FCC Net Neutrality Rules Rejected - InformationWeek

InformationWeek is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

FCC Net Neutrality Rules Rejected
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
User Rank: Apprentice
1/16/2014 | 4:21:52 PM
Internet Must Go
The open internet was struck a terrible blow, so it's now more important than ever to understand the issues. For anyone who wants a refresher, here's a helpful mockumentary about net neutrality: www.theinternetmustgo.com/‎
User Rank: Strategist
1/15/2014 | 7:48:31 PM
Not totally reassured by this court decision
The FCC's goal of general purpose economic growth for the general good may not be the same as Verizon's idea of "innovative" services. Chances are, it's thinking of services that will carry a heavy price tag, as SomeDude8 suggests. Also, the fact that it may now be up to the House and Senate to legislate rules that constitute Internet use for the common good isn't reassuring either. Neither body has exhibited lately that it could maintain a civil debate, nevermind producing laws that yield the common good through new rules for the Internet.
User Rank: Ninja
1/15/2014 | 12:44:31 PM
Oh those phone companies
"Verizon celebrated the court's ruling, characterizing the FCC's rules as an impediment to its ability to offer innovative new services to customers"

I love how "innovative new services" really means "ways to charge you lots more money for the same stuff you have now".
User Rank: Ninja
1/15/2014 | 12:37:40 PM
Is Bandwidth Unlimited?
I certainly am not a defender of the AT&T's of the world and I don't pretend to understand the internet backbone at all. But I've never understood where the payback for backbone investment is when everyone is carrying  a HD TV in their pocket and expecting watch a movie over wireless connection with no issues. Do we really pay for all that in our data plans, T1 lines, ISP service, etc?

If so, where does it end? I'd really just like to pay for the internet to work well when I VPN to work. I really don't want to pay for someone else to be able to play video games and watch movies (in HD) on their iPhone, I don't do that. Is that really controlled by what is charged for the last mile? The last mile means nothing unless continued investment is made in the backbone, and that can't be cheap.
User Rank: Ninja
1/15/2014 | 12:25:40 PM
Re: Complexity is the Name
Naturally, appropriate oversight measures must be in place to prevent abuses

The right level of oversight is always the problem. Yes, I could argue malicious traffic should be blocked. Who would define what traffic could and should be blocked? Who would oversee that and make sure it's not abused? More regulations means higher costs as the level of bureaucrasy grows.
User Rank: Ninja
1/15/2014 | 11:20:44 AM
Silver lining
At least AT&T has said it won't throtlle back P2P traffic to try and target downloaders and thereby unfairly affect those that usee it for other things, but this is still really worrying news. 
User Rank: Strategist
1/15/2014 | 10:47:06 AM
Complexity is the Name
This is a complex issue.  It's is easy to understand and perhaps support tiered pricing in the last mile (a 1Mb/384kb DSL would be priced less than a 4Mb/2Mb DSL).  But once that data traffic is on the provider (internet) backbone, then should it be filtered/shaped except for the known priorities (voice, video) which suffers from delays?  Shaping traffic according to the status of the destination/source, corporate/private citizen (Google gets priority over Joe Citizen) has not been justified as a consideration to my satisfaction.  Even among the corporate entities, can you imagine what advantages say AT&T, Verizon, Google might have over say NetFlix to provide streamed content? 


The other aspect of the FCC ruling that was widely published was the ability to block certain sources.  While this remains unclear to me, I would be in favor of blocking source traffic identified to be botnets (employed in DDoS attacks for instance), malicious spammers, and a few similarly questionables like malware distribution sources.  Naturally, appropriate oversight measures must be in place to prevent abuses (appropriate not implying a secretive, ad hoc, rubber stamping court). 
the answer guy
the answer guy,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/15/2014 | 7:20:26 AM
Kind of Horrifying ...
and it won't "matter", immediately. But it WILL matter. I wrote about this yesterday (http://answerguy.com/2014/01/14/death-of-net-neutrality-january-2014/), and actually have written about the REAL issues several times.


It's not pretty.

The State of IT & Cybersecurity Operations 2020
The State of IT & Cybersecurity Operations 2020
Download this report from InformationWeek, in partnership with Dark Reading, to learn more about how today's IT operations teams work with cybersecurity operations, what technologies they are using, and how they communicate and share responsibility--or create risk by failing to do so. Get it now!
10 Ways to Prepare Your IT Organization for the Next Crisis
Cynthia Harvey, Freelance Journalist, InformationWeek,  5/20/2020
IT Spending Forecast: Unfortunately, It's Going to Hurt
Jessica Davis, Senior Editor, Enterprise Apps,  5/15/2020
Helping Developers and Enterprises Answer the Skills Dilemma
Joao-Pierre S. Ruth, Senior Writer,  5/19/2020
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
Current Issue
Key to Cloud Success: The Right Management
This IT Trend highlights some of the steps IT teams can take to keep their cloud environments running in a safe, efficient manner.
White Papers
Twitter Feed
Sponsored Live Streaming Video
Everything You've Been Told About Mobility Is Wrong
Attend this video symposium with Sean Wisdom, Global Director of Mobility Solutions, and learn about how you can harness powerful new products to mobilize your business potential.
Sponsored Video
Flash Poll