Net Neutrality in Name Only?

[Celerity]

https://prospect.org/economy/2024-04-29-net-neutrality-in-name-only/

With 5G, service providers can use “network slicing” to create a separate area of spectrum for selected apps that would allow them to work perfectly even if the rest of the network is busy.

The flurry of executive branch rulemaking pushed through under the deadline to avoid reversal in a future Congress feels like such a robust exertion of presidential power that the details often get fuzzy. All rules are not created equal, and some of them are missed opportunities rather than real protections for the public. A case in point is the Federal Communications Commission’s alleged restoration of net neutrality, which could actually create the thing that it’s supposed to prevent: tiered broadband speeds. According to some experts, big telecom firms are now poised to create special circumstances for Big Tech applications that deliver their content at faster speeds. The telecoms lobbied the FCC heavily for this privilege and are already making plans to exploit it.

We once had net neutrality in the U.S., after it passed during the Obama administration in 2015. Donald Trump’s FCC chair Ajit Pai rolled back those regulations in 2018. The telecom industry successfully delayed Democrats the opportunity to do anything about this by denying a fifth FCC commissioner from getting confirmed for 32 months. Gigi Sohn, the Biden administration’s first nominee for the commissioner seat that would give Democrats the majority, didn’t get a vote for two years and finally withdrew from consideration, after a $23 million lobbying campaign. The eventual appointee, Anna Gomez, was not considered as strong on consumer protection as Sohn, and didn’t make it onto the FCC until last September. That gave the agency a short window to pass net neutrality rules.



The rule, which was finalized last week, reclassifies broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, making it an essential service that will “ensure the internet is fast, open, and fair.” Under the new rule, providers are not allowed to block or throttle certain websites or applications, such as degrading the quality of streaming video. Those prohibitions deal with slowing down content online. However, as explained in an article by Barbara van Schewick, director of Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society, the new rules could open up the opportunity for telecom companies to speed up certain content, by creating “fast lanes.” Mobile internet service providers (ISPs) in particular could give better speeds and quality in 5G networks to certain applications or websites in exchange for an increased consumer price.

This opportunity would not be available for “home basic broadband,” FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel said last week. But in 5G, ISPs can use “network slicing,” literally creating a separate area of spectrum for selected apps that would allow them to work perfectly even if the rest of the network is busy. Today, that is primarily available for mobile phones, but as The Washington Post has reported, other devices using the internet could have this network slicing ability, like video game terminals, or various smart devices for the home. In addition, cable companies could soon gain the ability to use network slicing for their internet products. More and more of what we think of as the internet, in other words, could have the ability to use fast lanes, at odds with the principles of net neutrality.

snip

[Elessar Zappa]

1. Thanks for posting this.

I wasn’t understanding the net neutrality thing but this clears up a lot.

[Oopsie Daisy]

2. Oh no. It's not perfect.

[Celerity]

3. These kinds of ISP-controlled fast lanes violate core net neutrality principles and would limit user choice, distort

competition, hamper startups, and help cement platform dominance.

https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2024/04/harmful-5g-fast-lanes-are-coming-fcc-needs-stop-them

snip

Net neutrality means that we, the people who use the internet, get to decide what we do online, without interference from ISPs. ISPs do not get to interfere with our choices by blocking, speeding up or slowing down apps or kinds of apps. Apps compete on a level playing field, and users, not ISPs, determine which apps are successful.

Letting ISPs decide which apps get to be in a fast lane violates these principles. Apps that are in a fast lane work better than those that are not, especially when the network is busy and apps in the regular lane start suffering. If HBO Max is in a fast lane, it will continue to work well even if the network is busy, while all other video is buffering.

Differences in performance, including relative differences in performance, matter. Even small differences in load times affect how long people stay on a site, how much they pay, and whether they’ll come back. Those differences also affect how high up sites show in search results. Thus, letting ISPs choose which apps get to be in a fast lane lets them, not users, pick winners and losers online.

you said:

Oh no. It's not perfect.

It is beyond some contrived 'not perfect' threshold pejorative framing attempt, as it allows for the actual violation of core net neutrality principles.

[Oopsie Daisy]

4. Heavens!

Perfect or nothing, I say. Let's just go back to the way it was.

[Celerity]

5. Going back to 'the way it was before' is/was not the only other choice/option. That is a false binary dilemma.

We could have actual net neurality, or at least far closer to that than we are with the new regulations, which allow for the violation of its core principles.

[Oopsie Daisy]

6. Not good enough! Perfect or nothing, I always say!

Take it or leave it is indeed "binary"... sometimes people don't get everything they want, and we just can't stand for that! That's why I always throw the baby out with the bath water whenever I demand perfection!

[Celerity]

7. I have already responded to all this. We are clearly not going to agree.

cheers

[Oopsie Daisy]

8. Nonsense! We're in perfect agreement!

[justaprogressive]

9. Powerful interests gaming the system for additional profit.

Dozens surprised.