FCC Adopts Net Neutrality Lite

http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/fcc-network-neutrality-o...

On every single important and controversial question on what an “open Internet” actually means, — such as whether companies can create “fast lanes” for “prioritized” content or what exactly wireless providers can and cannot do — the actual language of the rules is silent, ambiguous, or even at odds with the text of the implementing Order. The only way to find out what protections consumers actually have will be through a series of adjudications at the FCC.

That seems to me the worst possible outcome; regulations (if legitimate at all) ought to offer clarity so companies don't have to wait for test cases to know what's allowed.

But vagueness is good for increasing the power and discretion of the FCC, and shaking out contributions to the political parties that appoint FCC commissioners. If it's all left up to FCC case-by-case discretion from here on out, businesses need the FCC to think warmly of them.

If my AT&T DSL suddenly starts throttling Netflix, I don't have a whole lot of options apart from moving. If my AT&T 3G starts throttling Netflix (let's imagine for a moment that Netflix is watchable over 3G), I have a few options: I can wait until my contract is over and switch then, I can pay an ETF and switch now, and chances are, there are two or three other viable competitors in my market once I'm off contract. And none of these can just silently start throttling either, per the transparency requirement.

Of course, the dangers are still there: The market could decide together to start throttling and dealing, some more carrier mergers could sweet-talk their way past the SEC, and a highly un-neutral net could become yet another stifling fact of life in the US wireless market.

On the other side, with no Net Neutrality regulations at all, the mega-opolies will continue to try to strangle the Internet teet, which will end up pissing off enough of the right people that things will get really nasty for a while, opening up a way for competitors to get into the space again.

Either way, you can't stop the Internet. It's too big and diverse to be anything that can be controlled by any one individual. That said, no matter happens, we (the customers) are still screwed until we can finally say "No [Comcast/Charter/etc], screw you! This company has a better product, good bye."

Second, the rules will be challenged in court and it's entirely possible they will be overturned. This is because the FCC somewhat inexplicably backed down on an earlier promise to reclassify the Internet as a telecommunications service. As such, their legal authority for regulating it is a bit shaky.

"No regulations, no censorship!" is a hard and fast rule that can be followed easily.

The correct political solution is for the FCC to open up larger swaths of spectrum for unlicensed use (call it WiFi on steroids). That way, if a particular ISP decides to screw their customers, there would always be a baseline wireless mesh internet that people could use.