FCC Net Neutrality Rules could, but probably won't, impact Music Freedom

[raptir]

3 ways your wireless service will change under the FCC's net neutrality rules | The Verge

The article also touches on AT&T's Sponsored Data (which would be completely disallowed) and throttling. I don't imagine that the throttling restriction would have any impact on T-Mobile's limited high speed/unlimited throttled plans, but I'm not sure.

They say in the article that T-Mobile's Music Freedom is likely safe since it does not harm consumers, but that it would need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Maybe that would prompt T-Mobile to be more proactive about adding music services.

 

[SpookDroid]

I hope it doesn't... and if it does, that it prompts Legere to say 'Funk it! Unlimited everything for everybody for 50 bucks!'

 

[Shilohcane]

The FCC Net Neutrality was never about the fairness, condition, or quality over the speed of the internet. Obama played that fairness card since he never could have got the public support if he told you he wanted to tax the internet, control the content and use it to get eyes and ears inside your home. The US Gov now owns the internet in this country.

The Internet Tax Freedom Act bans taxes on Internet access but that bill expires in October 2015. While Congress is expected to renew that legislation, it’s conceivable that states could eventually push Congress for the ability to tax Internet service now that it has been deemed a vital public utility.

When has the US Gov ever run anything more efficient than private industry? The Internet was not broken. There is no problem for the government to solve on the internet.

 

[raptir]

The FCC Net Neutrality was never about the fairness, condition, or quality over the speed of the internet. Obama played that fairness card since he never could have got the public support if he told you he wanted to tax the internet, control the content and use it to get eyes and ears inside your home. The US Gov now owns the internet in this country.

 

[Almeuit]

Only time will tell. Technically NN wasn't about not allowing things that harm consumers -- I mean it does help with that but -- it is mainly about all data, treated the same, regardless of what it is. Such as charging me data for Netflix but not for Pandora isn't treating it the same.

 

[zorak950]

It's going to be a mess, but it's the ISPs' own fault for acting in bad faith. Regulation has become the lesser of two evils.

 

[raptir]

Only time will tell. Technically NN wasn't about not allowing things that harm consumers -- I mean it does help with that but -- it is mainly about all data, treated the same, regardless of what it is. Such as charging me data for Netflix but not for Pandora isn't treating it the same.

Well, yeah, the Net Neutrality principle/movement is about that, and T-Mobile's Music Freedom would not be allowed under a policy that explicitly required Net Neutrality. But the FCC Net Neutrality Rules do not require that everything be fully in line with Net Neutrality.

It's definitely a matter that could be debated, whether a policy that is beneficial to consumers but anti-net neutrality should be allowed.

 

[Shilohcane]

View attachment 165700

Now that the government has outlawed the internet fast lanes there won't be as many private investors to pay for technology innovations for speed. Like moving from 4G to 5G since there is no payoff for private industry investing in 5G for speed. Again tell me anything the Gov has ever run better than private industry? No one in the world thinks Gov elected officials understand technology or how to manage it or improve it. Gov elected officials sure know how to take something that wasn't broken and then break it especially when someone is contributing to their political campaign funds. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s wants to govern tomorrow’s Internet as a public utility using 1930′s law written for land based telephones.

Suddenly, net neutrality doesn't look so great for 5G

 

[zorak950]

Now that the government has outlawed the internet fast lanes there won't be as many private investors to pay for technology innovations for speed. Like moving from 4G to 5G since there is no payoff for private industry investing in 5G for speed.

I don't understand your argument. The FCC is seeking to regulate against unfair discrimination between different types of network traffic, not to keep providers from charging more for higher speeds in general. The principle is that if I pay for a certain speed, I should get Netflix and Comcast Video On Demand and YouTube and Hulu served to me in the same way. If carriers want to charge me more for 5G than they do for 4G than they do for 3G than they do for 2G, they can; they can't just give me Hulu at 5G speeds and Netflix at 3G speeds because Hulu paid them money and Netflix didn't.

In other words, this isn't about ISPs not being able to charge more for superior service, it's about them trying to double-dip: end users are already paying them for access to the internet and everything on it, but the ISPs want to be able to charge companies that do business online to be accessed by their customers. They're taking advantage of their position as middleman in a way that the vast majority of people find to be unfair because it harms both end users, who are paying for the internet but only getting access to the parts of it their ISP wants them to see, and commerce because internet businesses that can't or won't pay up lose their ability to compete effectively.

 

[Shilohcane]

I don't understand your argument. The FCC is seeking to regulate against unfair discrimination between different types of network traffic, not to keep providers from charging more for higher speeds in general. The principle is that if I pay for a certain speed, I should get Netflix and Comcast Video On Demand and YouTube and Hulu served to me in the same way. If carriers want to charge me more for 5G than they do for 4G than they do for 3G than they do for 2G, they can; they can't just give me Hulu at 5G speeds and Netflix at 3G speeds because Hulu paid them money and Netflix didn't.

In other words, this isn't about ISPs not being able to charge more for superior service, it's about them trying to double-dip: end users are already paying them for access to the internet and everything on it, but the ISPs want to be able to charge companies that do business online to be accessed by their customers. They're taking advantage of their position as middleman in a way that the vast majority of people find to be unfair because it harms both end users, who are paying for the internet but only getting access to the parts of it their ISP wants them to see, and commerce because internet businesses that can't or won't pay up lose their ability to compete effectively.

I don't understand your argument. The FCC commissioner even refused to appear before congress to explain what he was going to do implementing Net Neutrality the day before he Nationalized the internet. The FCC hasn't even released the new rules so you don't even know what the FCC is going to do like maybe tax the internet when the Internet Freedom Act expires in October. What you were sold was a cover story on Fairness of speed so the Government could get your support to Nationalizing the Internet. Sounds a lot like the Gov excuse we got for Obamacare that you can keep your doctor if you want to or it will lower the cost of medical care or it wasn't really a tax which were all a Gov lies to public just to pass Obamacare.

Now technology ignorant politicians are going to manage the future of the internet using a 1933 law written for land based telephones. Who is going to pay for upgrading internet technology upgrades when as you say the ISP's are not able to charge more for superior service from anyone but their ISP customers? Maybe a new Gov tax since the internet is now an essential public service.

Who is going to provide a better internet product in the future since the FCC just made the internet a public utility. Take a guess will it be the city's public internet they will include in housing tax or Comcast's cable?

Let's take cable TV in comparison that also has multiple revenue streams. TV makes money from cable providers via customers and from advertisement from commercials sold by both the cable company and the network. Take away TV commercial product advertisement like HBO from network then everything would be paid for by only people that watch TV via cable bills. Let's face it TV is double dipping by getting income from both commercial product advertisement and from Cable, Satellite providers. If TV lost one source of income then they would make the only other source pay more and then stop spending money on making the TV Network better due to less revenue.

The Internet was not broken. There was no problem for the government to solve on the internet.

 

[zorak950]

I don't understand your argument. The FCC commissioner even refused to appear before congress to explain what he was going to do implementing Net Neutrality the day before he Nationalized the internet.
...
Who is going to provide a better internet product in the future since the FCC just made the internet a public utility. Take a guess will it be the city's public internet they will include in housing tax or Comcast's cable?
...
Let's take cable TV in comparison that also has multiple revenue streams. TV makes money from cable providers via customers and from advertisement from commercials sold by both the cable company and the network.

The government isn't going to run the internet, it's going to regulate it. Either you don't know the meaning of the word "nationalized" or you're engaging in such a massive hyperbole that trying to have an actual discussion with you is pointless. You might as well claim that banks are nationalized.

Your analogy is flawed in a few ways, but let's focus on probably the most obvious one: ad revenues go primarily to stations, not to cable companies. The proper analog to the internet is advertising on websites, which we already have and nobody is talking about getting rid of. A better analogy would be if Comcast cranked down the video resolution and audio quality on any programming that competed with NBC Universal (which it owns), or refused to carry CNN or Fox News because they compete with MSNBC.

That said, I agree with you in at least one aspect, specifically that Title II reclassification does raise some unsettling questions long-term. The FCC is acquiring some powers that I'm far from convinced it should have along with those I want it to have in this. The whole idea of "forbearance" is tenuous to the point of meaninglessness, and it works both ways: it's dangerously close to saying "we're only enforcing the rules we want to," and that's disturbing from a public policy perspective as well as a business perspective.

To bring the conversation back around to T-Mobile, though, I think that as long as the process is transparent and democratic, and money isn't changing hands, the FCC will regard programs like Music Freedom as benign. However, we should all be conscious of the fact that such programs are close cousins of exactly the sort of malignant network traffic discrimination that net neutrality is meant to prevent, and we ought not be blindly eager in endorsing them.

 

[clevin]

Lord, Communist again? You guys need to seriously stop listening to partisan jack.

In this fight, it's freaking Comcast, vzw, att vs Google, Mozilla and people. I don't need one second to figure out who is representing my right.

If yout want to start partisan political debate, go to another board please.

@T-Mobile GN3