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

[shansoft]

Stop voting for some random buffoon then this will not happen.

Which buffoon put Ajit Pai into FCC in first place? Who put that buffoon in power? Answer is obvious....

 

[Breaking Good]

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.

Apple, Amazon, Google, Netflix and Microsoft need to buy Sprint and deploy a 5G solution across all of its spectrum holdings. (Team with T-Mobile while you are at it.)

Verizon and AT&T Wireless are archaic and need to go the way of the Dodo bird. They are inefficient and are stifling innovation.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

Apple, Amazon, Google, Netflix and Microsoft need to buy Sprint and deploy a 5G solution across all of its spectrum holdings. (Team with T-Mobile while you are at it.)

Verizon and AT&T Wireless are archaic and need to go the way of the Dodo bird. They are inefficient and are stifling innovation.

I support ditching net neutrality for this very reason. Comcast doing something totally nefarious is the only thing that's going to galvanize other players into building out a new internet infrastructure to meet consumer demand.

Things have been "good enough" for so long that the ISP market is stagnant.

 

[budselectjr]

Should traffic for remote surgery have the same priority as your stupid Netflix stream?

 

[CE3]

Stop voting for some random buffoon then this will not happen.

Which buffoon put Ajit Pai into FCC in first place? Who put that buffoon in power? Answer is obvious....

Getting these regulations in place was an uphill battle even under the Obama administration. There are plenty of “buffoons” on all sides in Washington with lots of big money interests behind them. As someone else has already said, net neutrality is not a partisan issue.

 

[Breaking Good]

Should traffic for remote surgery have the same priority as your stupid Netflix stream?

Not the same thing. You can pay a service provider to provide you with a point to point connection. And you can pay to guarantee that connection doesn't go down.

If you opt to run it through the Internet, well then you wait in line like everyone else.

 

[iMerik]

Should traffic for remote surgery have the same priority as your stupid Netflix stream?

This is a worthwhile discussion to have, minus claiming that a Netflix stream is stupid. First though, are you saying that you prefer net neutrality gone so that ISPs can charge medical institutions higher fees to be in a faster lane than streaming services? If we regulated the Internet as a public utility, we could look at how phone networks do have a priority service for emergency personnel to force their communications through first during severe network congestion or disruption (see GETS and WPS). While keeping the Internet neutral for companies doing business on the Internet (Amazon, Netflix, small startups, mom & pop shops, etc.), the public could create specific exceptions for emergency services or even medical services, like in your example. This would not be left up to ISPs to decide on their own and charge extra for, however... it would be done for the public good, not to be able to create barriers to entry for smaller companies against bigger companies.

 

[amegicfox]

they ask for fast internet for all but then they censor and ban APPs they disagree with and ask employees and customers to donate money to hate organizations

it's only fast internet for the causes they promote. Nice !

 

[budselectjr]

This is a worthwhile discussion to have, minus claiming that a Netflix stream is stupid. First though, are you saying that you prefer net neutrality gone so that ISPs can charge medical institutions higher fees to be in a faster lane than streaming services? If we regulated the Internet as a public utility, we could look at how phone networks do have a priority service for emergency personnel to force their communications through first during severe network congestion or disruption (see GETS and WPS). While keeping the Internet neutral for companies doing business on the Internet (Amazon, Netflix, small startups, mom & pop shops, etc.), the public could create specific exceptions for emergency services or even medical services, like in your example. This would not be left up to ISPs to decide on their own and charge extra for, however... it would be done for the public good, not to be able to create barriers to entry for smaller companies against bigger companies.

Oh, we need even more rules? Got it.

 

[nt5672]

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.

Exactly. Competition could solve this issue without any or with only limited regulation. Every community should have choice, because no matter what the regulations say, without competition, service will suck, policies will suck, no one will care about the users, etc. Losing users is the only way to regulate ISPs, cable companies, etc. Its simple, but people seem to think that the government paid for by wealthy greedy corporations will operate in their best interest. Never has, never will.

 

[lostngone]

I see both sides of this.
I do not like to think how ISPs in the U.S. would use this to squeeze more money from customers that are already being overcharged for what they are getting. However it would be nice to be able to support QOS over the internet in certain cases. However getting end to end QOS over the internet would be huge undertaking(next to impossible) even without net neutrality.

 

[CarlJ]

Should traffic for remote surgery have the same priority as your stupid Netflix stream?

If surgeons (or their IT departments) are running video traffic for remote surgery over the public internet, perhaps they ought to have their heads (or their credentials) examined. The public internet comes with no speed or uptime guarantees. It just mostly works. Communications companies have long provided dedicated point-to-point links for businesses, with guaranteed uptime and bandwidth, for commensurate prices. That's what they should be using.

 

[HiRez]

Designers at Apple are cringing over that graphic right now.

 

[budselectjr]

If surgeons (or their IT departments) are running video traffic for remote surgery over the public internet, perhaps they ought to have their heads (or their credentials) examined. The public internet comes with no speed or uptime guarantees. It just mostly works. Communications companies have long provided dedicated point-to-point links for businesses, with guaranteed uptime and bandwidth, for commensurate prices. That's what they should be using.

The Lindbergh Operations in Canada were actually done over public infrastructure with ISP QOS. Unless you are calling those all those doctors idiots I think you are out of your element here.

 

[Bubble99]

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.

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

So who is going build fast lanes the giga bit rate internet seepds? Google or Apple?

Apple wants internet neutrality but who going to build new internet fast lane?

 

[eatrains]

Unfortunately conservatives have been desperate to get rid of net neutrality, and now thanks to Trump they'll get their wish. We need to get liberals back in power as soon as possible, lots to clean up.

 

[Bubble99]

Unfortunately conservatives have been desperate to get rid of net neutrality, and now thanks to Trump they'll get their wish. We need to get liberals back in power as soon as possible, lots to clean up.

Yap the same conservatives that thought it was really cool for the private sector to turn away poor people and turn away gay people service. Than pooped their pants when stormfront got shut down. And crying like a much of babies.

Have big government and control when it service their agenda and plan.

 

[0388631]

I'm confused at why people believe money for prioritized service and not intentionally throttling services has to do with TOS violations. Must be that CNN, FOX, Breitbart garbage.

 

[Gutwrench]

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?

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

Simply saying "Apple to FCC: Don't roll back ban on Fast Lanes" would be more clear than MR's painful title. But that's par for the course.

 

[Brandhouse]

How the hell, can the U.S. Federal Communications Commission think they can legislate to change something that they don't own, that isn't their property, is not under their control within their own borders and that belongs to the whole world?!

How the duck?

 

[Rocketman]

I would like to see Apple build a "second internet" as a partner with ATT and Verizon and Comcast for wired backhaul and LTE5 for last 3 miles. They would not need to own more than 25% of the deal to fully fund it on an accelerated basis, benefiting Ericsson, Cisco, IBM, and many others leaning into V5 IoT.

Apple has the cash!

 

[supercoolmanchu]

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.

The current policy was called net neutrality, however it is not 'net neutrality', as there are ways for ISPs to game the classifications and act 'anti-net-neutral' under the OIO guidelines.

The issue is one that should only be handled by the FTC or Congress, because the FCC is the completely wrong department for handling commerce and monopoly/anti-competitive business practices. This rather large nuance is completely lost on the popular, hysterical net-neutrality positions. Progressives specifically created the FTC for this very purpose! Now they forget the roles of the very agencies they've created, and want even more beaurocracy on top of others, rather than bothering to address the proper jurisdiction.

It's becoming clear that Tim Cook has a Time magazine quality understanding of social issues, and while I support the attitude, his support for half-baked, backward political policy and half brained sentiment erodes any actual social good he's trying to do.

 

[budselectjr]

Unfortunately conservatives have been desperate to get rid of net neutrality, and now thanks to Trump they'll get their wish. We need to get liberals back in power as soon as possible, lots to clean up.

The FCC chair was originally appointed to the agency by Obama. Thank him.

 

[opfreak]

Apple wants private companies to not care about how / and what data they carry...

Meanwhile apple has plenty of restrictions on what can be placed in the app store.

Bunch of hypocrites.

 

[Glockworkorange]

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.

People hate banks.
People hate airlines.
People hate insurance companies.

These are all highly regulated. I think historically, excessive regulation is not beneficial to consumers.

Perhaps it will be (or would have been) in the case of net neutrality.