|reply to Karl Bode |
Re: It doesn't sound as horrible as it could have been...
"That sounds desperate and frankly a little naive."
I don't see why. I'm reading the wording of the paragraph.
"STILL-NASCENT NATURE of the wireless broadband marketplace...would not NOW apply most of the wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement."
They seem to be leaving the possibility open of future changes to this while not forcing verizon to do something that it fears will overwhelm the present limits of its wireless infrastructure. This is an opportunity to test whether verizon is acting in good faith on this point and is willing to see wireless fall under wireline rules in future when capacity and wireless broadband penetration reach a certain point. It certainly isn't as bad as what was implied in recent press reports that there was going to be some kind of permanent exclusion of wireless from net neutrality rules.
"Verizon's about four months away from launching a wireless broadband version that not only is faster than their DSL service, but offers comparable latency. What?"
Sure but the launch of lte doesn't mean that everyone is going to suddenly flock to wireless broadband from dsl or fios, or even have the opportunity to do so. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, what i said is correct. Perhaps the day will come when wireline internet access will die as the legacy copper voice system is for the bells but that is still quite a few years off.
"What commitment? "
quote:This language seems like a pretty significant change from the rhetoric of the incumbents, including verizon, up to this point.
First, both companies have long been proponents of the FCCs current wireline broadband openness principles, which ensure that consumers have access to all legal content on the Internet, and can use what applications, services, and devices they choose. The enforceability of those principles was called into serious question by the recent Comcast court decision. Our proposal would now make those principles fully enforceable at the FCC.
Second, we agree that in addition to these existing principles there should be a new, enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices. This means that for the first time, wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful Internet content, applications or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition.
Importantly, this new nondiscrimination principle includes a presumption against prioritization of Internet traffic - including paid prioritization. So, in addition to not blocking or degrading of Internet content and applications, wireline broadband providers also could not favor particular Internet traffic over other traffic.
"the framework is junk"
The framework needs a lot of additional work and specifics but I don't agree that it is junk. It is more than we have gotten from any of the incumbents up to this point and therefore it represents some glimmer of progress. It is in our interests to try to follow up the thread rather than just dump on it and go back to decrying how corrupt and perverted everything is.
If the fcc thinks it can effect the title II reclassification that is great. Otherwise, given where things stand now, it looks like we are in for more paralysis, which it doesn't seem to me is in our interest. The market isn't going to just stand still and wireless isn't moving in the direction of openness in the present market environment. So if we get nothing will we really be better off?