The US FCC, headed by new chairman Julius Genachowski, wants to apply the same net neutrality rules to mobile networks as wireline systems, to the fury of the cellcos. In the most radical neutrality program ever outlined in the US, the new-look FCC is insisting that wireless carriers should account for their open policies in the …
they dont want this
As it means that there will be no restriction on VOIP applications on any handset with an internet connection , thus eroding the massive margins made on calls and roaming.
This will probably force up contract prices , but lower monthly bills as the majority of calls will be made using the providers data contract.
I'm sure they'll still continue to make wods of cash, just the nature of the game will change. They should embrace this, The market would get a jump start in the already saturated west with all the new VOIP applications. Businesses would love it.
"He has reaffirmed the 2005 broadband principles that consumers are entitled to access any legal internet content, and run any apps, from their choice of legal device,"
"consumers are entitled to run any apps, from their choice of legal device,"
Why does this immediately make me think of the iPhone?
"How do the rules apply to the single purpose Amazon Kindle? How does it apply to Google's efforts to cache content to provide a better consumer experience? How about the efforts from Apple and Android, Blackberry and Nokia, Firefly and others to differentiate the products and services they develop for consumers? Should all product and service offerings be the same?"
Whenever someone can only come up with questions, it's a fair bet they don't have any real arguments against the issue.
From what I've seen of the rules so far, all of those things you've mentioned would benefit by not being so closely shackled to the network operators. Amazon, Google, Apple, Android, Blackberry, Nokia, Firefly, etc. aren't differentiated and attractive to consumers because of the networks they're tied to -- quite the oppposite, in fact. They're attractive to consumers because of their innovation, and the network tie-ins are a drag on their momentum. Be honest, Mr. Guttman-Mccabe. Your position isn't about preserving the ability to innovate, it's about preserving the ability for your network operators to siphon earnings off of the true innovators through exclusive licensing deals.
Great... but likely misunderstood
While I think this will allow for "Application Freedom" on cell phone devices, which will affect tons of iPhone users, the data plans won't change much for current users, as most users have "Unlimited E-mail and Web." Web is different from internet, since you're subscribing to a service that provides you both E-mails and HTTP access, not protocol agnostic access.
Those with tethering plans, or air-cards will be overjoyed to know that their data plan will work just like any other wired internet connection, and I think that's what the FCC may be shooting for more or less.
FCC = FEDERAL Communications Commision
That means it's only going to affect the USA, NOT the UK, lads. We've still got NOTCOM - sorry, OfCom to contend with.
Give carriers the choice.
EITHER be neutral and enjoy the legal immunity of being a common carrier OR selectively filter your service and thereby turn yourself into the legal publisher of whatever makes it through your pipe.
Go on, let them choose, and then we can sue the stupid ones off the face of the Earth.
I was going to comment, but Steven took the words from my mouth:
"From what I've seen of the rules so far, all of those things you've mentioned would benefit by not being so closely shackled to the network operators. Amazon, Google, Apple, Android, Blackberry, Nokia, Firefly, etc. aren't differentiated and attractive to consumers because of the networks they're tied to -- quite the oppposite, in fact. They're attractive to consumers because of their innovation, and the network tie-ins are a drag on their momentum."
Stop your whining
"The CTIA, which represents wireless carriers, is reiterating its line that competition is sufficient to regulate the internet world, while cellcos are predictably trotting out the argument that unfettered internet access could overburden their wireless networks."
Really? Alright CTIA... let's use a little common sense here. The last time I looked, to get "capped" broadband access on any of the major networks here in the US requires the signing of a two year contract including an early termination fee. Explain to me how exactly that qualifies as competitive?
Let's say for example that I've been visiting yahoo for years on your service and you all of a sudden decide that you're going to block that site and charge an extra fee for users to get there -- which under the current unregulated industry you could easily do. What make's you think A) that it's fair to do such a thing and B) that I should have to pay you a large fee just to get away from your unjust practice and get my service somewhere else? Nothing about that is competitive in even the smallest way.
As far as your limited spectrum goes, I understand your concern there. However, there's an old saying; necessity is the mother of invention. So, my suggestion to you is to stop your whining and start inventing because the FCC is about to make it necessary if you wish to keep customers.
-Thumbs up because I love how our FCC is really starting to take a stand here in the states.
"...overburden their wireless networks."
"...argument that unfettered internet access could overburden their wireless networks."
Hmmm... Let's see... Let's focus on speed... Say they setup an infrastructure that allows 50mbps for a given area. How do they advertise?
"50mbps download speed!!!"
B*llsh*t!!! Such advertisement is an outright misrepresentation. They include a disclaimer? Where? Somewhere at the bottom, barely noticeable/readable? They should at least say:
"50mbps shared download speed!!! *speed is shared across a given area."
...or something to that effect.
Meanwhile this very week in Brussels..
the conciliation process has begun on the EU Telcoms Package, where Conservative Meps Harbour, and Chicester will be blocking a re-examination of the non-neutrality clauses which scraped though the EU parliament in May.
Given 4g/LTE assumes a single Data Transport layer using the same protocols as our fixed broadband access networks, then neutrality and transparency becomes basic properties of the network if they are to deliver user experiences in a consistent manner.
The UK policy makers, including the Digital Britain avoided the subject like the plague. If you treat spectrum as a national resource to deliver services in an open transparent manner you should not auction it off to the highest bidder, without first defining what a national data transport should deliver and on what terms
The Walled Garden, The Internet Gate
When you connect to any provider, you begin in a (fire)walled garden. Within the garden, providers can compete by providing proprietary content, tunes, movies, news, whatever.
This garden will usually also feature gates to additional features and services, for example a back-net credit card processing gateway, the PSTN (public switched telephone network,) Internet (r) brand connection to the network of networks, KidSafe (tm) brand filtered network connection, if they can think of it, they can offer it.
So long as there is clear disclosure, they should be allowed to offer, or not offer, whatever they choose. But if a provider chooses to use the Internet Brand Name for one of their gates, then they should be required to meet net neutrality rules.
Consumers should be able to choose the features and speeds they want, and access the provider with any legal device they select.
Paris because her sister is coming to my Halloween party.
- Crawling from the Wreckage Want a more fuel efficient car? Then redesign it – here's how
- Review Xperia Z3: Crikey, Sony – ANOTHER flagship phondleslab?
- Human spaceships dodge ALIEN BODY skimming Mars
- Pics Whisper tracks its users. So we tracked down its LA office. This is what happened next
- Ex-US Navy fighter pilot MIT prof: Drones beat humans - I should know