AT&T to 'own' the Mobile Internet? Thanks a lot Obama!

[dd_terry]

According to this story AT&T and Verizon may own the mobile internet and give their applications preference over other carrier's applications ...


Timothy Karr: Obama FCC Caves on Net Neutrality -- Tuesday Betrayal Assured

dd_terry

 

[Bujin#IM]

Personally, I'll wait for specifics before getting too worked up. According to this article, it at least prevents providers from restricting what sites they support, which was a major initial concern, and only references restricting competing services. And while I understand liberal anger for some recent legislation, but laws have to get through our current Senate.... it's easy to blame Obama, but all presidents have to work with the legislative bodies in order for legislation to actually pass.

I'll.be curious to see how it all plays out.

 

[Chris Kerrigan]

I'll be even more curious to see what sort of loopholes service providors will pull out of this. Where there's a will, there's a way.

 

[readable]

A very thoughtful reply.

Personally, I'll wait for specifics before getting too worked IP. According to this article, it at least prevents providers from restricting what sites they support, which was a major initial concern, and only references restricting competing services. And while I understand liberal anger for some recent legislation, but laws have to get through our current Senate.... it's easy to blame Obama, but all presidents have to work with the legislative bodies in order for legislation to actually pass.

I'll.be curious to see how it all plays out.

 

[LaFinDuMonde]

Impressive resume - don't you think?

 

[bclinger#IM]

The FCC is solving a problem that never existed with this new crap.

 

[Bujin#IM]

The FCC is solving a problem that never existed with this new crap.

I don't know about that - there have been rumblings about providers having tiered plans based upon what sites you visit, or differentiating the speed of various sites (for example, Google / Verizon talking about providing better speeds for google and youtube.)

I'd rather not have Cox Cable limiting my access to the internet, as they currently do by being the gatekeeper for my cable channels.

 

[bclinger#IM]

Oh, but that is what this law ultimately allows. Government regulation leads to limitations. The industry needs to control it, the users, not the government.

 

[Bujin#IM]

Oh, but that is what this law ultimately allows. Government regulation leads to limitations. The industry needs to control it, the users, not the government.

Well, the users can't control it without some regulation. Currently there's nothing to stop Yahoo (for example) to pay Cox Cable to provide greater speed for Yahoo video than YouTube (or block YouTube altogether). Or from charging you extra money because you go to YouTube. The user would have no control over that, as there really is no competition for Cox Cable in my area.

Those arguing that regulation causes limitation are correct, but the limitation is to the corporate providers, not to the users - it's designed so that users aren't limited due to corporate dealings.

My feeling is that the biggest flaw in the legislation is that mobile is considered a different medium than landline ISP's, and so are immune to these regulations.

 

[BSG75]

I think most of us want an open, free internet. Do you want to count on Verizon, Comcast, Cox, etc. to not block competing content (NBC/Comcast deal, anyone)? Or would you rather count on our representatives in the lobby-friendly congress? Or would you rather let a handful of people in the FCC control the regs (which they may not have the authority to do in the first place)? None of them seem like good solutions to me.

I don't have answers, just concerns.