FCC Struggles To Convince Judge That Broadband Isn't 'Telecommunications' (arstechnica.com) 203
A Federal Communications Commission lawyer faced a skeptical panel of judges on Friday as the FCC defended its repeal of net neutrality rules and deregulation of the broadband industry. From a report: FCC General Counsel Thomas Johnson struggled to explain why broadband shouldn't be considered a telecommunications service, and struggled to explain the FCC's failure to protect public safety agencies from Internet providers blocking or slowing down content. Oral arguments were held on Friday in the case, which is being decided by a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Throttling of firefighters' data plans played a major role in today's oral arguments.
Of the three judges, Circuit Judge Patricia Millett expressed the most skepticism of Johnson's arguments, repeatedly challenging the FCC's definition of broadband and its disregard for arguments made by public safety agencies. She also questioned the FCC's claim that the net neutrality rules harmed broadband investment. Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins also expressed some skepticism of FCC arguments, while Senior Circuit Judge Stephen Williams seemed more amenable to FCC arguments.
Of the three judges, Circuit Judge Patricia Millett expressed the most skepticism of Johnson's arguments, repeatedly challenging the FCC's definition of broadband and its disregard for arguments made by public safety agencies. She also questioned the FCC's claim that the net neutrality rules harmed broadband investment. Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins also expressed some skepticism of FCC arguments, while Senior Circuit Judge Stephen Williams seemed more amenable to FCC arguments.
Pass a law (Score:1)
Re:Pass a law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"Just pass a law" is a lot tougher than "random employee of major telcom makes a decision while taking a poop".
Sometimes the needful is hard. We need a law because anything less is trivial to change, and fuck us over again.
Wow (Score:2)
Is someone paying anti-NN trolls to mod down comments here, or what?
You fight on every front you can (Score:3)
The existing laws are there, use them. You just need to vote for people who will enforce them. Fight to win or get ready to lose... everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Where and when do you believe the free market has been tried in last-mile broadband?
Re: (Score:2)
Columbus, OH, kind of. We have two providers (Spectrum & WOW) both with their own set of wires. We'll never get more than two, though. It's not worth it to build out the infrastructure and convince people to switch.
Re: (Score:2)
The "free market" doesn't work in this case.
You mean, "We don't have a free market in this case". Telcos exploit government regulation to prevent competition. If you and I could just switch ISPs on a whim there would be no need for regulation, except perhaps to protect whistleblowers from corporate retaliation.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you hate toilets so much? Do you need some stronger medicine?
Re: (Score:3)
Competing in mobile requires the purchase of spectrum and building cell towers on a few select sites. Competing in broadband has huge right-of-way and construction costs associated with it. The spectrum is sold by the Federal government. The hard-line side of things is controlled by every individual municipality out there (along with right of ways along interstates or other routes for the fiber connecting you to the big players. And really, even in mobile there aren't that many competitors in many markets
Re: (Score:2)
Once you start running internet over a cable system, you're at the mercy of the cable system for what they decide to upgrade in order to offer anything faster or whether they even want to serve an area.
I can see houses that have cable service from my driveway, but TWC (at the time, now Spectrum) wanted $26,000 to install at my house from the *opposite* direction. I passed.
Luckily, the phone company (coop) where I live installed a crap ton of fiber to replace their aging copper, and now I get rock solid 4 Mbits (with up to 1 Gbit available) for the same price I used to pay for flaky DSL. Most people are not that fortunate.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Competition? In 10 years we've gone from 5 major cellular providers in the US to 4 (soon to be 3 since the Sprint and Verizon merger has been approved). If the government hadn't prevented one other merger, it would likely be 2.
dial up internet (Score:3, Insightful)
the Internet ran over Dial-up phones (telecom) and now phones run over the internet. And I'm communicating with you at a distance electronically. Tele-com.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not true. Agencies cannot change regulations for ideological reasons alone - they need to provide some justification. That's why Scott Pruitt was so incompetent at the EPA... he overturned a bunch of rules but with no legal basis. That's why they're being fought over in court.
Also, the FCC is always 3-2 politically (by law).
Re: (Score:2)
The agencies do not have legislative power, and yet presidents campaign as if they do because they make promises that technically can't be kept without either assistance or non-action by congress and the courts. None of these agencies would ever have existed without congressional action in the first place, and their mission is usually spelled out in law. Of course elections have become nothing more than popularity contests based upon good versus evil rhetoric rather than campaigns based on actually governi
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, over the last several decades congress has allowed the executive branch to acquire more power with less oversight. If congress and the president are from the same party, then congress is extremely reluctant to say no, but worse they also have a tendency to hand over extra powers under the mistaken idea that their party will never lose power.
Yes, technically congress has similar powers as the executive it's just that they don't use it much. Voters often don't care because they seem to often
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More new political NN laws to replace past NN rules could result in the same monopoly networks getting more protection from any new competition under new federal laws.
Re:Pass a law (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, especially when the choice is laws or Madmax, because that's what you get without laws.
Re: Pass a law (Score:2)
Let's not have any laws then.
Bad analogy (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly, I can get pretty pissy about government overreach, but this isn't that.
The war on drugs was doomed to failure from inception because they were trying to legislate a morality that most Americans are ambivalent about or are actively in disagreement with. Over half of all Americans are (or were willing to be temporarily) on the illegal side of that war: https://www.drugabuse.gov/publ... [drugabuse.gov]
Consequently, the LEAs wound up in a game of whack-a-mole, where they arrest a dealer and a new one pops up in his place before he gets arraigned. And, as an ex-con, I'm here to tell you that they are good at arresting dealers. I met a lot of drug dealers inside. Of course, for a lot of cops, this is just job security, so they don't really mind.
NN is different because the number of offenders is vastly smaller and the violations are exponentially harder to hide (this is the problem with crimes that actually have victims). Additionally, because the network operators' money is actually already in the banking system, they have much more to lose.
As to whether we fare better behind NN regulation or NN law, I don't know. Legislation is probably less prone to abuse, but it is also much slower to respond to changing market conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
lol! You mad, bro?
Re:Pass a law (Score:5, Insightful)
Laws are government force enforced with violence.
Is this what you really want?
Yes, that is what I want.
Some entity MUST be the "ultimate authority" and have a monopoly on the use of force. That's the way governments work unless you're a libertarian living in la-la land.
Would you rather that your heavily-armed, meth-smoking neighbor to be the decider of who gets to do what?
Re: (Score:3)
They are a libertarian, and so they believe in magic.
Re:Pass a law (Score:4)
They are a libertarian, and so they believe in magic.
And they can't even agree on a definition of "magic".
Poll 500 libertarians and you'll get 500 definitions of what a "libertarian" is.
Re: (Score:2)
have a monopoly on the use of force
The government has a monopoly on premeditated force. I can act with legal force for defense as an example.
Re: (Score:2)
The government has a monopoly on premeditated force. I can act with legal force for defense as an example.
What's your point?
Re: (Score:2)
A single entity isn't required to have a monopoly of force and in fact the government doesn't have a monopoly of force. What you said was factually wrong and I pointed it out.
Re: (Score:2)
A single entity isn't required to have a monopoly of force
It does if it wants to act as the government with the authority to carry out its duties.
the government doesn't have a monopoly of force.
Well they pretty much do. Look around. Who else is legally allowed to roll a tank and a SWAT team up to your house extract you, or pull you over for speeding, or decide who gets the child in a divorce? Who else is legally allowed to use coercion to administer or enforce these actions?
We're not talking personal interactions, like if someone tried to mug you.
We're talking about an entity with the sole legal right to adjudi
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is. Consider though, the corporations that would be regulated only exist because that same government granted their charter. If government butts out entirely, they cease to exist and their limited liability becomes full personal liability. Sound good?
Re: Pass a law (Score:4, Informative)
Really? Neither the dictionary [oxforddictionaries.com] nor the Telecommunications Act [fcc.gov] have such a narrow defintion:
Re: (Score:2)
Um. I don't think you understand how to read laws or how they are applied if you reference a "purpose" to understand a definition. Nothing in that first section is a definition that will be used by the courts, regulators, or lawyers to understand the term "telecommunications". "Communication by wire and radio" doesn't tell you how or what. That first section is a statement of purpose. What is the intent of this law. If you notice in court proceedings they will muse about what the legislature was thinking an
Re: (Score:2)
I find it incredibly sad we live in a world where lobbyists have to be told what "tele" and "communication" mean.
FTFY
Re: Pass a law : a federal statute (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a young country, but it's not THAT young. The classic definition is long-distance communication.
The Constitution of 1776 put all the known channels of telecommunication (post offices, post roads, and navigable waterways) firmly in federal control, so that states and local for-profit enterprises couldn't interfere.
The office of Postmaster General pre-dates those of Chief Justice, President, Senator, and Representative. Communication was too important, back then, to be delayed; it still is.
Re: Pass a law (Score:5, Informative)
Why didn't she do it when Democrats were in control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency?
Because the Republicans filibustered everything almost never let anything come to the floor for a vote.
They hated Obama with a passion that went beyond rational thought and fucktards like Mitch McConnell were willing to wreck the legislative process in order to frustrate anything he did.
Mitch McConnell is a genuine impediment to democracy- his bushwacking of the Merrick Garland appointment (for example) is a clear demonstration that he's using his power as a sword instead of a shield.
From Mitch's own mouth: "One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.'"
Is that how government is supposed to work?
Re: Pass a law (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that how government is supposed to work?
No, it's really not, and those of us who don't live in the US are a bit worried how you guys have sunk so low so fast.
At some point one of your political parties decided that winning was more important than anything else, and stopped governing in a responsible manner.
They are supported by a bunch of fools like the A/C above, who think that:
High time for Trump's executive branch to apply Andrew Jackson's words: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.
is a reasonable way to run a country.
Re: Pass a law (Score:5, Informative)
At some point one of your political parties decided that winning was more important than anything else, and stopped governing in a responsible manner.
Exactly. In the 1960s the Republicans adopted what was called the "Southern Strategy [wikipedia.org]", which "refers to a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans."
Basically the GOP, primarily composed of racist goobers who wanted to live in 1863 rather than 1963, threw in their lot with older white men and religious people, both of whom were on average much more racist than the rest of the country. They hitched their wagon to a dimming star as America inevitably became (becomes) more racially diverse. "Segregation now, segregation forever!" was one of their rallying cries. (Look up "Governor George Wallace" for an example.)
Except their target audience was literally dying off and not being replaced, and the GOP became more and more desperate to hold on to whatever was left of a shrinking base.
Eventually they realized that counting on just white men to vote in sufficient numbers was a losing game- they were going to be a minority as the country matured...and so they threw out their morals, ethics, sense of fair play, and honesty because that was literally the only way they could remain in the game. "Cheat cheat cheat" was the name of the game. Voter suppression and gerrymandering are the province of the GOP/Republicans, and while it occurs on the left, it's a fraction of what occurs on the right. This is a fucking fact although I'm sure many here will dispute it.
So to boil it down, the entire country swerved out from under them, moving toward the left, while at the same time the GOP was veering madly to the right. It's why they're so out of touch with the average American. The GOP became irrelevant in the 1970s and early 80s and have remained so ever since. They've become "The Party of No" because that's about all that they know how to do anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
During the recent unpleasantness with the Japanese, my Grandmother lived in a town which had something like 500,000 of your marines come through on R&R.
She, like most of the women of the town made some money doing their laundry, and she was hugely impressed by what a marvelous bunch of young men they were.
That is the reputation Americans have where I live, honest, brave and hardworking. I hope your government don't spoil that, but I can't
Re: (Score:3)
That is the reputation Americans have where I live, honest, brave and hardworking.
I think that generally speaking, most Americans are decent people who don't agree with the tone and actions of the current administration. But this administration's actions are destroying many of the core values that the majority of American hold, and it may take decades to repair the damage.
And yet his goober-brained followers hoot and holler and gleefully applaud the destruction of the very things that has made this country such an amazing place.
The text below explains in part why they're so partisan and
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Be careful to make sure you don't just feel that way because you don't like "the other side" - there's plenty of dirty pool being played by both parties.
Remember that McConnell was able to partially justify that horse shit behind a floor speech made by the Chairman of the Judicial Committee in 1992 - one Senator Joseph Biden from Connecticut.
Remember that the Constitution requires "advise and consent" of the Senate for bench appointments, which was technically fulfilled - the Majority Leader advised that th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Be careful to make sure you don't just feel that way because you don't like "the other side" - there's plenty of dirty pool being played by both parties.
Stop with the false equivalency- the GOP and Republicans do this so often and so regularly that they've practically made it into an art form.
Yes, shit goes on with the Democrats too, but the Republicans have been the masters of dirty tricks, voter suppression, and gerrymandering for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
If he said that to Andrew Jackson, he'd have dragged his butt out back to the Rose Garden, pistols at 20 paces.
Justice done.
Re: Pass a law (Score:2)
A lot of crap happened since 2008 that made it important.
Re: (Score:2)
High time for Trump's executive branch to apply Andrew Jackson's words: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."
I......don't think that was a great example of what a president should do.
Re: (Score:2)
That is so patently untrue that I wonder how you can say it without blushing, or are you blushing?
Obama had not only control of the three branches of government during the first two years of his presidency, he had two thirds of the senate, which means for the first time in a century he actually had enough votes, with only Democrats to override a filibuster and force closure on a bill, which is how we got Obamacare, since not a single Republican voted for it.
Obama didn't do it during that time because he spe
Ajit Pai needs to be replaced (Score:5, Insightful)
Ajit Pai needs to be replaced. Does he know what voice over IP is? That's not a category of telecommunications? Does Pai know what Whatsapp and Skype do?
At one time, we used analog modems at 300 baud over a copper land line. That was telecommunications. Now we use fiber optic cable and much faster digital modems. That's telecommunications using a 7 layer stack.
Hello, Mr. Pai. Maybe people on the other side of the world use smoke signals. Not here. Get with the times.
Re:Ajit Pai needs to be replaced (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
one day you will wake up stuck in an ISP walled garden like AOL, paying extra to reach the outside.
You do realize that's what the government's brand of Net Neutrality will bring us? Versus actual plain old network neutrality, which is good and what everyone wants.
Go read the actual rules. It opens the door wide for ISPs to legally censor any content they want. It was written by the media, Hollywood, and the telecoms, and this dog and pony show about repealing it (Note: it never got implemented in the first place so there was nothing to repeal) got everyone to buy into it hook, line and sinker. Think of o
Re: (Score:3)
We'd only get another industry Gumby in place of Ajit from this administration.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
>Hello, Mr. Pai
No talking to Shit Pai. Time of talk has passed.
There is a reason why he is one of the most heavily guarded government pieces of shit nowadays. He is single most hated person in the country.
It is time to by pass the ISP's (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's of minimal help. If you have any experience with satellite internet you know how much it sucks. Latency is a bitch.
Re: (Score:2)
That and not every one is playing online games like you and me. Or what ever low latency protocols you are using... If the ISP's are disrupting Internet games then you are SOL.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably twice that (you need to go both up and down). Still not too bad.
Re:It is time to by pass the ISP's (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm on a LTE connection, a type of wireless. I get about 75 ms to a location 50 miles away. It's hard to imagine how it'll do a third of that when traveling hundreds of miles and still having to convert the signal at the endpoints.
>speedtest-cli
Retrieving speedtest.net configuration...
Testing from Telus Communications (209.52.xxx.xxx)...
Retrieving speedtest.net server list...
Selecting best server based on ping...
Hosted by Tech Futures Interactive Inc. (Burnaby, BC) [20.74 km]: 77.833 ms
Re: (Score:2)
Long-distance packets usually travel via fiber, which only transmit signals at 0.7x the speed of light (due to internal bouncing). Beaming it to an orbital relay at 1.0x the speed of light could thus be faster. Optical switches need to convert the optical signal at the endpoints as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't expect too much if you're interested in gaming.
Re: (Score:2)
Latency is indeed a bitch. But Musk's proposed satellites will be in much lower orbits than geosynchronous satellites. Result: much lower latency. My cocktail napkin (which isn't always right) says maybe 5 to 10 ms added to whatever pings one would experience from a wired connection. As with many of Musk's notions, there are a bunch of other potential problems, and I'm skeptical that Musk-net will ever be deployed or will work all that well if it is. But if it does come about, latency may not be a major
Re: (Score:2)
It's a big problem for gaming or ssh sessions, and for pathetically poorly designed sites that require a bunch of back-and-forth with AJAX to fill in a page
The problem is that's most sites now. Even loads of blogs which are basically static text and images won't even render anythng without JavaScript. Naturally, the promise of AJAX (that it would make everything faster because there was no need to fetch whole pages) never panned out.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that's most sites now. Even loads of blogs which are basically static text and images won't even render anythng without JavaScript.
Yeah, it's definitely a lot of them. UPS leaps to mind. Their site takes ages to load on our satellite connection. USPS, on the other hand, pops up in a reasonably prompt fashion. How strange to see USPS be more competent than UPS...
Re: (Score:2)
Not in my experience. I've had crushed rolls of drawings with tire prints delivered to my office by UPS, nothing ever that bad from USPS. (That was pre-internet, pre-CAD days, when we needed to draw on actual tracing paper or mylar backgrounds provided by the architect.)
Trollmod troll (Score:2)
Kid, you don't even know what troll means. The above is the honest truth, which you appear to be afraid of. Run along and let the adults moderate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Give", "free", "hero", "WiFi". That's like four mistakes in one sentence. Impressive.
The existence of VOIP implies tha the FCC is lying (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"...to shoot down Ajit Paid's FCC lies."
FTFY and probably answered a few why's from people.
net neutrality sounds good yes (Score:3)
If Net Neutrality is
- peek in to the packets you loose your common carrier liability protections.
- don't peek in to the packets you keep your common carrier liability protections.
I am all for that definition of Net Neutrality
But the government/businesses and activist are in the courts arguing about certain little things in the 100's and 100's of pages of crap. And who gets what and who pays who!! On both sides!!
And most things that come out of our courts today are rarely good for the people! Because it is a bunch of unethical lawyers and judges who are ideological/paid off arguing their causes or to get their clients, someone else's money.
If Net Neutrality is not the simple definition I stated above. I want the governments slimy fingers as far away from the internet as possible. Would things get bad? Yes, but eventually the individuals, businesses and the market would figure out what people are willing to buy.
Just my 2 cents
DNS and Caching Integral to Broadband (Score:2)
Johnson said that broadband is an information service because Internet providers offer DNS (Domain Name System) services and caching as part of the broadband package. DNS and caching "are determinative here" because they allow broadband users to perform all the functions listed in the definition of an information service (e.g. acquiring, storing, and processing information), he argued.
I really hope the judges are learned in the technology. Using the ISP's DNS is obviously not a requirement, nor is using their caching. Using either of these technologies is not integral to the passing of bits from one IP to the other. What a shit argument. If anything, one could argue that the indirect use of the ISP's routing tables are some form of information service, but they aren't typically directly queried by your home/business broadband connection.
Re: (Score:2)
The best metaphor in the Ars comments is that DNS is comparable to Caller ID, and that doesn't automatically cause phone service to be classified as an 'information service.'
What struggle? It's written into the law! (Score:2)
The language of the law clearly ends with internet service being an information service just as the bipartisan legislation dictated that the US government would take a light touch approach to regulating our internet access.
There should be no struggle here. The FCC's Open Internet Order was clearly in violation of the text of the law, and it's on the right side of the statute in fixing that error today.
Outlets like Ars Technica and Slashdot could do a better job of representing the stakes in this controversy
Self-consistancy (Score:3)
At the very least self-consistency should be demanded. Right now we have a definition of "information service" which depends on "telecommunications services" to facilitate providing the information service. By definition an information service cannot exist without telecommunications service to facilitate it.
This begs question where is the telecommunications service required to support "information service"? If you blanket assert ISPs are information services then your argument fails self-consistency.
Internet is layered sufficiently to clearly separate providing access to IP network from servers (NNTP, Gopher, WAIS, CHARGEN, WAP..etc) that offer information services over IP.
Saying an ISP can't offer both information and telecommunications services is like saying a movie theatre can't charge for admission to a movie and popcorn.
Arguing ISPs are information services because they have DNS servers is like arguing the business of movie theatres is selling popcorn not film viewing.
I personally would rather not see Title II applied to broadband or anything else.
Much better off with clean NN or meaningful legislation which actually encourages competition instead of FCC using its power to shield large providers from the burden of having to compete.
Brand X (Score:2)
For balance, the judges seemed skeptical that the issue wasn't already settled with the 2005 'Brand X' case, where a Supreme Court ruled that cable modem service was an 'information service'. It's possible they'll contradict that decision or say it doesn't apply, but that seems less than clear.
Who cares? (Score:2)
A dedicated network for public safety use only is currently being built because they know that they're going to need it if everyone can hog as much bandwidth as they want.
Lawyers allowing FCC to play word games (Score:2)
The argument here is ACTUALLY ABOUT "is providing internet access a telecommunications service".
The FCC argument that it is NOT (because DNS, and WebPages are Information Services) is specious because THOSE THINGS are NOT part of "providing internet access".
Yes they are (almost) always INCLUDED WITH the provided "broadband" but they are NOT (not at all, not even
Re: (Score:2)
1 - Wait till the FCC bamboozles this case and WINS
2 - Rebrand your "Tesla Car Sales" as selling really expensive batteries, with builtin mobile transport mechanism
3 - Open Brick-n-Mortar stores selling "really expensive batteries".......
4 - When the inevitable lawsuits come, use THIS FCC CASE here as precedent
Re: (Score:2)
A city was filled with different networks going from a central location to new users of an alarm system.
Early community networking driven by competition, price and skill.
Now federal rules protect one networks wireline and keeps out all community and ISP innovation.
Will new federal laws now further protect one existing large network?
The power of federal laws to say who is NN enough to be a new network and how much has to be done to stay a NN law
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, the Communications Act of 1934 did regulate telegraphs, as well as radios and telephones.
Re: (Score:3)
OK. But by that argument the FCC shouldn't have the right to regulate use of frequencies that are not powerful enough to be detected in another state.
I think I like that. Regulating that should be up to the various state governments, and Alaska would rightfully have a different set of rules than Rhode Island.
Re: (Score:2)
OK. But by that argument the FCC shouldn't have the right to regulate use of frequencies that are not powerful enough to be detected in another state. I think I like that.
I've never heard of that opinion, but now I'm starting to like that, too.
Re: Interstate commerce (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Interstate commerce (Score:2)
Protocol based discrimination (Score:2)
I think most definitions of NN don't prohibit true QOS-based prioritization. NN is aimed at participant-based prioritization, which is all about market plays. QOS management is not a market play. Selling fast lanes to content providers and providing free prioritization or free bandwidth to in-house or partnered content providers are market plays (both potentially immensely profitable.)
Re: (Score:3)
I want VoIP/SIP traffic to be prioritized using QoS
Then you buy a plan that allows a certain amount of traffic at higher QoS levels for a few dollars more. You just pay the same for that plan as every other customer. That is what NN is all about.
No, that isn't what Network Neutrality is about. Network Neutrality is about preventing prioritization of certain sources/destinations over others, which ISPs do in order to use their monopoly position as an ISP to restrict competition in the media market. It's not about people streaming videos and playing games versus people using voice communication, it's about stopping monopoly abuse.
Re: Interstate commerce (Score:2, Insightful)
So use the Sherman Act to remove media ownings from Telecom companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So use the Sherman Act to remove media ownings from Telecom companies.
I would be perfectly happy with that, too.
Re: Interstate commerce (Score:2)
Unless everybody pays for higher QoS for VoIP alone, then it would be by unanimous vote. There would still be the matter of "artificially inflated prices" if everybody pays the toll in order to keep it neutral.
Re: Interstate commerce (Score:2)
Most of our society is built on waiting in lines. You may have noticed this at your local grocery store or department store. The internet functions on that same concept. The faster the pipeline and equipment, the shorter the lines. Bandwidth is simply the number of people you can get through a checkout in any given time.
Net Neutrality is about prev
Re: (Score:2)
If, a phone service provider company, notices/informed, that some people/company scamming all their customers, or, abusing their service in any way, should, the phone service provider company, be able to do absolutely nothing to stop it, because all phone traffic must be always absolutely treated equal?
That's how it works today. Phone companies don't do squat to stop callers from spoofing other numbers.
How about, if, an Internet service provider company, notices/informed, that some people/company scamming all their customers?
Who defines what is and is not a scam? Some televangelist collecting donations online, purportedly to do charitable work. But that work ends up being another business jet for himself. Should my ISP be auditing the balance sheets of its customers? ISPs have terms of service to stop some of the more abusive uses of its network. Like sending out too many e-mails in a short time. But if that is your (legitimate
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO, net neutrality (always treating all internet traffic equal), sounds like obvious common sense, at first, but, is it really so?
Is all phone traffic is really equal, for example?
Yers. Just like it's been for about 100 (plus or minus a few) years.
If, a phone service provider company, notices/informed, that some people/company scamming all their customers, or, abusing their service in any way, should, the phone service provider company, be able to do absolutely nothing to stop it, because all phone traffic must be always absolutely treated equal?
Yes. Scammers get treated like they have always been: Catch'em and nail'em.
How about, if, an Internet service provider company, notices/informed, that some people/company scamming all their customers?
Due process. Well understood. ISPs are not, and should not be, enforcement agencies. Inform relevant agencies, then let due process take its course.
What if somebody using their internet service to run a ransomware system, or, a botnet to attack any targeted websites?
Due process, catch and prosecute anyone scamming people just like always.
What if somebody using their internet service to run any kind of DARK WEB websites to sell drugs etc?
What if somebody using their internet service to let people download any/all kind(s) of illegal video/files?
Catch thieves, nail'em.
Should, the Internet service provider company, be able to do absolutely nothing to stop it, (to protect their customers & to serve common good of the public), because all Internet traffic must be always absolutely treated equal?
(But, one may think, what if a phone/internet service provider company itself is doing anything illegal?
Catch thieves, nail'em.
On the topic of "absolutely equal always equal" is a willfully bogus "argument": ISPs have ALWAYS been
Re: (Score:2)
The title would have you believe the FCC says internet service isn't telecom. The argument is that internet service is more than telecom.
Telecom: Short for telecommunications
Tele: to or at a distance, "from afar"
Communications: Communications
Internet service == Telecom
Removing the NN rules means we can have ISP provided, network level pi-holes to block ads now.
Yeah, that's right, your ISP is going to route all traffic through a raspi.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you used to be in favor of NN, then you weren't to get feature X. But, feature X cannot technically exist. And you're still against NN for that reason. To say nothing of NN "enabling" X, but it was never going to happen, just like legalizing murder could just be used to kill criminals who get off on technicalities, but it won't happen that way.
Re: (Score:3)
Adblock will still work, because they're going to let it work. Why? Because they can pay to whitelist themselves on it. Along with anyone else with the bucks, and we're back to malware distribution via ads again.
While more secure DNS might make pi
Re: arstechnica is extremely biased (Score:2)
You donâ(TM)t know what youâ(TM)re talking about. Chromium (Chrome, Opera, and soon Edge) uses Blink which forked from WebKit almost 6 years ago.