Share on Social Media:

End of ‘Net Neutrality’

The sky has not fallen. Armageddon has passed evidently passed us by. We have not seen the Great Tribulation that was expected to fall on us on June 11, with the official end of the FCC’s Title II ‘net neutrality‘ internet rules.

Image result for net neutrality images

Without the regulations, we were told, the web wouldn’t work properly. Disaster would follow: fire and brimstone, floods, earthquakes, mass extinction, dogs and cats living together- real Wrath of God stuff. At the very least, we’d see our content requests blocked or slowed, with frustratingly long buffering of music and video. Of our afflictions there would be no end.

Why hasn’t the sky fallen?

So far, none of the dire predictions has been realized. We haven’t seen ISPs rushing to raise rates, block or slow content, or otherwise restrict internet access.

In fact, most ISPs have announced plans to develop advanced 5G systems. They are investing massive amounts in creation of new networks and expansion of existing ones. These investments had been retarded under the Title II web rules, because ISPs did not want to risk capital in an uncertain regulatory climate. The FCC had too much discretion, and ISPs could not be sure how it would rule from one case to another. With the end of the Title II framework, ISPs are more certain about what the law allows.

What happens now?

Does this mean the industry is finally at peace? Will the advocates of the restricitve web rules admit that they could have been wrong? Don’t bet on it. Though the legal battle over Title II is settled- for now- the political quarrel is nowhere near its end.

The industry is sharply divided over the issue. Google and Facebook have argued strenuously for retaining the Title II rules for ISPs, while Verizon and AT&T called for their abolition.

Several states, and some municipal governments, have said that they will enact ‘net neutrality’ rules on their own.  This effort has encountered stiff resistance. Roslyn Slayton is a scholar for the American Enterprise Institute who served on Mr. Trump’s transition team. Slayton said to CNN, “It’s patently illegal for the states to make their own internet policy.”

The Trump Administration is likely to join some of the larger ISPs in lawsuits against state attempts to regulate the web.

UPDATE:  We’ve received word that an effort to enact a state ‘net neutrality’ law has stalled in the California legislature.

What does it all mean anyway?

‘Net neutrality’ is the principle that an internet service provider (ISP) should treat all data equally. An ISP should not block, slow, or charge extra for any data based on the user, application, website, platform, connected equipment, or means of communication.

The Title II web rules are extensions of the 1934 Telecommunications Act. Under its terms, an ISP is to be regulated like as a ‘common carrier’, like a land line telephone exchange.

 

(For the most reliable internet connection, talk to Satellite Country. We can help.)

 

Share on Social Media:

‘Net Neutrality’: Is It Doomed?

For the internet industry, the regulatory climate may be facing a dramatic shakeup. The Federal Communications Commission has scheduled a December 14 vote on possible repeal of Title II web regulations. These rules are meant to promote what is known as ‘net neutrality’.

Image result for net neutrality images

‘Net neutrality’ is the concept that all data on the web should be treated alike. Internet service providers (ISP) should not discriminate by platform, content, website, application, or user. An ISP would not be allowed to block, throttle (slow down), or charge extra for access to specific websites or online content.

What fed the demand for ‘net neutrality’?

The matter became a live political issue in 2004, when Comcast throttled uploads of peer-to-peer file sharing apps such as BitTorrent. Despite public protest, Comcast did not stop the throttling until the FCC ordered it to do so. AT&T, Verizon, and other ISPs were also accused of blocking or throttling specific content. Some were accused of giving favorable treatment to data from corporate partners, including TV networks.

In 2014, the FCC received more than 3.7 million complaints about blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. The following year, the commission ruled that the internet is a telecommunications service. An ISP, then, is a ‘common carrier’ subject to regulation under Title II of the 1934 Telecommunications Act. The web would be regulated like any public utility.

Resistance to the New Rules

The Title II rules faced fierce criticism from the cable and telecom industries. Some claimed the rules would inhibit investment in internet systems. This would delay or prevent improvement in equipment or networks. In any case, the leading ISPs said, the rules went far beyond the FCC’s legal mandate.

Ajit Pai, the current FCC chairman, said that the current ‘net neutrality’ rules discourage innovation. Less innovation, he said, means less competition. This in in turn, he said, keeps prices high.

Pai says repeal of the Title II internet rules will foster competition, make broadband more widely available, and bring prices down. His critics say the move would only make the larger ISPs more dominant. The largest cable and telecom systems would enjoy near-monopolies on the flow of information.

Who’s right? We may find out after December 14.

 

(For the strongest internet connection, talk to us. We can help.)

 

 

Share on Social Media:

‘CAPITALISM VS. SOCIALISM’

THE FIGHT OVER ‘NET NEUTRALITY’

Image result for socialist posters

Michael O’Reilly is no shrinking violet. Speaking before the American Legislative Exchange Council last Friday, the FCC Commissioner pulled no punches in describing Title II internet rules. He said the debate over them pits “capitalism vs. socialism”.

The Title II rules enforce ‘net neutrality‘. This means they forbid blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization of internet content. The rules are meant to keep ISPs from favoring their own content over content from competitors. Some internet providers, such as Comcast and AT&T, have their own TV service divisions, and regulators thought they might treat their own video more favorably than video from Hulu, Netflix, and other streaming services. Free Press, a consumer group, says the rules are necessary for free, open communication online. Without ‘net neutrality’, it says, ISPs could block political or social views they don’t like.

The FCC enacted the Title II rules in February 2015. The biggest cable and telecom systems objected fiercely, and lobbied hard for repeal.

With a new President came new majority in the FCC. The new Chairman, Ajit Pai, has said that Title II rules should be repealed, and O’Reilly has sided with Pai. Speaking to ALEC, he said, “All of the propaganda in the world cannot paper over the fact that these new burdens were not in response to actual market place events…” O’Reilly said the rules were enacted only because of “…hypothetical concerns dreamt up by radical activists”. He called ‘net neutrality’ a stalking horse for a larger effort to “vanquish capitalism and economic liberty”.

O’Reilly also criticized the offer of discount municipal broadband. He compared it to Venezuela’s offer of low-cost gasoline. The state required oil companies to sell their product for less than production cost, leading to massive shortages. O’Reilly said that municipal offers of free or cheap broadband would also produce shortages.

O’Reilly said he would support subsidies for the poor. However, he firmly opposes “…allowing government sponsored networks to use their unfair advantages to offer broadband services”. Capitalism, he says, is absolutely necessary.

(For broadband service, talk to us. To find out how to get the most out of it, talk to us. We can help.)

Share on Social Media:

VOTE CAREFULLY & RESPONSIBLY

Image result for i vomited sticker

What We Won’t Do

With one of the most contentious presidential races in history underway, it’s tempting to weigh in on the matter. I offer no endorsements, though. I have a different perspective on political responsibility.

I don’t cover election campaigns here. For this blog, I address public policies– FCC ‘net neutrality’ regulations, for example– only when they’re likely to affect our industry directly. For other publications, I write short articles satirizing politicians once in a while. I try to be even-handed in this, and I’ve mocked Mr. Trump as often as Mrs. Clinton.

The Question is Why, Not How

I will not tell you whom or what to vote for, but will comment on what moves you to vote. One of my pet peeves is the ads that nag every adult to cast a ballot. “You must vote!”, you are told. “If you don’t vote, don’t complain!” There are others of that type, the upshot of which is that you are nearly a criminal if you choose to sit out an election. All of the cool kids will be voting, and you don’t want to be one of clueless dweebs mocked by the cool kids, do you?

To hell with that! The uninformed or unmotivated voter is one of the most dangerous creatures in existence. Anyone who has to be told that an election is underway should take it as a certain sign that he/she lacks the minimum mental engagement for voting responsibly– no matter how brilliant he/she may be otherwise. There is no virtue in merely casting a ballot. Those who don’t know the issues, the backgrounds of the candidates, or much about history or economics, are ripe for manipulation by demagogues and self-dealing scoundrels. Their votes are likely to contribute to the weakening of the social order- maybe even its destruction. To vote because we were shamed into it is exceedingly irresponsible.

Think for yourself. Don’t vote, or form your political philosophy, based on statements by celebrities. Avoid being swayed by ‘social proof’, the consensus of Facebook or Twitter mobs. Don’t fall for candidates merely because they seem hip, attractive, trendy, or ‘cool’. This is how we got saddled with…  eh, never mind. I’m not mentioning any names here.

Preparation

Inform yourself. Vote only if you understand the candidates and the issues thoroughly. This means knowing more than what candidates say about a prepared list of topics. It means knowing their backgrounds, and knowing a fair amount about history, economics, and literature. Avoid multiculturalist or conspiratorial takes on these subjects. If your sources are Howard Zinn, Paul Krugman, Michael Savage, Noam Chomsky, Alex Jones, or- heaven help us– Amy Schumer or Samantha Bee, then you need better sources.

Nobody should enter a polling place undecided. A vote should never be determined by a coin toss. Anyone who hasn’t made up his/her mind before election day hasn’t weighed the issues properly. Impulsiveness and civic responsibility don’t mix. Activity is productive only when directed by reason, and random activity is usually useless at best, if not downright destructive. When we don’t know what we’re doing, it’s often best to do nothing.

This is especially true in the political arena.

(For the best internet connection, talk to us. We can help.)

Share on Social Media:

NET NEUTRALITY FIGHT TO END?

Image result for arm wrestling

The ongoing battle over the FCC’s ‘net neutrality’ rules has been bitter, and has hitherto offered no sign of abating. Several engineers at Stanford University, however, claim to have found a way out of the impasse. We don’t have to fight over this, they say. A technical fix is at hand.

The Stanford engineers say they have pioneered a technique that would enable  internet users to tell ISPs and online publishers when or if they want ‘preferential delivery’ for some data. (An ISP is an internet service provider.)

‘Net neutrality’ means ISPs must treat all data equally. They won’t be allowed to favor some content, nor to block or throttle other content.

The political battle over such net regulations has been loud and ferocious.

Professor Nick McKeown, Associate Professor Sachin Katti, and PhD Yiannia Yiakoumis say their new method, ‘Network Cookies’, could render the debate moot. An open internet and preferential delivery can coexist. The user decides what content gets favored delivery, while ISP administrators and content sources are unbiased; they throttle or speed data only in response to user preferences.

The Stanford engineering team field-tested the Network Cookies on 161 home networks connected with Google, sending boosted service requests from home routers to the ISP. The Network Cookies got heavy consumer use.

McKeown said, “…They’re simple to use and powerful. They enable you to fast-lane or zero-rate traffic from any application or website you want, not just the few, very popular applications. This is particularly important for smaller content providers– and their users, who can’t afford to establish relationships with ISPs. Second, they’re practical to deploy. They don’t overwhelm the user or bog down user devices and network operators…”

If this is all McKeown’s team says it is, then there may be no need for the Federal Government to weigh in on ‘net neutrality’ at all.

(For the best internet service, you need a reliable connection. Talk to us. We can help.)