41–50 of 102 posts
Not the point of the article, but is anyone else annoyed by these "entrepreneur-sounding" ideas? I'm so sick of low-tech, solve-first-world-problem ideas and conflating that with entrepreneurship. If I were the VC, I'd tell them to get the fuck out, and it'd have nothing to do with Telcos.
I think the pertinent question now is whether the FCC rewrites its rules to classify ISPs as common carriers. It seems to me, given the local monopoly or duopoly that the vast majority of ISPs enjoy, that this is an obvious move. But I have heard it barely discussed, which is distressing.
So someone should plan to launch a VPN service that will pay telcos so its traffic doesn't use any of its customers' data plans. Configure the mobile device to route all data via the VPN, encrypted. It'll charge its customers for access to unlimited apps, sites and streams without incurring a data plan hit.
Also, there's a good question whether telcos will sell Google the ability to prioritize traffic, and then sell somebody else the ability to get out of that. The VPN provider will always be a minnow, so my guess is that if any of the whales object, the telcos will just never sign with the VPN provider.
I think the pertinent question now is whether the FCC rewrites its rules to classify ISPs as common carriers. It seems to me, given the local monopoly or duopoly that the vast majority of ISPs enjoy, that this is an obvious move. But I have heard it barely discussed, which is distressing.
AFAICT (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the ruling actually disallows the FCC from regulating in anyway at all, including classifying ISPs as common carriers.
AFAICT, you're wrong. In fact, the dispute between the majority and the dissent in the ruling is that the majority not only accepted that the FCC can regulate broadband providers, but allowed some of the regulation in the Open Internet Order at issue (just not the key rules for net neutrality.)
What specific language in the order gives you the idea you refer to?
This is the best possible thing that could happen. Perhaps we'd see startups aimed at building out solar capacity, grid-scale storage solutions, electricity-to-fuels solutions, solar-powered airships, high-efficiency wind-steam hybrid shipping, high-efficiency retrofits to existing building stock, and management or treatment for TDR-TB, rather than an endless stream of privacy-invading "social" surveilices, games, an…
I think the pertinent question now is whether the FCC rewrites its rules to classify ISPs as common carriers. It seems to me, given the local monopoly or duopoly that the vast majority of ISPs enjoy, that this is an obvious move. But I have heard it barely discussed, which is distressing.
AFAICT (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the ruling actually disallows the FCC from regulating in anyway at all, including classifying ISPs as common carriers.
The author is missing the point that the ruling was about the specific language of the FCC regulations. See: http://gigaom.com/2014/01/14/breaking-court-strikes-down-fcc... "That said, even though the Commission has general authority to regulate in this arena, it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates. Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner tha…
"General authority to regulate" is a legal term of art. It probably won't take you as far as you like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AFAICT (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the ruling actually disallows the FCC from regulating in anyway at all, including classifying ISPs as common carriers.
> AFAICT (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the ruling actually disallows the FCC from regulating in anyway at all, including classifying ISPs as common carriers. AFAICT, you're wrong. In fact, the dispute between the majority and the dissent in the ruling is that the majority not only accepted that the FCC can regulate broadband providers, but allowed some of the regulation in the Open Internet Order at issue (ju…
http://recode.net/2014/01/15/whats-net-neutrality-what-happe...
Which seems to do a good job explaining it. Specifically this bit:
> It’s those rules [the Open Internet rules] that Verizon is saying the FCC had no legal authority to enact. The reason that Verizon was successful was because of the basic incongruity I described to you at the beginning — that 10 years ago, the FCC deregulated these actors. And it can’t now simultaneously pretend to regulate them.
My original comment was incorrect: I meant they can either not regulate or classify ISPs as common carriers and then regulate. Again, totally open to being correct here, this is complicated and I could totally be wrong.
Well, I'm no fan of losing net neutrality but if the worst thing that happens is that lame VC pitches are no longer funded, I'm OK with it.