Sunday, September 15, 2013

"Every user every day benefits from this rule ..."

Debate is back on in Washington on US regulations on “net neutrality” which bar Internet broadband providers from blocking or discriminating against services or content.
A court case for which arguments were held this month brought by Verizon, one of the largest Internet service providers, challenges the “Open Internet” rule approved in 2010 by the Federal Communications Commission.
“These rules provide an important safeguard both for innovation and investment on the Internet,” said David Sohn, an attorney with the Center for Democracy and Technology, which backs the FCC rules.
Sohn said that if Verizon has its way, it and other providers like Comcast or AT&T could “play favorites,” by blocking or degrading services such as YouTube or Netflix to promote their own offerings or that of their partners. 
So, what's so bad about that?
Haven't we had our fill of baby, puppy, kitten videos yet?
I'm kidding, of course.

For serious analysis turn to Volokh
What this would mean, as Judge Tatel summarized on a few occasions in the argument, is that Internet access providers (e.g., Verizon) could not charge edge providers (Google was often used as an example) for their use of Verizon’s regular broadband Internet service, but could demand payment for faster service. That is what the “no blocking” rule provides: an Internet access provider cannot charge websites for access to the provider’s customers as part of the provider’s standard service, but it can charge websites for access to its premium service. The prohibition on unreasonable discrimination would cast doubt on charging for premium service (the fear being that this will lead to a two-tier Web, with mediocre speeds for companies that don’t pay, or aren’t affiliated with, Internet access providers, and fast speeds for the favored edge companies).
Former FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell said "It's a complex issue legally and its complex factually... lawyers are determining the fate of how the internet should evolve." - video after the jump.


 


4 comments:

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

Haven't we had our fill of baby, puppy, kitten videos yet?

Sorry about that... I was trying to be funny and I went over the line.

I apologize.

Leland said...

lawyers are determining the fate of how the internet should evolve."

Chilling

edutcher said...

If it's lawyers, we know how it will end.

ken in tx said...

During my interaction with computers, things got better and then they got worse. When Commodore went from the 64 to the 128, they made the 128 able to pretend to be a 64 so that your old stuff would still work. Later with Amigas, nothing would work.

Wordstar and Peachtext worked with different versions for a while. Then they didn't. They went away.

Windows was backwards compatible for many versions, then it wasn't.

Windows XP had a feature that allowed you to run software in the mode of previous versions of Windows.

Now I have Windows 7. It does not do that. Because of that I have to buy a new printer, and I am not even using Windows 8 yet.

What incentive do I have to upgrade. If I had stayed with Windows XP, everything would still work.