in a [/sarcasm] at the end of the post ... just in case someone missed it.
Re: (Score:2)
That is another way to look at it. I think that's a fair point.
Well, there goes the internet as we knew it (Score:2)
Hello AOL days again.
My cynical take. (Score:5, Informative)
The FCC won't fight back, in fact this result was probably the intention along.
Prior to joining the FCC, Chairman Wheeler was Managing Director at Core Capital Partners, a venture capital firm investing in early stage Internet Protocol (IP)-based companies. He served as President and CEO of Shiloh Group, LLC, a strategy development and private investment company specializing in telecommunications services and co-founded SmartBrief, the internet’s largest electronic information service for vertical markets. From 1976 to 1984, Chairman Wheeler was associated with the National Cable Television Association (NCTA), where he was President and CEO from 1979 to 1984. Following NCTA, Chairman Wheeler was CEO of several high tech companies, including the first company to offer high speed delivery of data to home computers and the first digital video satellite service. From 1992 to 2004, Chairman Wheeler served as President and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA).
http://www.fcc.gov/leadership/tom-wheeler [fcc.gov]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
thanks obamacare
Re:My cynical take. (Score:4, Funny)
So he's saying and doing things to promote net neutrality, but you know that he secretly hates net neutrality because he worked in the telecom industry?
I know that Obama is secretly a Kenyan Muslim. He says he's not, but I know he is. It's all a big conspiracy.
ISPs were classified as an information service in 2003, long before this guy was involved.
Re: My cynical take. (Score:4, Interesting)
And my point is that your "cynical take" makes no sense. This decision is entirely based on the FCC and the courts declaring ISP information services, not common carriers, back in 2003.
What actions has Mr. Wheeler taken that are evidence of his secret loyalty to the telecom industry?
The FCC is screwed-up (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like this is a technicality because the FCC's rules are inconsistent with law. They need to fix them.
I am reposting this comment by "CakeStapler" from GizModo because it explains it well:
As we explain in this opinion, the Commission has established that section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 vests it with affirmative authority to enact measures encouraging the deployment of broadband infrastructure. The Commission, we further hold, has reasonably interpreted section 706 to empower it to promulgate rules governing broadband providers’ treatment of Internet traffic, and its justification for the specific rules at issue here—that they will preserve and facilitate the “virtuous circle” of innovation that has driven the explosive growth of the Internet—is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. That said, even though the Commission has general authority to regulate in this arena, it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates. Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such. Because the Commission has failed to establish that the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules do not impose per se common carrier obligations, we vacate those portions of the Open Internet Order.
(Emphasis mine)
So, the FCC will remove their exemption from treatment as common carriers, reenact the regulations, and there's nothing to see here. 20 minutes ago
Re: (Score:3)
Yet another government agency acting outside the law. Ho hum. Just a technicality.
Acting is accordance with the law is such a burden; when will our benevolent government overseers finally be free of it, once and for all?
Re: (Score:3)
So, the FCC will remove their exemption from treatment as common carriers, reenact the regulations, and there's nothing to see here
With Thomas Wheeler running the FCC? Good luck with that.
Well...... (Score:2)
The Internet was fun while it lasted....
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:See what happens when leftists are in Charge? (Score:4, Insightful)
As opposed to when the people on the right are left with their hands in the cookie jar ... Fraud, abuse of power, general asshatedness.
Sorry there, dumbass, but politicians of all stripes are douchebags.
The ones on the right just pander more to large corporations and their drinking buddies, to the detriment of all of us.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they just pander to *different* large corporations. Though there are plenty of areas pandered to by both.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:See what happens when leftists are in Charge? (Score:5, Informative)
In this case, Obama's FCC is fighting against Verizon and other telecom companies and defending net neutrality. But don't let basic facts right in front of your face influence your pre-prepared bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
Republican here Ralph Wiggam is righ- umm.. Correct. :)
One thing Obama's administration has gotten right is an FCC that is at least TRYING for net neutrality. I own stock in AT&T and think what they are Verizon are doing is a bunch of crap.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If Obama is a lefty, all of Europe is dark red with rampant communists.
Seems accurate and agrees with what's going on there.
Re: (Score:3)
Or probably closer to the truth, you think that you are a moderate but are really a leftist. That would make anyone to the right look extreme to you. Most people, including myself, see themselves as center moderates regardless of what they actually are.
Re:See what happens when leftists are in Charge? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:See what happens when leftists are in Charge? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, but the conservative's "free market" approach would also leave it up to companies to decide if they want to pollute, allow car dealers to lock out Tesla (because they don't want competition), absolve Monsanto from liability, further deregulate the financial industry to allow Wall Street to rob us like they were doing before the '08 meltdown, and further extending copyright.
In other words, more crony-capitalism where the rich are free to make backroom deals which benefit them, and which harm the rest of us, and the 'freedom' of the market mostly restricted to big players who paid off the politicians.
Re:See what happens when leftists are in Charge? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, this requires government interference with the free market (legislation against Tesla's business model). In a free market, Tesla could... *cough* MAR-KET freely to whomever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, by conservative lawmakers who claim to be proponents of a "free" market, when in fact they're in proponents of crony-capitalism.
In other words, the conservatives braying about a free market (which is a myth) are full of shit (which isn't a myth).
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
That's not true (nor is the AC response to your post). My initial knee jerk reaction was certainly that it's anti-business and over regulation (read that again - over regulation is a problem; regulation might be needed, but over-regulation is bad). But after giving it some thought, I am completely on board with the idea of net neutrality. I am my ISP's customer, not the content provider. If Netflix is using my ISP's bandwidth, it's because I, as the customer, requested it - and I'm paying for it. If my
Re: (Score:2)
This also assumes that there are choices. In my area, my choice for wired Internet (e.g. not cell provider) is Time Warner Cable. I could also get Verizon DSL, but Verizon has repeatedly shown that they want to ditch DSL as soon as possible so I don't see why I should go to a slower, older technology that the company wants to get rid of. Were Time Warner Cable to start anti-Net Neutrality actions (for example, slowing NetFlix to a crawl unless they paid TWC), I would have no options to switch.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Hey! Lefties are just as capable as righties. Sure, we might need special scissors, but, damn it, we're people too!
Re: (Score:2)
Breaking my no AC rule
I thought, like gingers, lefties have no soul?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: See what happens when leftists are in Charge? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:leftists.... (Score:4, Insightful)
We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share ... sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary – and that’s crazy. Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver, or less?
-- Ronald Reagan, 1985
These days a remark like that would get him labelled a "Leftist", if not worse.
Re:See what happens when leftists are in Charge? (Score:5, Informative)
Sigh... if only the 'lefty" judges assigned to this case hadn't AGREED WITH VERIZON...
Seriously, apparently the only dissenting opinion is from the Reagan appointee
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are no 'leftists' in US politics. You only have extreme right and moderate right, and there are very few of the latter.
True. What passes for left here is regarded as right of center in most countries.
What passes for far left is what most countries call "moderate".
Re:See what happens when leftists are in Charge? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit
there is no left in US
there is no left in US
there is no left in US
there is no left in US
there is no left in US
there is no left in US
there is no left in US
there is no left in US
there is no left in US
there is no left in US
there is no left in US
there is no left in US
there is no left in US
there is no left in US
there is no left in US
there is no left in US
there is no left in US
See? I *can* say "there is no left in US". And believe it or not, it's actually true. the
Re: See what happens when leftists are in Charge? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, they'll just gouge Netflix for a lot of money that could have been spent on content for us subscribers. The result is that the content cuts we've already started to see at Netflix will likely continue and get even worse.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think so. That only works if Netflix is willing to sit there and take it. The Netflix "content cuts" have been mostly old movies that people watch on DVD anyway and TV shows that are available elsewhere - aka stuff they weren't making money on anyway. But if it comes to outright gouging, and they decide to actually put up a fight, all they have to do is post one paragraph on the front page:
Net Neutrality was overturned by court ruling recently, and so we are being forced to pay exorbitant fees to the ISPs to stay in business. As a result, the second season of Orange is the New Black has been canceled, and Breaking Bad will no longer be available for streaming.
Instant pitchfork brigade.
Re: (Score:3)
Netflix, in its old life as a small Blockbuster-fighting DVD-maiing rebel is already dead, after a bout of insanity [huffingtonpost.com] in apparent pursuit of dark knowledge and money. Its current form, ostensibly an independent being but truly a zombie* raised by the vile magicks of Big Media, aims for exclusive deals with cable providers (who just happen to be ISPs) [sfgate.com] and to make its own content** as an excuse to lobby for tougher copyright [rt.com]. I would avoid touching the shambling corpse, lest you come down with something and b
Re:Net Neutrality was BAD. Full stop. (Score:5, Informative)
uh isp's were already throttling competing video services while not counting their own service against the throttle allowances.
that is quite simply the whole reason for the whole debate.
imagine if google as an isp would throttle netflix unusable and just allowing google video - or throttling bing search unusable. that's the scenario.
Re: (Score:2)
uh isp's were already throttling competing video services while not counting their own service against the throttle allowances.
WRONG.
ISP's were throttling ALL traffic equally, while sometimes offering local content that didn't get throttled BECAUSE IT WAS LOCAL.
Can you not understand why from a technical sense it is perfectly reasonable to offer local content unthrottled, when all content coming from external pipes has a cap?
That's just how networks work. Or it is until the government says you have to thro
Re:Net Neutrality was BAD. Full stop. (Score:4, Informative)
It was ALWAYS a tool to impose government control over the internet.
Yeah, it's not like the government had control over the Internet before. Except for:
- when it was run by the Department of Defense for the early part of its existence
- when it was opened up to the public by then-Senator Al Gore and placed under the jurisdiction of the FCC
- when they paid AT&T to build and improve the network
- when Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton tried to stop all Internet pornography
- when the FBI created Echelon under the Clinton administration
- when Admiral Poindexter started the Total Information Awareness project in 2001
- when the NSA cooperated with Google and AT&T and Verizon and a bunch of other major corporations to spy on everybody..
So clearly Net Neutrality was the thin wedge that was going to give government control of the Internet, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Many of those items on the list are indeed bad, so why are you pushing for yet ANOTHER example of the government trying to screw with our internet to add to the list?
You're misunderstanding the argument. Your reasoning appears to be:
1. If Net Neutrality is implemented, the government can control the Internet.
2. If the government can control the Internet, it can (unnamed sinister action).
My argument is this:
1. The government can control the Internet without Net Neutrality.
2. If the government can control the Internet, it can (unnamed sinister action).
3. Therefor, whether or not Net Neutrality is implemented has no bearing on whether the government can (unnamed sinister a
Re: (Score:2)
No Net neutrality was a actually good and is kind of the opposite of what you're saying.
The key is here:
'Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers'
The commission was corrupted by the RIAA/MPAA to make ISPs different to common carriers, as that makes them responsible for the actual data they pass. So now the RIAA/MPAA can act as the censors of the whole internet and make all ISPs have to prevent access to any d
Re: (Score:3)
You trolling me? Net Neutrality was preventative to say that it never stopped anything is like saying that stoplight never stopped anyone from T-boning someone. It didn't happen because the FCC didn't allow it to. I believe most if not all the major ISP's were hoping to have a tiered system and have been saying so for years. It's well documented their lobbying on the matter.
As for the Snowden bullshit do you think for a second that just by not having net neutrality corporations are not going to hand ove
Re: (Score:2)
There were NO problems before the FCC introduced the rule. How do you explain that Einstein?
Re: (Score:3)
There were also no problems while the FCC introduced the rule. So what is your point?
Do you know what the ISP's want to do? They want to make teirs for services like cable and have you pay extra for say streaming netflix services. They could block access to youtube unless you pay the bill.
So? That's how markets work you pay tolls to go places and you pay for goods and services.
What this ends up doing is hurting the openess of the internet. You are so worried about having gov. influence in your service t
So you want corporations to control the Internet? (Score:2)
Corporations are legal fictions that are run in the manner that the government allows them to be run. Is putting them in charge of the Internet better?
Two bad choices (Score:2)
"So you want corporations to control the Internet?"
Between them and the government, yes.
Because there is only ONE government. If you don't like it, too bad.
If a company operates in a way that you dislike - you use a different company. Unless of course, the government prevents you from having choice as they do with cable monopolies... But there's always DSL or even wireless options.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, you have a point. When I used to be a bit less mature, I would have swallowed it uncritically.
But now I am more persuaded by the counterpart. There are thousands of corporations, and not a single one of them is accountable to the public. It is REALLY too bad when all of them suck. Hopefully, the government you have IS accountable to the public. But if it is not, then how it mishandles the internet is far down the list of reasons it nee
Re:All corporations accountable to a degree (Score:5, Insightful)
Because there are alternatives for shopping. I have exactly 1 choice for high-speed Internet, Time Warner Cable. When they roll out their tiered Internet and I don't like it, what do you propose I do?
And if they were the only grocery store, you'd just cheerfully starve, right?
And when you grow up, you'll realize that this little theory only works if the customers have alternatives.
If you'd like an example: text messaging: It uses some empty space during the messages that a GSM phone has to send to the tower anyway. It costs the phone company virtually nothing (just the routing servers, which aren't pricey). Yet there are zero cell providers in the US that offer really "free" text messaging. All of them require paying more than "voice only" plans.
How about baggage fees on airlines? With every airline other than Southwest charging them, customers actually don't have alternatives.
And that doesn't even get into the situations where nominal competitors directly collude to screw over customers.
Re:The future... (Score:5, Insightful)
The future: broadband packages sold like cable packages.
Basic: $59.99/mo gets you the top 100 websites like whatismyip.com (with commercials inserted before your IP is finally revealed), comcast.com, nbc.com, and 80 other websites you've never heard of nor would ever visit. All with added commercial interstitials.
Friends and Family: $89.99 gets you the basic package plus access to twitter, myspace and livejournal so you can share your experiences on The Comasticnet with all of your friends. Every third post is replaced with an ad, and every morning you automatically tweet how Comcastic your day is.
Movie Watcher: $129.99 gets you the basic package plus access to nbc.com streaming*. You can buy the netflix channel for an additional $10/mo and youtube SD for $5/mo or HD (720p videos only) for $10/mo. As a special deal you can sign up for Movie Watcher and Friends and Family for a low introductory price of $150/mo (*: standard rates only allow 24 hours of video streaming per month. Additional programming charged at pay per view rates of $5/MB)
Re: (Score:2)
" Torrenting will be destroyed."
Perhaps, but I know a guy called Nigel who will let you borrow his four-terabyte hard drive.
Drive sizes are only going to improve.
Re: (Score:3)
The technology isn't the problem. It's immature, but the fundamentals are there and improvement is incremental from here on. The problem is node density. Go see if you can find three other people living within wireless range of your home who share your interest. It's statistically unlikely.