If the internet is all that hot, why are the FCC's press releases only available in word or .pdf? Sure there is an argument that it's an example of choice but what a pain. All I am looking for are the new three principles and I have to launch an app. I don't have time to launch an app. And anyway, they are only three new short rules:
1. Providers can’t favor their own content.
2. Providers need to explain variable internet speeds.
3. Providers can’t limit access to lawful content.
Apparently some are already unhappy with even this but I see the point on dividing provision of service from content. Yet, what is "lawful" content? What is that In China or Singapore compared to Iceland or Italy... and what is up with Italy anyway? The rules are not absolute whether or not this bill passes giving the US emergency powers. There are buttons and plugs and filters, after all.
Comments
Jay Currie - September 23, 2009 4:27 AM
"Lawful" is a huge problem...you can download music in Canada. The Federal Court says so. In the US you can't. But can a Canadian download music from some guy in the US? Or vice versa.
The first two rules are not at all bad. The third is a mare's nest.
Plus, once fiber optic cable is extended into peoples' house the first two rules will be technologically moot.
Chris Taylor - September 23, 2009 8:29 AM
I guess I care. Kinda.
On the other hand the idea of being able to surf the net in a notional (and surely expensive) Super Mega Oligarchic No-Ads, No-Celebrities, Rogers-O-Vision is mildly entertaining.
If they gave us the option to select what sorts of traffic we could select as high priority (always cached by ISP servers) and what sort of traffic we could designate as toilet priority (never cached and actually don't even bother showing it to me), that would be cool.
I do all that right now via hack-o-vision router firmware and special rulesets. It wouldn't be so bad if the ISP did it so long as we had a choice (as with channel packages) and they didn't arbitrarily lock us into stupid can-never-have-this-no-matter-what bundles.
Hans - September 24, 2009 9:50 AM
Sorry for not participating sooner:
I don't care.
I hope this is helpful.
David Janes - September 24, 2009 10:17 AM
I do care, sorta. Let me walk through these 1-by-1
1. Providers can’t favor their own content.
- this is the most important one for me. It means Rogers can't throttle services that compete with Rogers (say for video, or VOIP)
2. Providers need to explain variable internet speeds.
- this is simple: you have to explain clearly what service you are offering consumers, so they can take their business elsewhere if they don't like what you do
3. Providers can’t limit access to lawful content.
- Rogers can't shake down Google for "allowing" them access to Rogers' customers
I have sympathy for the liberatarianish argument against this, but it must be remembered that in turn society doesn't hold Rogers responsible for kiddie pr0n, plotted murders, etc. being done using Rogers' technology.