Comments on: Radia on Network Neutrality

By: Tom Lee

Tom Lee — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:50:03 +0000

Either way: the broader point is probably that the means by which net neutrality applies to wireless networks is going to be complicated, and potentially very different from how it applies to other networks.

By: Tom Lee

Tom Lee — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:49:23 +0000

I agree that it’s too soon to tell. And while I didn’t object to the FCC beginning to probe Apple’s app store activities — I think there’s little harm in sending a letter, though I wouldn’t support regulatory intervention — it has admittedly muddled the situation.

You may be right that network operators will be forced to allow arbitrary devices to be attached to their networks. In the absence of carrier subsidies, I don’t think this’ll make a huge difference to the shape of the marketplace.

The specific example of the iPhone isn’t a great one, I don’t think, because as you note the restriction is occurring at the device level. The functional upshot may be similar in the individual case, but practically speaking I don’t think the FCC is going to start saying that devices and networks are the same — that way lies madness, with regulation of music released in Windows-only formats and all kinds of other unintended nastiness.

By: Timothy B Lee

Timothy B Lee — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:09:05 +0000

I don’t find the splinternets point all that persuasive. But I think the iPhone issue is a real concern. If AT&T has a neutral network, but it only sells locked-down phones that exclude Skype from their app stores, I’m not sure how that’s any different, functionally, from blocking Skype at the network level. Genachowski hasn’t proposed specific language, so I don’t know how (or if) it’ll address the point, but I think it’s a real concern.

By: Tom Lee

Tom Lee — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:43:55 +0000

What in Genachowski’s speech could possibly be viewed as threatening to the iPhone? What evidence is there that “splinternets” could possibly outperform the internet such that it would make sense to abandon it as an investment?

By: Kaleberg

Kaleberg — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 00:00:09 +0000

“But under the FCC’s proposed neutrality rules, the iPhone and similar devices that place limits on the content and applications that users can access would likely be against the law.”

That sounds like a flaw in the rules as proposed, not the idea of open networks. Not being able to run sophisticated weather forecasting software on my laptop has nothing do to with whether my DSL line lets me browse the White House home page.

Personally, I’d be in favor of regulating first. It is much easier to change government regulations than to crack down on a powerful corporation that has twisted a new technology to the detriment of our national well being. Consider the railroads for a good example. Their tariffs enforced the north-south division into industrial and agricultural regions, and they basically controlled and restricted US industrial development for nearly a century before Eisenhower cracked their cartel with the interstate highway system, a much more open system. For a hilarious take on the problem with regulating openness after the fact grab a copy of It Happened to Jane.