Net Neutrality Rules Are Imminent From the F.C.C. | Hacker News Reader

Net Neutrality Rules Are Imminent From the F.C.C.

nytimes.com

19 pointsm3mb3r10 comments

Wireless is not fundamentally different than wired. What if considerations like this were made for home internet service? If Qwest had allowed to block Skype because they wanted people to keep using landlines at home?

The Skype blocking has to go. I have a Verizon phone and Skype is so thoroughly neutered, it's absurd. They even ruin skype-to-skype calls by forcing the app to use only 3G, not wifi, and routing the call through an 800 number to Skype. Calls within the US, even when dialed through Skype, are actually carried by Verizon. On the other hand, my plan has unlimited data - it's just plain stupid. Same with text messaging... a total scam at this point.

So, by doing this they are preventing the next innovative applications. Better not be planning on doing something that might cause AT&T to make less money, folks!

I'm more and more convinced that Net Neutrality will be very damaging to the Internet.

     Wireless is not fundamentally different than wired.

That's irrelevant: wireless is still young with lots of competition going on. You don't fix something that ain't broken.

And about your problems with Skype, you don't know lots of details, like: can Verizon actually handle it? Or who's to blame, Verizon, Skype, the FCC?

     Same with text messaging... a total scam at this point

Yeah, it's called capitalism. What? Do you want regulation on that too?

Based on my position, wired is still young with lots of competition going on. You don't fix something that ain't broken.

Why should the two be considered differently?

And no, I feel consumers can figure out for themselves that paying .25 to send 256 bytes of data is a scam. But I don't think wireless carriers should be granted special abilities to protect this sort of underhanded dealings which wired providers are not. What would you think if it was said that DSL and cable internet providers could block MSN, AIM, Jabber and Skype IMs because they had a special deal where they wanted you to use their IM service for .25 cents a message? Though other data was unlimited? I'd have a problem with that, personally.

Net Neutrality is the new Fairness Doctrine.

Verizon's excuse for Skype limitations on their phones has to do with following – wait for it – FCC regulations to support law-enforcement monitoring:

http://connectedplanetonline.com/mobile-apps/news/verizon-sk...

So the Feds/FCC are not going to ride to your rescue as a Skype user with noble-minded net-neutrality regulations.

Quite probably, greater involvement by the FCC in defining what legitimate, 'neutral' internet service is will grow over time to be only that service that's 'responsible', that logs data for law enforcement, that enforces child-friendly content-blocking, and so forth.

A long-dead concept from the Clinton Administration – mandated backdoors into all private encryption, remember the Clipper Chip? – was recently revived by the Obama Administration:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/27wiretap.html

There is a risk that eventually, only packets that can be made transparent to the authorities on demand will be considered 'neutral', and ISPs will be required to block any other deeply opaque traffic, by the same agency now portrayed as some white knight.

The FCC is not the friend of internet or communications freedom.

German law enforcement already pays 3rd parties for services which break Skype encryption. Is the US far behind? I really, really doubt it.

Why should it be different for wireless carriers vs. wired? I guess the FBI needs to move their Carniv- um, DCS-1000 machines into Verizon, Sprint and ATT data centers, too. Actually, I'm sure they have that covered already. There's no need for different rules for wired carriers vs. wireless. Internet traffic is internet traffic. They'll decode it regardless of how you send it to your access point.

Julius Genachowski wants to pimp bandwidth to the highest bidder. It's a scary and slippery slope.

"We must take action to protect consumers against price hikes and closed access to the Internet and our proposed framework is designed to do just that: to guard against these risks while recognizing the legitimate needs and interests of broadband providers," - Spin Maestro and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.

Really? To protect us from what hikes? What closed Internet? Please drop dead.

If this goes through, Europe will soon follow and then the rest, whether they like it or not. If they don't participate, they'll lose out because US will prioritize all incoming global traffic anyway. Video streams from China-based startups will load the slowest in the U.S.

Networking companies will rush to build large scale traffic prioritization solutions and in the process strive to achieve maximum regulatory compliance with local/federal laws so they can peddle their product better, faster.

ISPs will invest in the infrastructure for packet monitoring and filtering because it will directly improve their bottom line. They only will drive up the demand for "network neutrality" solutions. And once they have the infrastructure and tool chain in place, we'll see a lot more censorship and eavesdropping.

The consumers will be fooled into thinking that this will help their YouTube videos load faster.

If you think after the massive gift given to the healthcare industry in name of reform and the even greater gift given to the big money banks in the name of TARP that our government is motivated by anything other than the interests of industry. I have a bridge I am selling in China. Its very big and makes tons of money. Just let me know if you are interested.

I hope they forbid the Indian version of "netjacking" where ISPs make some sites free to access.

“If corporations are allowed to prioritize content on the Internet, or they are allowed to block applications you access on your iPhone, there is nothing to prevent those same corporations from censoring political speech.” said Mr. Franken

Oh great, so once these rules are passed companies like Paypal and Amazon won't be allowed to censor political speech such as that by wikileaks? Somehow I have a feeling these rules will cause the exact opposite. I'm much less worried about corporations censoring political speech than I am the gov't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com