Wireless Industry Lobbying Hard to Keep Net Neutrality Out 85
Taco Cowboy writes: The net neutrality issue has become a hot topic recently, but on the mobile side, net neutrality rules are absent. Why? The wireless companies successfully convinced regulators four years ago to keep mobile networks mostly free of net neutrality rules. Now that FCC officials are looking into whether wireless networks should remain exempt from net neutrality rules, the mobile carriers are lobbying hard to maintain the status quo. "Wireless is different ... it is dependent on finite spectrum," said Meredith Attwell Baker, the new head of CTIA, the wireless industry's lobbying arm. Baker previously served as an FCC commissioner. On the other side of the issue, net neutrality advocates are "hoping to convince regulators to include wireless networks more fully under any new proposed rules. They are pushing for the FCC to re-regulate broadband Internet under a section of the law (called Title II), which was written with old phone networks in mind. ... The FCC will be taking public comments about what it should do about new net neutrality rules through the end of July." You can comment by emailing to openinternet@fcc.gov or go to file a Consumer Informal Complaint on the FCC's wesbite.
Meanwhile, AT&T says that strong net neutrality regulations will ruin the internet.
Of course they do ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course AT&T is going to say that.
They're one of the entities who stands to profit from no net neutrality, and they're one of the companies who are actually ruining the internet.
Net neutrality is an assault on the business model of gouging successful ventures, because it prevents the extra rent-seeking they like to do.
I've never understood how ISPs aren't common carriers.
having it both ways (Score:4, Insightful)
"Wireless is different ... it is dependent on finite spectrum," said Meredith Attwell Baker, the new head of CTIA, the wireless industry's lobbying arm.
There is absolutely nothing about Net Neutrality that affects the final leg of transmission. Doing away with Net Neutrality helps a bit with peering issues. Limited bandwidth from the tower to the phone, or in the final mile of wired service would be almost totally unaffected by any change in net neutrality. You'll still have limited bandwidth, you'll still have people poorly served during peak usage. Net Neutrality simply changes WHO gets poorly served.
Re:Data caps (Score:5, Insightful)
Because, if they launch their own video streaming service for their clients, for instance, they wouldn't be able to give it preferential treatment to their packets over those of Netflix.
If there was net neutrality, the ISPs wouldn't be able to push their own services to compete with others, and they'd have to do it on merit.
Same goes for music, TV shows, and possibly even app stores.
If they serve the interwebs to people equally, they have less of a way to make sure it's easier for the consumer to use their products, and instead they might use those of someone else ... and then executive bonuses might suffer as their offerings flop.
Won't someone think about the executive bonuses?
The exact reason we need net neutrality (Score:5, Insightful)
Wireless is different ... it is dependent on finite spectrum.
This is precisely why it needs net neutrality. If they are allowed to create high priority "lanes," there will be nothing left for anyone else. Everyone will be forced to pay extra or effectively have no access at all.
Re:Of course they do ... (Score:4, Insightful)
>...so that the ISPs can never hope to get their way again.
I agree with the sentiment, but that seems optimistic. After all, if at first you don't succeed, lobby, lobby again. Sooner or later the public will get tired of protesting and you can slip your new rules into the system. At least that seems to be a common strategy across the board in recent years.
Still, no sense making it easy for them. The battle to maintain any semblance of a functional democracy is never-ending, and we can't hope to win if we don't fight.