Comments on: Net Neutrality Means No More iPhones

By: Can We Protect Our Elections From ACORN? | FavStocks

Can We Protect Our Elections From ACORN? | FavStocks — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 20:13:38 +0000

[...] with any flexibility. And it could effectively kill the digital economy. As Reason Magazine’s Steven Titch argued, if net neutrality were in play several years ago, there would be no iPhone, to give just [...]

By: The Era of Internet Regulation Begins

The Era of Internet Regulation Begins — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 21:48:32 +0000

[...] The FCC gave the most ground on the so-called “fifth principle,” which, in original form, would have placed strict rules on the way service providers could manage their networks, even if the aim was to make certain applications, particularly video, work for users the way they were intended. The new rules appear to allow wireline ISPs to takes steps that are not “unreasonable.” Wireless networks are pretty much exempt from this rule – good thing, too – as the engineering wireless carriers did to support smartphones such as the iPhone and those using the Droid operating system would likely be immediate neutrality violations under such rules. [...]

By: 22 Different Reasons Why the FCC Should Avoid Imposing Net Neutrality Regulations

Tue, 30 Nov 2010 19:52:35 +0000

[...] The iPhone, which could not have been introduced under strict Net Neutrality regulations. [...]

By: Celebrating 5,000 Posts on the Technology Liberation Front Since 2004!

Celebrating 5,000 Posts on the Technology Liberation Front Since 2004! — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:07:54 +0000

[...] Net Neutrality: James Gattuso’s Horseshoes, Hand Grenades, and the FCC: Will the D.C. Circuit Ground Net Neutrality Rules?, Ryan Radia’s How Government Control of Internet Threatens Innovation: My FOXNews.com Op-Ed on Net Neutrality, Adam and my The Day Real Internet Freedom Died & Net Neutrality, Slippery Slopes & High-Tech Mutually Assured Destruction, and Steve Titch’s Net Neutrality Means No More iPhones [...]

By: Net Neutrality in a Nutshell « Snippets of my Mind

Net Neutrality in a Nutshell « Snippets of my Mind — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:17:34 +0000

[...] Steve Titch of The Reason Foundation argues that if government-enforced net neutrality rules were in place five years ago, the iPhone as we [...]

By: Web Design Kent

Web Design Kent — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:21:11 +0000

“Open Internet” or “net neutrality” sounds simple – force phone and cable companies to treat every bit of information the same way – until you realize that modern networks are incredibly complex, with millions of lines of code in every router. Making sure services like VoIP, video conferencing, and telemedicine (not to mention the next great thing that hasn't been invented yet) get priority may be necessary to make the Internet work, but the government is considering regulations that will make it illegal to prioritize traffic.

By: Web Design Kent

Web Design Kent — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:21:11 +0000

By: Net Neutrality’s Threat to Innovation: Far from ‘Ridiculous’

Net Neutrality’s Threat to Innovation: Far from ‘Ridiculous’ — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:56:09 +0000

[...] been some considerable comment over my February 11 post that, had the the FCC’s proposed Network Neutrality regulation been in force a few years ago, [...]

By: Steve R.

Steve R. — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:52:33 +0000

Here's another one from TechDirt: "YouTube Joins Hulu In Letting Content Holders Block Access For TV-Connected Devices. Those opposed to net neutrality regulation seem to possess a mental block when it comes to the ability to content providers to block content which is an unintended and unspoken consequence of being "free" as in no regulation. Again, I ask the question, what are those who oppose net neutrality regulation offering to guarantee that they will act within net neutrality principles?

Those opposed to net neutrality regulation talk in terms of the engineering need to manage the network, which is a legitimate concern. However, this disingenuously avoids discussing that the desire to be free from regulation is NOT really about the engineering but a management issue; the ability of management to whimsically control the distribution of content for any reason and for whatever business purpose management decides.

Asok to the Rescue (Dilbert Cartoon by Scott Adams)

By: Steve R.

Steve R. — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:52:33 +0000

By: Steve R.

Steve R. — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 21:55:49 +0000

The theme of this post is: "Much has been written about the deleterious effect that regulating network management would have on broadband investment and innovation,..." Unfortunately the post is not much more than FUD. This post conveniently ignores the active and purposefully actions of private companies in stiffing broadband investment and innovation. The New York Times reports: Skype Fights to Be Heard on Mobile Phones". Once again, another example of companies abusing there freedom to compete in a civilized manner.

Really this boils down to, "Why should anyone believe the premise that regulation is unnecessary when those who have the freedom to compete in a civil manner choose instead to abuse the truth and play "dirty tricks"?" Regulation may be onerous, but after a while society gets tired of incessant unethical corporate behavior and the unwillingness of the industry to clean itself-up; regulation then begins to look down-right appropriate.

By: jon

jon — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:53:42 +0000

You need to change the title “Net Neutrality Means No More iPhones” should be “Net Neutrality Means No More AT&T iPhones”. If anything iPhone should be open to any provider so they can come out with better plans and prices so if you want choice you have it. Why do you think unlocked iPhone's was big news when it came out, people want choices.

By: Nelson

Nelson — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 00:30:56 +0000

Actually AT&T DSL blocked access to 4chan in the summer of 2009. And since you mention that the lines between wireless and wired service are not like they used to be, I will mention the fact that Verizon Wireless also blocked access to 4chan recently.
As for BitTorrent and Comcast working it out quickly through market mechanisms. First off it wasn't quickly and Comcast didn't even admit to it until they started hearing with the FCC. Hearing with the FCC? That's not a market mechanism at least not one I've ever heard of.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 21:46:00 +0000

"had cajoled AT&T into spending millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours to create a new feature, so-called visual voicemail"
Really!? millions of dollars for click-able audio files on a mobile device? Must be the worlds worst, most expensive developers ever! Its a wonder how a bunch of kids at xda-developers figured out how to add this to like 10 phones in their free time.

By: facebook-710246033

facebook-710246033 — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:53:42 +0000

@Scott..While I agree with your comments on what the FCC regulation is actually about, I definitely disagree with your (lack of) analysis about why the US ranks lower than other nations in some broadband speed comparisons. I'm so sick of watching people trot out South Korea as an argument for the failure of broadband in the US. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the economics and mechanics of actually building the network. Korea = 1,274 people /sq MI. The US averages 82. Think hard for a moment what that means. Blindly repeating someone else's meme on broadband speeds makes about as much sense as retweeting Sara Palin's death panel scare.

By: Steven Titch

Steven Titch — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:52:45 +0000

Scott,

The NPRM sets non-discrimination as the baseline. It calls for “a bright-line
rule against discrimination." The NPRM says nothing about anticompetitive considerations that would precede any action to enforce neutrality principles. The only hedge is that there's room for "reasonable network management," but that's left undefined. That means that every instance of cross-platform integration would be subject to FCC review. "Mother may I?" becomes the order of the day.

The evidence for ISP competition is that, with the exception of Madison River, a tiny CLEC, to date no ISP has blocked a Web site or application. True, Comcast throttled the BitTorrent protocol, but was in the interest of the 95 percent of its customers that didn't use it. And Comcast and BitTorrent worked it out quickly through market mechanisms.

Finally, while wireless and wireline broadband once could be thought of as apples and oranges, but that is less the case now. Wireless brings a critical dimension to Web 2.0. Wireless speeds lag wired technologies, but the increasing amount of value that derives from mobility to the Web compensates. Radio being what it is, network management, bandwidth optimization and applications prioritization are necessary to make wireless broadband work. Network neutrality, with its "bright-line rule" against discrimination, would raise serious roadblocks to this.

By: Links 12/2/2010: Announcements of RMS GNU/Linux-Libre, LibrePlanet | Boycott Novell

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 20:28:40 +0000

[...] Net Neutrality Means No More iPhones The Reason Foundation releases my policy brief today looking at the effect network neutrality regulation will have on wireless applications and services. [...]

By: Scott Francis

Scott Francis — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:09:32 +0000

dead wrong on several points. Let's begin:

"The non-discrimination principle that Genachowski seeks to mandate would prohibit service providers such as AT&T, Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile and Sprint from using their network resources to prioritize or partition data as it crosses their networks so as to improve the performance of specific applications, such as a movie or massive multiplayer game."

wrong - the notice of proposed rulemaking only prohibits anti-competitive action in these areas, and explicitly allows for reasonable network management. If you're a carrier and you degrade the performance of Vudu so your own VOD service looks better, or make Vonage take a backseat to your own VoIP service (or that of "partners" who have already paid to play), or decide that entire protocols are forcing you to actually deliver on those "unlimited" connections you're selling and should be blocked (hello, Comcast) - then yeah, you're going to run afoul of the regs. /As well you should./

"The fundamental flaw in network neutrality policy is that it assumes that service providers are in a position to dominate Internet service and applications. This premise was questionable to begin with, but the market forces that have come into play in the past two years has been shown it to be plain wrong. Competition has always served as a check on applications blocking."

wrong. and you don't even bother to supply any supporting evidence. As long as "competition" consists of a duopoly (for the more fortunate consumers; most have to make do with the tender mercies of a single cableco unless they're within 15K feet of a telco's CO), consumers are going to be stuck with speeds and service that's lagging far behind the rest of the industrialized world. How else do you explain the embarrassing slide towards the back of the pack that US ISPs have collectively been producing over the last 10 years? We went from being leaders in Internet access penetration and speed, to being 15th in the world (and among the worst of the top 29 countries surveyed) over the last 10 years. At the rate we've been expanding service between 2007 and 2009, it will take the US 15 years just to catch up to where South Korea is today.

finally, let's not conflate the wireless phone market with the broadband Internet market - two entirely different, apples-and-oranges issues (even if the usual suspects are the source of the fail in both cases). US telcos (and cablecos after them) have been sitting on their collective rears, growing fat on a gov't-sponsored monopoly and a complete lack of any kind of effective regulatory framework for decades (even after the monopoly was supposedly broken up, we ended up with the same basic players 10 years later that we had to begin with - new names, same faces, same shenanigans).

Regulation is rarely the answer to the problem, but lack of regulation and a blind faith that "the market will sort it out" gives us epic fails like the Universal Service Fee - which telcos blithely passed on to their customers, increased multiple times over, and did zilch to actually improve Internet access penetration and speeds. I note that you ignored completely the results of the most recent hard data on this topic, courtesy of the Berkman Center Broadband Study ...

By: Wayne Borean

Wayne Borean — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 02:50:12 +0000

Sorry Steven, but you really don't understand the situation at all. I'd suggest you do some reading at RoughlyDrafted.com, Daniel is a bit of an Apple Fan, with a strong knowledge of the technology, and he totally disagrees with your thesis. He things that if AT&T had not have been in deep trouble that the IPhone could not have happened. If Net Neutrality is in effect bringing something like the IPhone to market would be easier.

To me you sound like you work for Verizon.