But, in their questions and statements during oral argument, the judges have made clear how they planned to rule — for the phone and cable companies, not for those who use the internet. While the FCC has the power to impose the toothless “no-blocking” rule (originally proposed by AT&T above), it does not (the court will say) have the power to impose the essential “nondiscrimination” rule.

It looks like we’ll end up where AT&T initially began: a false compromise.

The implications of such a decision would be profound. Web and mobile companies will live or die not on the merits of their technology and design, but on the deals they can strike with AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and others. This means large phone and cable companies will be able to “shakedown” startups and established companies in every sector, requiring payment for reliable service. In fact, during the oral argument in the current case, Verizon’s lawyer said, “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these [FCC] rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements

Sovereign wrote:As an entrepreneur with two tech services/products in development, this does not make me feel any better about anything. I'll have to pay a premium to reach more users rather than just having a good product?

But, in their questions and statements during oral argument, the judges have made clear how they planned to rule — for the phone and cable companies, not for those who use the internet. While the FCC has the power to impose the toothless “no-blocking” rule (originally proposed by AT&T above), it does not (the court will say) have the power to impose the essential “nondiscrimination” rule.

It looks like we’ll end up where AT&T initially began: a false compromise.

The implications of such a decision would be profound. Web and mobile companies will live or die not on the merits of their technology and design, but on the deals they can strike with AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and others. This means large phone and cable companies will be able to “shakedown” startups and established companies in every sector, requiring payment for reliable service. In fact, during the oral argument in the current case, Verizon’s lawyer said, “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these [FCC] rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/11/so ... eutrality/

Scar wrote:

Sovereign wrote:As an entrepreneur with two tech services/products in development, this does not make me feel any better about anything. I'll have to pay a premium to reach more users rather than just having a good product?

But, in their questions and statements during oral argument, the judges have made clear how they planned to rule — for the phone and cable companies, not for those who use the internet. While the FCC has the power to impose the toothless “no-blocking” rule (originally proposed by AT&T above), it does not (the court will say) have the power to impose the essential “nondiscrimination” rule.

It looks like we’ll end up where AT&T initially began: a false compromise.

The implications of such a decision would be profound. Web and mobile companies will live or die not on the merits of their technology and design, but on the deals they can strike with AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and others. This means large phone and cable companies will be able to “shakedown” startups and established companies in every sector, requiring payment for reliable service. In fact, during the oral argument in the current case, Verizon’s lawyer said, “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these [FCC] rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/11/so ... eutrality/

OT: Out of interest, what are these two services, if I may ask? (this field is one that I'd love to work in after university,too )

Sovereign wrote:

Scar wrote:

Sovereign wrote:As an entrepreneur with two tech services/products in development, this does not make me feel any better about anything. I'll have to pay a premium to reach more users rather than just having a good product?

But, in their questions and statements during oral argument, the judges have made clear how they planned to rule — for the phone and cable companies, not for those who use the internet. While the FCC has the power to impose the toothless “no-blocking” rule (originally proposed by AT&T above), it does not (the court will say) have the power to impose the essential “nondiscrimination” rule.

It looks like we’ll end up where AT&T initially began: a false compromise.

The implications of such a decision would be profound. Web and mobile companies will live or die not on the merits of their technology and design, but on the deals they can strike with AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and others. This means large phone and cable companies will be able to “shakedown” startups and established companies in every sector, requiring payment for reliable service. In fact, during the oral argument in the current case, Verizon’s lawyer said, “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these [FCC] rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/11/so ... eutrality/

OT: Out of interest, what are these two services, if I may ask? (this field is one that I'd love to work in after university,too )

I'm not going to give too much away

One is a fitness product that my friend and I developed while in school. He came up with the concept and I did the initial design. Now I'm doing the programming for the new prototype so we can get the new demo out and do more fundraising.

The second one is a service. I'm trying to make it easier to find specific things on the web. The idea came to me out of the frustration I was having with the fitness product. Not the product itself but the whole process of finding shops and manufacturing to get parts made. I'm starting out very small and very niche and I plan to grow it as I see what the response is.

If you're going to go into entrepreneurship, I suggest reading "The Lean Startup" and also, get ready to make a lot of mistakes. Funny anecdote. I didn't want to do academia because I didn't want to have to ask organizations for money all the time. I wound up doing that anyway

AT&T announced a new scheme today that allows app-makers and websites to pay for the bandwidth you consume using their services — a move digital rights activists say breaches the spirit of net neutrality.

The second largest mobile provider is taking advantage of the data caps it imposes on subscribers by letting companies sponsor the bandwidth their wares use. The consumer who enjoys those sponsored services will not have that broadband count against their monthly data allotment. Sponsorship is not mandatory — if a company doesn’t pay AT&T, the bandwidth will count against the user’s cap as always.

“Content and app providers that can’t pay this new toll to reach customers will be at a huge disadvantage, and may never get off the ground in the first place if they can’t afford AT&T’s sponsor fees. Letting the carriers charge more or less money to reach certain sites is discriminatory, and it’s not how the Internet is supposed to work.”

Sovereign wrote:Well AT&T is making its move regardless...

AT&T announced a new scheme today that allows app-makers and websites to pay for the bandwidth you consume using their services — a move digital rights activists say breaches the spirit of net neutrality.

The second largest mobile provider is taking advantage of the data caps it imposes on subscribers by letting companies sponsor the bandwidth their wares use. The consumer who enjoys those sponsored services will not have that broadband count against their monthly data allotment. Sponsorship is not mandatory — if a company doesn’t pay AT&T, the bandwidth will count against the user’s cap as always.

“Content and app providers that can’t pay this new toll to reach customers will be at a huge disadvantage, and may never get off the ground in the first place if they can’t afford AT&T’s sponsor fees. Letting the carriers charge more or less money to reach certain sites is discriminatory, and it’s not how the Internet is supposed to work.”

Full article

Warren Dew wrote:Net neutrality is a free market. No wonder the socialists want to allow the oligopolists to discriminate.

In a landmark ruling Tuesday, a federal appeals court has struck down key parts of the Federal Communications Commission's open-Internet rules, effectively ruling that the federal government cannot enforce net neutrality. Put more simply, it can't require that Internet service providers treat all traffic equally.

Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such. Because the Commission has failed to establish that the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules do not impose per se common carrier obligations, we vacate those portions of the Open Internet Order.

Expect to hear a lot of I-told-you-sos from those who worried about having a former cable lobbyist chair the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC is set to introduce a new set of rules governing how Internet service providers (ISPs) can treat different services in different ways, and it looks like they will hew closely to the cable industry’s line.

Late Wednesday the Wall Street Journal reported that the FCC would release new rules developed by its chairman, Tom Wheeler. This was bound to happen after a federal court struck down the FCC’s Open Internet Order in January. Wheeler’s approach to the issue of net neutrality has been the subject of much hand-wringing, with his public statements always leaving some question about his position on the issue. The new rules will likely embrace the idea that Internet service providers can create so-called fast lanes, where they charge companies to send content to customers faster. If that principle becomes law, here are a few things to expect:

consistency wrote:Finally!

Pressure built on the U.S. Federal Communications Commission chairman on Thursday to delay or abandon a plan to relax Internet traffic rules, with more than 50 high-profile venture capitalists and another FCC member the latest to pile on.

Prominent investors including Ron Conway of SV Angel, Chris Dixon of Andreessen Horowitz, John Lilly of Greylock Partners, Jason Mendelson of Foundry Group, and dozens of other VCs wrote a joint letter to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, himself a former private equity investor, sharing their concerns about the proposed new "open Internet" rules.

"If established companies are able to pay for better access speeds or lower latency, the Internet will no longer be a level playing field," they said in a letter released on Thursday.