FCC to propose new net neutrality rules disallowing data discrimination
By Darren Murph 
posted Sep 18th 2009 4:42PM
posted Sep 18th 2009 4:42PM
[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]
posted Sep 18th 2009 4:42PM
The percentage of returned gadgets that have nothing wrong with them.
Of the $13.8 billion worth of returned products in 2007, only 5 percent were because gadgets were actually broken, according to a 2008 study.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I am for this and don't even mind the costs because of the impact it will have on new ideas to be shared on the internet without having to find workarounds to share them but I can see this as not really being enforced if this does pass especially P2P file sharing discrimination or some sort of terms of service agreements that allows companies to discriminate.
"We know what you're thinking: "Huzzah!" And in general, that's probably the right reaction to have as a consumer, but one has to wonder how network quality for all will be affected if everyone is cut loose to, well, cut loose."
Wrong, and thank you for at least understanding something. Everybody seems to forget one thing. The government is getting involved!!! They're getting their hands all over yet another group of private institutions and telling them what to do. What a miserable failure this country has turned into no thanks to idiot politicians in DC. What happened to the good ole days when individuals knew that if they wanted something done they could get it done by taking the power that they were given by our constitution and use their freedom to say "Hey AT&T, screw you, I'm taking my business elsewhere!" That's all it takes. It's very simple. You don't like how someone is doing business, go some place else. And I'm sure somebody out there (VZ for example) sees an opportunity in all this and is thinking right now, hey, if we allow what Comcast won't, and let the people know about it, why, we can get more customers! And of course there's always complaining and getting all your friends to complain. Lot's of options here outside of government getting involved and growing even larger, taking more from you. You people have all the power. Well, you had all the power, but its still mostly in your hands.
@Douglas...yeah, can you take your soapbox with you when you leave? No one wants to hear your political armchair quarterbacking. Some of us actually come here to talk tech. All the other political BS that people have somehow come to think deserves to be conveniently shoehorned into EVERY conversation or discussion can be left at the door with the dog poop you stepped in along the way. Thanks!
So, Doug, will you pay my early termination fee when I invoke the great power of the Constitution as I leave one wireless carrier for another?
Hey JL, I don't give hand-outs. Sorry, you entered into a binding contract with terms you agreed to. You can wait until its over and go someplace else where there isn't one. And if its that bothersome, pay the fee and get out. :-\
@ Sick & Tired,
Have you read anything about the proposal? It's all about politics as with any move the government makes on businesses these days. To just look at the tech side of this is to miss half the story. But hey, that's just me. That'd be great if everyone could jam up all the bandwith of a company so nobody else could do anything. I just happen to believe that's something the company should be able to call the shots on because it is their service, and if they say you can't run your P2P stuff, then too bad. Get another service provider or convince them to upgrade their stuff so they can handle more traffic. You better be willing to pay for it though like Darren Murph says. Nothing comes free.
I'll play this game. Why about throttling by cable companies where in most areas there are 1 or 2 companies. Like comcast who throttles ur internet and your choice is nothing, from there you can expect to have the slow internet and them charging whatever with no alternate options, where your only chance for justice is some other big company to come and save you, but you have to wait forever. Plus its not targeted at AT&T but stop unfair competition, like not allowing one application through but not another. Why should the FCC allow AT&T and other countries choose which applications are allowed to be on their network, which hinders fair competition in other sectors. Also their can't be new companies from joe and jane because to buy spectrums or towers cost billions. Unlike regular businesses there is limited space in the cellphone industry like it is in the REST OF THE WORLD.
Here's the simple fact, iPhone devices use more data than WinMo devices and by far MORE than BlackBerry devices.
Just charge the according amount of bandwidth used by each party of devices, and problem solved.
iPhone users pay more, for more. It's quite obvious that they have many features available to them, but only through connecting and using data on the network. The AppStore, and it's various apps which use data, youtube, itunes store and even e-mail is quite raw in the data 'compression' that it uses.
WinMo doesn't have a dedicated server for it's data to be packaged in a better way, however it does show, with personal evidence, that it doesn't use as much data as iPhone devices.
And BlackBerry, everyone knows that these devices have dedicated servers to send smaller data packages for requested information, therefore there are the longer wait times for loading, yet very minuscule impact on data billing.
Really, if there needs to be more cell sites to cover what load the iPhones are bringing to the network, then charge specifically the iPhone users more and have them connect through a different access route than WinMo & BlackBerry devices to differentiate the bandwidth available for each.
Ah, forgot to add this, but here's the quick summary of my comment above;
If it's not data discrimination, it'll be user discrimination.. based on device.
And I think that is the way to go.
Yeah, so charge the data abusers more. What's the BFD?
Will this apply to text messages? Because it should. Those things are like $2k/megabyte.
If wireless is mandated to follow net neutrality, it will be the end of unlimited data plan. Plain and simple. So nothing is for free and this will be the cost.
Comcast's hand wa forced to not discriminate an they ended up doing just that, ending the unlimited data plans.
The fundamental problem is bait and switch. ISPs and Carriers sell 'unlimited data plans' but then start to knock of bits of data that they don't like, or compete with their own services.
If they want to sell a limited, controlled 'internet-lite' then they can - but they must advertise it as such. If they then sell a truly unlimited internet connection they are free to charge whatever they feel the market will bear (or not at all). What they are trying to do at the moment is get the revenue from the latter, but only provide the former and that's where the FCC should step in.
On net neutrality as mandated by the government, if the carriers took government grants to help build their networks then the government would have the right to step and force the network to be made available for the benefit of the wider economy. Unfortunatelty, if the government sat back and relied on the mobile carriers to pay for it all themselves then they can't complain when they set the network up for their own benefit.
Of course any one of the major carriers could do things differently already. The reason that none of them do has nothing to do with free market forces and everything to do with the cosy, locked-down cartel that is the US mobile market.
Welcome to the 'not quite free' market.
We *already* don't have unlimited cellphone internet access. Just about any plan labeled "unlimited" will have a clause somewhere that actually says 5 GB.
The average consumer use of bandwidth should be the benchmark of use for a data plan. It seems to me that carriers are victims of their own success that they control. They influence and approve every single device that we use. They underbuilt the data capacity and now want to try and stick it to customers because we bought millions of iphones, smartphones and winmo's, etc. Maybe it is all noise about the power of the 3g network ads ringing in consumers ears that drove them to data use.
No matter what I read above, consumers have the power in this cellular market. With 5+ vendors creating a free market creates competition, keep company overhead low, drives technology advances and keeping prices low. Consolidation kills markets especially one's that are rapidly growing, like cellular.
Now imagine if we brought free market competition to healthcare?