Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Communications Businesses Government United States Apple Your Rights Online

Apple Calls For FCC To Keep 'Strong, Enforceable' Net Neutrality Protections (appleinsider.com) 50

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Apple Insider: Apple has written to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission in support for the concept of net neutrality, with its four-page commentary arguing for the government agency to "retain strong, enforceable open internet protections" instead of rolling back the rules forbidding "fast lane" internet connections. "An open internet ensures that hundreds of millions of consumers get the experience they want, over the broadband connections they choose, to use the devices they love, which have become an integral part of their lives," starts the comment signed by Cynthia Hogan, Apple's Vice President of Public Policy for the Americas. Citing a "deep respect" for its customers' privacy, security, and control over personal information, Apple believes this extends to their internet connection choices as well. "What consumers do with those tools is up to them -- not Apple, and not broadband providers," the statement claims, before urging the FCC to keep advancing the key principles of net neutrality. Based on a belief of consumer choice with regards to connectivity, Apple insists broadband providers should not "block, throttle, or otherwise discriminate against lawful websites and services," and not create "paid fast lanes on the internet." Lifting current FCC bans on these restrictions could allow broadband providers to favor one service over another's, "fundamentally altering the internet as we know it today -- to the detriment of consumers, competition, and innovation." Allowing such fast lanes could result in an internet with heavily distorted competition, caused through online providers being forced to make deals or risk losing customers from providing a hampered service. Apple suggests the practice could "create artificial barriers to entry for new online services, making it harder for tomorrow's innovations to attract investment and succeed," effectively turning broadband providers into a king-maker based on its priorities.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Calls For FCC To Keep 'Strong, Enforceable' Net Neutrality Protections

Comments Filter:
  • Try updating apps on your iOS device while using Amtrak's WiFi. Somehow net-neutrality does not apply to government's own institutions.

    • I get that everyone thinks every Internet connection should be open and unfettered. The problem is that every connection just isn't robust enough to handle that kind of traffic.

      I whole-heartedly agree that any connection that I pay for should be free from restrictions and treat all traffic equally. But using some kind of public Wi-Fi, which Amtrak's service would essentially be? It would be unusable if everyone onboard the train was trying to update GBs worth of apps.

      I really don't even care about video thr

      • by mi ( 197448 )

        I whole-heartedly agree that any connection that I pay for

        You pay for Amtrak's WiFi — the cost is included in your ticket.

        It would be unusable if [...]

        That's a perfectly valid argument, yes. My point is, an equally valid argument can be made for filtering this or that in such and such circumstances. Letting the government decide, which argument is reasonable and which is not is tyranny — it gives the bureaucrats undue powers over private enterprises.

        The only reliable fount of service quality ri

        • So, what's the answer? How can Amtrak provide a reliable connection to all users while guaranteeing that everyone can download gigs upon gigs of apps and stream 4K video without sacrificing anything? The only thing that comes to mind is some kind of speed tier, where everyone just gets throttled down to some low, kbps range of bandwidth that's wide open.

          Then, the purists will just bitch that throttling should be illegal. The purist in me says that they should forego providing Wi-Fi service at all, and leave

        • by Gr8Apes ( 679165 )

          The only reliable fount of service quality rising and prices lowering is competition. If one ISP blocks something unreasonably, another would attract those customers, who disagree. Switching is much easier and faster than petitioning the FCC

          I love the world you live in, and would like to join it, as would the 80+% of the US population that effectively have only 1 true ISP.

  • everyone seems to be complaining about them but no one can define what they are

    • by chubs ( 2470996 )
      Well, they've been banned by the FCC for now, but here's what they used to be: http://www.fiercecable.com/onl... [fiercecable.com]
      • Well, they've been banned by the FCC for now, but here's what they used to be:

        http://www.fiercecable.com/onl... [fiercecable.com]

        One version may have been banned but they have been replaced by things like "zero rating" which is just the same thing by a different name.

    • Fast lanes are network connections that prioritize traffic from one network over traffic from another, causing it to get to customers faster, and/or causing the traffic not preferred by it to be degraded to the point of unusability.

    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      A gig consumer ready plan could be an idea of what a "fast" could be in 2017.
      "Fast" as in gig ready speeds for a consumer priced account would be expected. Expensive for a consumer every month but not having business grade support costs.
      "Lane" as in the service can be expected to keep that speed most of the time down a network and to that account as the better quality services is been paid for.
      Not a business grade product but more network care is provided than on low end consumer grade networks.
      For
  • by r_naked ( 150044 )

    "An open internet ensures that hundreds of millions of consumers get the experience they want, over the broadband connections they choose, to use the devices they love, which have become an integral part of their lives,"

    BUT Apple needs to make sure that they retain tight control over their devices......

    I am glad that Apple wants to support net neutrality, but it did just give me a small jab in the ribs as to how hypocritical that sentiment is.

    Open Internet! Walled Garden for Apple!

    • You haven;t recognised that Apple users have chosen Apple devices. And whenever they are polled, they are pretty happy about it.

      Why are YOU trying to interfere with their choices?

  • Not only strong net neutrality protections, but enforceable as well. Kudo to Apple for taking this stand.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I'm glad to see Apple taking this stand, but my impression is that Pai and his sugar daddies are determined to dismantle net neutrality come hell or high water. They made up their mind and they don't give a fuck what *anyone* else wants or says, including US consumers.

      All of these protests matter shit because all that matters is him losing his position, and legislators are too willing to turn a blind eye to the molestation because they benefit as well.

      Pai has basically convinced himself that he's somehow ta

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Apple has written to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission in support for the concept of net neutrality, with its four-page commentary arguing for the government agency to "retain strong, enforceable open internet protections" instead of rolling back the rules forbidding "fast lane" internet connections. "An open internet ensures that hundreds of millions of consumers get the experience they want, over the broadband connections they choose, to use the devices they love, which have become an integral pa

    • I guess you missed the memo. Essentially either you roll an LLC, move up to commercial use and developer contracts or you are a plebian user and cant be trusted to run a server. Home connections will NEVER be officially considered to support servers. Its not a use-case anyone with money at stake wants to encourage. It should be flat out illegal for my ISP to block port 80, but here we are...I have requested multiple times over the last decade to have it removed only for them to tell me to piss off, they won
      • by pnutjam ( 523990 )
        I'm on comcast and all my ports are open, same when I was on Uverse. There might be some SMTP port blocking, but I don't generally run into that. 22, 80, 443, 8080, 8000, etc. have all worked fine for me.
  • A person has the option to buy more bandwidth when they have saved up some wealth.
    Someone worked hard and can now pay for more bandwidth.
    Provide a set slow internet to all users all the time. Enough to pay taxes, surf the web and watch a movie.
    It might be a lower standard but a low quality video stream will be supported.

    Want more bandwidth? Pay for more bandwidth to be connected to an account.
    That could need work in a building. In the street. To get the needed new connection.
    Want 4K, pay for a
  • Regarding "enforceable" net neutrality, how can you prove that an Internet transmission is being throttled? Every TCP connection is "throttled", or else it would expand to use all the bandwidth of the Internet. TCP increases its speed until it drops packets. It will drop those packets somewhere in the ten or more hops between a server and your home computer. Those ten hops go over links of different sizes and mixed with traffic of different bandwidths from the other hundred million people on the Intern

If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants. -- Isaac Newton

Working...