Apple Urges FCC Not to Roll Back Ban on Internet 'Fast Lanes' in Push for Net Neutrality

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MacRumors, Aug 31, 2017.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    In a letter submitted during the Restoring Internet Freedom comment period, Apple has urged the U.S. Federal Communications Commission not to roll back regulations that prevent "paid fast lanes" on the internet.

    [​IMG]
    Image via Change.org. Apple logo added by MacRumors.
    Apple warns that paid fast lanes could result in an "internet with distorted competition" based on an online provider's ability or willingness to pay, which in turn could put some customers in the "slow lane."
    In May, under the leadership of chairman Ajit Pai, the FCC proposed to roll back the Barack Obama administration's classification of internet providers as "common carriers" under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.

    Apple is far from the only major technology company that has urged the FCC to reconsider its proposal. Last month, companies including Amazon, Google, Twitter, and Netflix hosted an internet-wide day of action to save net neutrality.

    The FCC received a record-breaking 22 million comments from the public during the comment period, which closed Wednesday. The FCC will now revise and vote on the proposal, at which point it could become official policy.

    Full Letter: Apple's Reply to "Restoring Internet Freedom" via Recode

    Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

    Article Link: Apple Urges FCC Not to Roll Back Ban on Internet 'Fast Lanes' in Push for Net Neutrality
     
  2. NightFox, Aug 31, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2017

    NightFox macrumors 68020

    NightFox

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Location:
    Shropshire, UK
    #2
    My brain can't get past "...not to roll back a ban that would allow for so-called 'paid fast lanes' on the internet".

    What would allow 'paid fast lanes' - the ban, rolling back the ban, or not rolling back the ban? o_O:confused:

    ban that would allow for so called 'paid fast lanes' = fast lanes are allowed

    roll back ban that would allow for so called 'paid fast lanes' = fast lanes not allowed

    not to roll back ban that would allow for so called 'paid fast lanes' = fast lanes are allowed
    So i think we got the wrong number of nots/roll-backs/bans in there :D
     
  3. CerebralX macrumors 6502

    CerebralX

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2013
    Location:
    Looking for a place of freedom and rationality
    #3
    In essence it means that specific companies can pay ISPs to give its users faster access to their web services in comparison to competitors for example.
     
  4. usamaah, Aug 31, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2017

    usamaah macrumors regular

    usamaah

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Location:
    Chicago
    #4
    Rolling back the ban = allow 'paid fast lanes'

    Most tech companies that are not ISPs want to keep the 'ban' in place. The 'ban' came into being under the previous FCC leadership, at which time Ajit Pai was still part of the FCC and was very much against the 'ban'.

    The 'ban' was actually a re-classification of ISPs as utilities, if I understand everything correctly. Now that Ajit Pai is leading the FCC, he wants to roll back that re-classification, which could potentially allow ISPs to create 'paid fast lanes.'

    His argument is that it is non-sensical to ban something that has never happened. Not that I agree with him, but in essence that is his argument. He feels that if any ISP did try to create paid fast lanes, and if the market in fact did not like this (or it was bad for the market), market pressure would sort it out. So if Verizon created faster lanes, in theory things would play out in such a way that this would not be favorited. Perhaps people on the internet and content providers like Netflix would create an information campaign to shame Verizon or try to convince customers to leave Verizon. Of course that's assuming your alternative ISP is able to provide service of equal speed. Most people have a choice between two providers, though Ajit Pai and company again think that's not accurate as you have the option of using 4G LTE ISPs too and that these are also broadband providers. Again, this is their argument, not mine.
     
  5. NightFox macrumors 68020

    NightFox

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Location:
    Shropshire, UK
    #5
    I understand the story, it was just that sentence that didn't seem to read right. Maybe it's just me though, it's been a long day...
     
  6. RRmalvado macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 27, 2010
  7. Porco macrumors 68030

    Porco

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2005
    #7
    It's almost like those who want to end net neutrality have tried to definitely not not obfuscate it as much as not impossible!

    Apple is correct on this.
     
  8. usamaah macrumors regular

    usamaah

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Location:
    Chicago
    #8
    I agree, that sentence was very confusing.
     
  9. cmwade77 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2008
    #9
    Here is what happens if the ban is rolled back:
    • ISPs will favor their own content, especially cable companies and such.
    • Streaming services, especially Video will have to pay for the fast lanes or be unusable.

    And it WAS starting to happen when the ban was put in place, just not quite common practice for all ISPs yet, but many were throttling all video content that wasn't their own and it was indeed proven by using VPNs to get around it, but then they found ways to prevent the VPNs from working.

    Overall reversing this ban would be bad for the consumer, bad for most companies, except ISPs, it would be good for them and ultimately bad for the economy as many of the smaller streaming services would essentially be forced to close up shop since their content couldn't be received.
     
  10. emvath macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    #10
    Thank you Apple. We need more "big dogs" in this fight. I know Amazon, Netflix (eventually), and a few others have joined in. We need Google, Microsoft, etc. to help.
     
  11. Kabeyun macrumors 68000

    Kabeyun

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Location:
    Eastern USA
    #11
    Anyone familiar with Ajit Pai knows this is tilting at windmills. He's about as pro-corporate as they come. Appreciate Apple putting it out there, but glwt.
     
  12. WatchTheThrone macrumors regular

    WatchTheThrone

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    #12
    Thanks Obama. I mean that in the non sarcastic way people always use it lol
     
  13. Joe Rossignol Editor

    Joe Rossignol

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2012
    Location:
    Toronto
    #13
    A long day for me too apparently! I've edited the sentence — should make sense now. Thanks
     
  14. garirry macrumors 68000

    garirry

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2013
    Location:
    Canada is my city
    #14
    Man the US sucks at regulation. As much as I hate Canadian Internet, it's nowhere near as bad and chaotic as the US.
     
  15. StevieD100 macrumors 6502a

    StevieD100

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2014
    Location:
    Living Dangerously in Retirement
    #15
    Let the kickbacks begin flowing. How much will Netflix pay Comcast to get top billing? {just an example}
    Apple's Movie streaming service will be a dead duck unless they pay the tithe.
    The Wild West Lad Grab is alive and kicking.
     
  16. Bigsk8r macrumors 6502

    Bigsk8r

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    #16
    At times, I take issue with Apple's SJW stance on things. But it's moments like these that remind me to accept the occasional annoying item because they do stand up for the little guy in many areas that the country should really care more about.
     
  17. macs4nw macrumors 601

    macs4nw

    #17
    No, it's not just you, I had the same hesitation upon first reading it. That was an ambiguous way of putting it.

    What would have been clearer is, if they had written "not to roll back a ban on so-called "paid fast lanes" on the internet" or even "not to roll back the current ban, because such a move would once again allow these so-called 'paid fast lanes' on the internet."

    Either way, it's imperative that net-neutrality will not be sacrificed for business gains.
     
  18. TheShadowKnows! macrumors 6502a

    TheShadowKnows!

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Location:
    National Capital Region
    #18
    I call the "public comment period" a "Game of Mirrors"

    Net Neutrality will be revoked and rolled-back. I have no doubts.

    Why?

    The unified, first-law of all politicians: "Money talks, ******** walks."
     
  19. MrX8503 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    #19
    Here's the thing, everyone wants a faster and cheaper internet, but how that's achieved is being totally obfuscated by Ajit Pai. He is lying to the American public that less regulations would mean ISPs would have more freedom to expand/advance infrastructure. Why would ISPs need less regulation when they have ZERO competition? Most Americans only have 1-2 ISP choices and that's the part Ajit Pai conveniently leaves out.

    Why is cellular service costs decreasing? Competition between Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint.

    Why is home internet costs increasing? No competition between Comcast and Time Warner. In fact they've agreed to not cross each other's market.
     
  20. fhall1 macrumors 68040

    fhall1

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Location:
    (Central) NY State of mind
    #20
    Time Warner is no more - it's Spectrum now - but your argument is valid.
     
  21. Defthand macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    #21
    I’m all for net neutrality, but Apple’s endorsement is to be taken with a grain of salt. Given Apple’s own “pay to play” requirements for content providers to do business on Apple devices, their motives are hypocritical. Be thankful that Apple isn’t an ISP.
     
  22. macTW Suspended

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2016
    #22
    I struggle to understand how stupid policy makers are.
     
  23. CE3, Aug 31, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2017

    CE3 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2014
    #23
    Yes, lack of competition is the issue - not infrastructure (it’s an issue with cell carriers too). Lack of competition is why high speed ISPs continue to get away with being so consistently sucky and unreliable. In many areas you have one high speed choice and if you’re unhappy with the service there are no other options. These regulatory rollbacks will only strengthen these monopolies and prove to be absolutely terrible for consumers and the future of the internet as a whole.
     
  24. euvnairb macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    Location:
    Goleta, CA
    #24
    I wouldn't mind net neutrality (as much) if people were given more broadband choices. In my small/mid-sized city we have one broadband cable provider (Cox) and one not as good DSL provider (ATT/DirecTV). If the net neutrality ban is lifted and either of these two favor some apps over others, then the end user is screwed because they don't have the choice to go somewhere else.
     
  25. WarHeadz macrumors 6502a

    WarHeadz

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2015
    Location:
    Long Beach, California
    #25
    I think you have it mixed up. You actually support net neutrality, and it is the current standing policy. What you're saying is that you DON'T want net neutrality to be revoked.
     

Share This Page