Comments
FCC Net Neutrality Rules Rejected
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
missmouser33
50%
50%
missmouser33,
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/‎
cbabcock
50%
50%
cbabcock,
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.
Somedude8
100%
0%
Somedude8,
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".
TerryB
100%
0%
TerryB,
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.
jagibbons
50%
50%
jagibbons,
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.
Whoopty
100%
0%
Whoopty,
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. 
MyW0r1d
100%
0%
MyW0r1d,
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
50%
50%
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 Business of Going Digital
The Business of Going Digital
Digital business isn't about changing code; it's about changing what legacy sales, distribution, customer service, and product groups do in the new digital age. It's about bringing big data analytics, mobile, social, marketing automation, cloud computing, and the app economy together to launch new products and services. We're seeing new titles in this digital revolution, new responsibilities, new business models, and major shifts in technology spending.
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
InformationWeek Tech Digest - July 22, 2014
Sophisticated attacks demand real-time risk management and continuous monitoring. Here's how federal agencies are meeting that challenge.
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
InformationWeek Radio
Archived InformationWeek Radio
A UBM Tech Radio episode on the changing economics of Flash storage used in data tiering -- sponsored by Dell.
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.