Log in

View Full Version : Net Neutrality for wireless carriers ignored



Havet
22nd December 2010, 16:55
aBuwRR6SYrI


After years of wrangling, the FCC has finally decided on what they call “the basic rules of the road to preserve the open Internet as a platform for innovation, investment, competition and free expression”… or net neutrality. And hey, guess what? It’s not really what anyone wanted!

Basically, the new order for net neutrality is similar to what the FCC was floating before. On the positive side, the new net neutrality regulations ban ISPs from blocking content, but they do allow ISPs to manage the network and discriminate between packets within “reason.” That power, though, is mitigated by the legal requirement that ISPs be transparent about their own methodology of packet discrimination.

So far so good, but that’s only true for landlines: the new net neutrality rules completely absolve wireless broadband from any requirement to be “reasonable” in packet discrimination or network management: all they need to do is be transparent and not block content.

This is pretty much what everyone saw coming, and even before the FCC rules on the matter, we knew what they’d likely decide (http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/fcc-to-decide-net-neutrality-rules-on-december-21st-2010121/). That said, the absolution of wireless broadband providers from following anything but the bare skeleton of net neutrality provisos is so short sighted as to neuter the entire act. Considering the fact that wireless broadband (and mobile) is the future of both computing and the web, passing net neutrality rules only for landline pipes is like passing net neutrality rules for telegraph offices: a silly throwback to an obsolete past.

Source link to Geek.com (http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/fcc-agrees-upon-net-neutrality-rules-decides-wireless-carriers-are-mostly-absolved-from-them-20101221/)

Source to CNN News covering the story (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/12/21/fcc.net.neutrality/index.html)

Havet
22nd December 2010, 18:38
Short version: you might not be able to access revleft from any wireless carrier

Bud Struggle
22nd December 2010, 19:08
Maybe it's me but I don't see a bit of difference between the hardwire and the wireless carriers.

Havet
22nd December 2010, 23:11
I would also like to pose a technical question concerning this issue to the more tech savvy people out there.

Would it be possible, or is it already a reality, for someone to build their own "internet provider service", a homemade device that would basically do what businesses do now, except without the inconveniant of non-net-neutrality issues ?

The cost of building one of these devices per household would naturally be higher (economies of scale), but it could bring a lot more benefits in terms of ensuring freedom of access. Hell, if it would be that expensive, a community provider would already be a good step forward.

Am i saying a lot of nonsense or could this be actually possible?

Havet
3rd January 2011, 22:54
Does anybody have enough knowledge to answer my (technical) question above?

And while you're at it, discuss the OP

bump 2 of 3

The Fighting_Crusnik
3rd January 2011, 22:59
The technology is available where someone could create there own network since that's all the internet is. However, because of the power that the FCC has, they could just step in and begin regulating it if they want. All in all, as far as communication technologies go in America, it's oligarchial authoritarianism.

psgchisolm
3rd January 2011, 23:14
The technology is available where someone could create there own network since that's all the internet is. However, because of the power that the FCC has, they could just step in and begin regulating it if they want. All in all, as far as communication technologies go in America, it's oligarchial authoritarianism.
This, althrough paying for the equipment/eletricity bills that come from that would be the less than positive. As long as you stay within the FCC's rules and regs. I don't think they would interfere too much. Not sure what the Regs. on ISPs are through