singular, unchained series of unfortunate events...,
| Main |
NYT: Iraqi Accuses U.S. of 'D...,
no debate here:
since I've endeavored ranting about it I suppose I'll post on the subject of network neutrality. Visting the anti-neutrality, carrier lobby's Hands Off the Internet website for the first time today I find this at the top of the page:
The fourth example did involve a small DSL provider that interfered with an unaffiliated VOIP provider. But nowhere on Save the Internet do they mention that there was swift federal action that put an end to this practice - and sent a strong pro-consumer warning shot to every other broadband provider.
So there you have it - the anti-net neutrality lobby endorsing regulation in favor of the principles of network neutrality: no access restrictions, packet discrimination, or deprioritizing of legal application data. The "hands off" folks endorse FCC actions to enforce those regulations - which go back to the origins of ARPANET, etc., and only recently attached to this neologism of "network neutrality" - so if both sides are all in favor of FCC enforcement ensuring open access then where's the debate?
I don't know. I would, however, hazard a guess that some utterly insane batshit from major players has lead us to this confusing impasse, mucking up the pristine pipes of our public discourse.
It's entirely disingenuous to call this a fight between the free market and regulation: the carriers have already lobbied successfully in many states to pass laws preventing the formation of competing municipal wi-fi networks and continue to fight proposed and existing ones: they're all in favor of regulation, so long as its government protection for their federally granted monopolies.
Niether side in this gang warfare is being particularly specific (the neutrality lobby, so far as it has relative lobby backing, is clearer about its objectives, at least) about what they want: you can do QoS prioritized packets (it's already being done) without degrading the normal "best effort" packet deliveries and without violating the principles of open access - i.e. "net neutrality" - or you could do it by degrading normal service and violating the principles of open access. The one is legal and may or may not be useful, the other shouldn't be and isn't.
Something else entirely, one suspects, is as stake: for example, if everybody's for the existing open access regulations why should the carriers be so opposed to a law stating existing FCC policy? One obvious explanation is that if its stated explicitly in law it won't be easy to defeat in the courts. Visa-versa what the hell is in these re-regulation laws the carrier lobby is drafting? We're not being told very clearly what they want - probably a whole list of things, with plans B and C - but its perfectly clear how they intend to get it.