Net neutrality: Cisco, Intel, IBM warn FCC NOT to crack down on ISPs More than 60 technology companies, from Cisco to Intel and IBM, have asked the FCC not to tighten the rules on what ISPs can do with web traffic and subscribers' bills. Specifically, the IT giants do not want the US watchdog to reclassify ISPs as "Title II" providers, a classification championed by some net neutrality …
The one thing that bothers me in general about this is that these corporations are not people
This is the US. Corporations are people here.
for an example of the title 2 stuff right.. Lots of folks seem to want title 2 applied to cable companies, when they already have title 2 providers in their area in the form of DSL. But DSL is "too slow" so they don't want to use it.
I suspect the same will happen to cable(over time) if they go that route.
I don't care too much either way myself my internet usage is pretty minimal these days.
When that openness was mandated, DSL went from being an expensive and poorly maintained service to a moderately expensive and poorly maintained service.
To be fair, everywhere I've lived DSL is a pretty terrible service even if it's well-maintained. So maintenance is not so much of an issue.
Of course the Telecommunications Industry Association would oppose. No one wants to play fair.
I am a strong net neutrality advocate. But all the weird distortions and accusations make me cringe. I just want to be able to communicate with any lawful site on the internet. No censorship, no blocking, no privacy violating. I am willing to pay a fair price for this connection based on market forces.
I am however uncomfortable with Title II. I wish Congress had the spine to deal with the issue so the FTC wouldn't have to resort to Title II. It is outdated and complex.
The current classification, Title I (Information Service), provides no teeth if your ISP decides to speed up (aka Fast Lane), slow down, block or otherwise interfere with your Internet experience! The latest ISP faux pas is Comcast's setup of wireless hot spots using their customer's rented cable modems!
The suggested classification, Title II (Common Carrier) provides the legal framework to withstand the inevitable court challenge when your ISP decides to try the above against Open Internet rules that [are hoped] the FCC will adopt.
It boils down to trust - do you trust your ISP not to do the above (speed up, slow down, block or use your Internet connection) or do you trust that the FCC can adopt adequately supported rules (Title II) to keep your ISP from setting up paid arrangements where they will create Fast lanes to companies that pay for the service (which will charge you more for the service as well)?
I vote for the FCC - I do NOT trust Comcast, Verizon (who stated in court documents to wanting to do exactly what I laid out above), AT&T (sponsored data) or Time Warner!
So it's a lose-lose. You either trust the government, which is a corrupt oligarchy out for no one but themselves, or you trust the ISPs, which are run by corrupt oligarchies out for no one but themselves. And because of the lock-in involved with infrastructure, spectrum, and so on, there's no third option.
Title II is not as outdated as the phone/cable lobby (and their ilk in Congress) would like you believe. It is a long statute designed for any type of "common carrier" obligations. There are a number of Title II regulated industries (e.g. taxis, planes, trains, phones, etc.). The FCC can "forebear" (not use) any of the specifics within Title II that do not make sense - including fees (one of the phone/cable lobby talking points). Of course, this is all up to the FCC, but no one (including the FCC) has advocated for new Internet fees under Title II as the lobbyists would have you believe.
Competition reduces profits; monopoly increases profits. Regulation reduces profits; unrestricted operations increase profits. Infrastructure confined to population centers increases profits; rural service mandates decrease profits. User data mining increases profits; privacy and security safeguards reduces profits. Threatened loss of profits equates national threat, safeguards profit structure; government mandates reduce stock value, equity value, and impacts CEO reward packages. Evil FUD*. Mobilize lobbyist brigade. What is good for Comcast is good for America!
*FUD: fear, uncertainty, doubt.
I reason it like this. There is no way I will ever have enough money to influence large corporations and their job isn't to assure my well being. The government can be forced (maybe) to look after my well being since that is its purpose and I have a vote however watered down it is. My vote along with enough other like minded citizen's votes make it possible, however unlikely, to change the government.
It may not be much of a difference but I'll go the government route.
Yes, I still have the slightest sliver of hope left, maybe I'm just a fool.
Beer, because it's my Friday.
But the thing is, the government CAN force YOU. The people essentially let the government have power over the people in return for the government protecting the people, so they can do the one thing private enterprise has trouble doing: remove even the remotest chance of an upstart by enforcing a de jure monopoly and then using the laws to make you shut up. IOW, while corporates can corner the market, one can always, at the extreme, walk away (and say go without the Internet). But there's a reason Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four still strikes some chords.
ARPA started the internet with our money....all of a sudden ISPs think they should profit immensely!...Hmm!, maybe the whole world is not in our bailiwick, but we in the US have a right to comment - I have commented to the FCC three times now - the 1st time the servers at the gubbamint crashed because the US gubbamint doesn't know how to craft a decent web site - but they claim they can regulate it - Humm? So then I have commented once by direct contact by a staff member at Chairman Wheeler's office, but that was not apparently enough so I have left a message to punctuate my displeasure at his office once more. We citizens need to get off our arse to defend our rights, otherwise they will be usurped by posers who claim to have our best "interests" at heart. As far as wireless, these bastards have very little right to take over OUR airwaves as WE definitely OWN that!! End discussion!
We've had de facto net neutraity from day 2 of the Internet.
Now explain why all those $billions of investment to get to where we are today didn't happen because of net neutrality!
Once again, lazy businesses want to get the government to impose a rule that lets them rip off the voter.
(E.g. The ever extending period of copyright)
Then again, while voters vote for the party with the largest corporate funded ad campaign...
This whole notion that forcing ISPs to play fair with traffic will cause even a hiccup in rolling out service is bull crap. Services will continue to be rolled out as long as ISPs see a profit in doing so. If the profit is in the line itself, as it should be, then they will continue putting lines in the ground.
What's really at stake from IBM and Cisco's perspective is selling additional kit to manage network traffic. They've invested quite a bit of money in being able to sell high end equipment to ISPs to allow them to perform traffic shaping. If the law makes that kit illegal then they've lost money.
Screw them.
"If the profit is in the line itself, as it should be, then they will continue putting lines in the ground."
But what if it was like that then but not now? IOW, what if it's no longer practical to invest in infrastructure. Think running out to the sticks: it's essential from a moral and systemic point of view, but from an economic point of view, it's a money sink because the population density's too low. Why do you think so many small towns had to agree to monopolies just to get wired? Because the telecoms companies would accept no less, and the alternative was going without, which is increasingly becoming a deal-breaker for getting people to move in.
I read through the letter mentioned in the story that the ISP quote, but all I get out of it was:
"We did some studies on ourselves and we think will "slow" down investment because fuck you."
If this was really the case wouldn't the uncertainty of it's status already cause a "slow down" in infrastructure roll out? I guess the feel they have enough claws in congress to at least avoid Title II.
No, it's ACTIVE speculation and fear mongering.
" [...] if you don’t know that you can recover on your investment, you won’t make it."
I'm pretty sure that taking a risk with your money is the definition of investing.
But many of the ISPs are actually or are subsidiaries of publicly-traded companies. Meaning they have the investors to please, and definition or no definition, the investors don't like risk; it's their money on the chopping block, after all. If the risk is too high, they'll bail: sell their stocks and go to some other company. In this environment, there's a limit to the level of risk you can try, and since we've had a number of high-profile busts lately, that tolerance is going down not up.
This post has been deleted by its author
Congress should not pass laws regulating unfair monopolies, illegal Net traffic manipulation, outrageous price gouging, etc. so the folks who signed the letter can make windfall profits from exploiting consumers - as has been the case for years.
If you believe that makes sense I have some ocean front property in Arizona that you'd be interested in buying.
The real reality is that there will be a continuation of Net expansion because a lot of companies are making a fortune from it. Comcast wants to merge with Time Werner so that they control over 50% of the U.S. market even after Comcast has been convicted of numerous crimes and is being sued for illegally installing hot spots in people's homes without their knowledge or permission. Does this sound like a good situation for consumers?
Specifically, the IT giants do not want the US watchdog to reclassify ISPs as "Title II" providers, a classification championed by some net neutrality advocates. Title II could be used to crack down on broadband prices and unfair traffic filtering, they say.
Yes, I'm sure that cracking down on broadband prices (gouging) and unfair traffic filtering would be a severe blow to the big ISP's...CEO bonuses.
Assholes!
Baloney. I live at the edge of the NYC antheap (in NY Metro area), and after 20 years Verizon still has not provided even minimal 768K DSL (never mind FIOS even though keep trying to sell the vapor to me-- after all, somewhere in the antheap apparently Verizon has at least one FIOS drop). Finally had to pay a huge pile of cash to the local cable company to run a wire down the street to us because the consequences of third world living are too grotesque to consider, especially if you have children. Huge, as in 5 digits of dollars... (don't even mention that hideous insult to intelligence known as satellite, been there done that. It is, however, better than 9600 dialup, which is all the Verizon wires support [apparently legally they only need to support FAX speed. Really. Every try to access a website at FAX speed??]. Oh, and 9600 only works when it isn't raining... since they won't fix the wires. 1200 in the rain although I saw as low as 400 BAUD (none of this "K" stuff) before giving up.)
And there is a giant IBM facility nearby, but no exec there ever emitted a peep pushing for broadband rollout by local suppliers; indeed, I heard that they now require employees to buy their own broadband if they have to work from home.
If hypocrisy was a fatal disease, all those companies complaining would be dead by now. Wow, look at that... they ARE dying! Almost every one of them!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
