In related news [1], Brazil has just sanctioned net neutrality law : <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2014/04/23/brazil-passes-internet-bill-of-rights/" rel="nofollow">http://www.engadget.com/2014/04/23/brazil-passes-internet-bi...</a><p>Not only that, but also the telcos tried to smooth it out, saying they could still charge differently, and the president herself said "no, you can't".<p>[1] Really, no sarcasm here.
There is a reasonable argument for not wanting the FCC involved in setting technical policy for how a carrier runs its own network. It is at best disingenuous to claim "net neutrality regulation" is the only way to save the Internet.<p>Yes, I want the initial effects of net neutrality (mainly cheap access to comcast by CDNs and major hosting providers)<p>If someone builds a non-monopoly network, perhaps via multi-dwelling metro ethernet or fixed wireless, I <i>want</i> that network to be able to implement whatever QoS they want. If that means 155M links to buildings with 500 subscribers and some kind of local CDN node for video content which is "free" and QoS on other traffic, that's a win for consumers.<p>The correct place for requiring neutrality is when local governments negotiate with carriers for any monopoly rights. In exchange for a geographic monopoly on laying infrastructure, it would be reasonable to demand reasonable-and-non-discriminatory access to the network.<p>From a practical perspective, local governments are probably too technically and generally incapable of negotiating with big companies like Comcast, but that's a problem we're already facing. Model contracts would probably help with that, or state regulators.
I thought this was an interesting article on the subject - "The FCC’s New Net Neutrality Proposal Is Even Worse Than You Think":<p><a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/04/24/fcc_s_new_net_neutrality_proposal_is_even_worse_than_you_think.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/04/24/fcc_s_new...</a>
Didn't the FCC lack the authority to enforce net neutrality laws ? Why would it be different now.<p><a href="http://mediafreedom.org/2013/08/net-neutrality-governing-via-loopholes/" rel="nofollow">http://mediafreedom.org/2013/08/net-neutrality-governing-via...</a>
The Internet is not a delicate flower that must be either rescued by, or rescued from, the 5 national-political-party functionary lawyer/lobbyists on the FCC.<p>It's a fluid force of nature unleashed by digital technology. Companies that add tolls that don't come with commensurate value will be washed away by alternate-path competition.<p>Government should punish deception and break up monopolies (especially those its own rules and franchising have created). It should open more wireless spectrum. It shouldn't be designing service packages or determining what's "commercially reasonable".
This title sounds like those who write "keep your government hands off my Medicare!"<p>Net Neutrality regulations may be good, and they may even "save" the Internet, but it's not their inaction that will break it. If anything, it's the ISPs' actions.
Perhaps the us should consider unlimited terms for presidents. That way you don't have situations where incumbents have nothing to lose in their second term and no incentive to fulfill their promises. Or maybe not, I'm just throwing that out there.
Government control of the internet. It's like government control, but on the internet.<p>I am bewildered when I see freedom types suggesting that a federal agency (!) is going to grant them more freedom by controlling the services they use.
It's funny that a website apparently dedicated to this issue doesn't mention:<p>- which rules are supposed to kill net neutrality.<p>- how do they kill it? (by "picking winners and losers online"???)<p>Well hopefully Wikipedia will be more informative.