How the FCC's repeal of net neutrality could affect Apple

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 103
    MisterKitMisterKit Posts: 78member
    There was talk just a few years back that Apple and Boeing were looking into joining up on a low orbit satellite Internet system. Something like that would change the game. There are a lot of references to this with a quick search.
  • Reply 82 of 103
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 29,075member
    Summer repeats already?

    Seriously though, I don't think anything productive will come with our current Administration.

    Especially since AT&T has been found to be paying to try to get the president's ear. 



    I hesitate to respond to this baldly partisan bait, so I'll just mention that every administration and every politician is beholden to at least one special interest or another.
    tallest skil
  • Reply 83 of 103
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 29,075member
    MisterKit said:
    There was talk just a few years back that Apple and Boeing were looking into joining up on a low orbit satellite Internet system. Something like that would change the game. There are a lot of references to this with a quick search.
    Elon Musk's SpaceX already has the go-ahead to do it... and is doing it now.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-starlink-internet-satellite-launch-paz-youtube-2018-2
  • Reply 84 of 103
    chasmchasm Posts: 570member
    As I said in another comment thread on a related story: while I doubt much will change the day after net neutrality ends in the US, over time you will be persuaded to pay more to get less than you have now. This will also put the US at a major competitive disadvantage with other countries. If this issue is important to you, there are three things you can do:

    1. Donate money to groups fighting for the restoration of net neutrality, or challenging the present corrupt FCC leadership in court.
    2. Contact your congress and local politicians and let them know that this is an issue that matters a lot to you and can sway your vote.
    3. Get off your duff and register to vote, and then vote when the time comes. Cross parties, if necessary, to support the candidate or party that promises to restore net neutrality and a pro-consumer FCC board.
    baconstangmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 85 of 103
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 29,075member
    chasm said:
    As I said in another comment thread on a related story: while I doubt much will change the day after net neutrality ends in the US, over time you will be persuaded to pay more to get less than you have now. This will also put the US at a major competitive disadvantage with other countries. If this issue is important to you, there are three things you can do:

    1. Donate money to groups fighting for the restoration of net neutrality, or challenging the present corrupt FCC leadership in court.
    2. Contact your congress and local politicians and let them know that this is an issue that matters a lot to you and can sway your vote.
    3. Get off your duff and register to vote, and then vote when the time comes. Cross parties, if necessary, to support the candidate or party that promises to restore net neutrality and a pro-consumer FCC board.
    "Net Neutrality" is a misnomer. It amounts to MORE protection from competition. Providers would merely be free to pass the costs for building out Internet service to areas where it makes no economic sense on to everyone else who lives where it does make economic sense. "Net Neutrality" is a complete scam. It's a subsidy and subsidies breed corruption and distort actual costs.
    edited May 10
  • Reply 86 of 103
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 5,904member
    Free markets need strong rules and regulations, otherwise it’s just the winner takes all.
    Until you read an article about the health department shutting down a little girl’s lemonade stand, or telling a church they can’t serve food to the poor unless it’s NOT home cooked and IS inspected. Then you’re outraged by government intrusion into private business. 
  • Reply 87 of 103
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 5,904member
    Once the telecommunications industry was made a public utility and regulated to the highest degree innovation stopped dead in its tracks. Your landline, if you still have one, is loaded own with government fees and taxes. Same thing will happen when net neutrality is cemented in place. There will be NO incentive for carriers to expand their network capacities or reach because the other guy won’t either. I suppose all you big corporation haters want the government to nationalize the Internet and make it free for all, right?
  • Reply 88 of 103
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,571member

    With that in mind, Apple should purchase T-Mobile for some $52 billion and fully upgrade its network for 5G service over the next two years. Then it could invite everyone in America to purchase a package of wireless, go-anywhere internet service plus unlimited phone calls and texts for perhaps $50 per month — including the aforementioned privacy and neutrality benefits.

    This is not a bad idea, at all. It might even be a brilliant move. Moreover, there is no reason then that Apple can’t provide that backbone to everyone else, including Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc. (Look at how successful AWS has become for Amazon). 
    T-Mobile doesn't have many towers. They mostly rent space from AT&T and any other GSM network that may be in the area including using their back haul networks. If Apple bought T-Mobile, made it net neutral and less expensive, taking away customers from AT&T, AT&T could do something about it because they own the towers and the network that T-Mobile currently uses. I certainly have no knowledge of the contractual agreements currently in place but potentially they could be terminated if the renting company is sold or merged with another service.
  • Reply 89 of 103
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 1,165member
    SpamSandwich said:
    I hesitate to respond to this baldly partisan bait, so I'll just mention that every administration and every politician is beholden to at least one special interest or another.
    And... I'd add that no matter which side of the politics you fall on, neither implementation really provided what we're thinking of when we say, net neutrality.

    chasm said:
    As I said in another comment thread on a related story: while I doubt much will change the day after net neutrality ends in the US, over time you will be persuaded to pay more to get less than you have now. This will also put the US at a major competitive disadvantage with other countries.
    I guess I'd ask if any situation (the initial sorta-kinda 'net neutrality' state of the early Internet, "Net Neutrality™" that never made it into law, or what you see coming in the future) has really impacted the reality of the state of the Internet in N.A.? It seems what you're describing is already the case and has been for decades. Do you think it will suddenly get worse? Speeds are getting a bit better in some places, but it's still relatively slow. People are using a few dollars of data, maybe $20-30 for the heavier users, yet are paying $80-120+.

    What concerns me more, is either a situation where the gov't has control/language to shutdown 'unlawful' content (i.e.: FCC policy Obama proposed), or where Corporations can decide which content gets favored so heavily (or blocked) that it effectively stifles the Internet or has the same impact on free-speech as above (i.e.: think 'certified content' or maybe a tax-break to a company that favors or shuts-down content... or just deals between providers that shut out certain content). And what the current administration is proposing, or so-called Net Neutrality™ can create the above situations.

    lkrupp said:
    ... Same thing will happen when net neutrality is cemented in place. There will be NO incentive for carriers to expand their network capacities or reach because the other guy won’t either. ...
    I'm not sure such incentive really exists currently, as there is effectively no 'other guy.'
    But, I wish people would separate the whole idea of costs and innovation from the true emphasis of net neutrality (principals) of content access and distribution. Net neutrality isn't fundamentally about how much Internet costs, but about how content distribution is impacted.
  • Reply 90 of 103
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 42,974member
    The previously implemented procedures for “net neutrality” were a 100% partisan–and outright seditious–attempt to control all discourse, in all forms, on the Internet. That it’s gone is a godsend to what’s left of our republic. Most important to the American people going forward should be reestablishing laws that are 1. constitutional and 2. stop the ISPs and other Internet companies from controlling speech, controlling infrastructure, and for the love of all things good and holy, actually PUNISHING them for collusion in all its forms. The purpose of law in the United States is to restrict government power, as well as protect citizens from other threats (cough predatory business practices cough), both foreign and domestic.
    cgWerksSpamSandwich
  • Reply 91 of 103
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,007member
    spacekid said:
    Before net neutrality: "AT&T eventually relented in October of 2009, announcing it would allow VoIP calls via its 3G network. It came as the FCC threatened increased pressure on ISPs who violated net neutrality principles, even before they became the commission's official rules." "Under pressure from customers, and amid the prospect of federal intervention, AT&T relented in late 2012, and enabled FaceTime over cellular for all users with compatible iPhones and mobile data plans." Seems market and political pressure can shape things. The FCC believes the FTC is a better place to control these unfair practices which the media and political hyperbole have ignored.
    Thanks. A breath of fresh air compared to all the chicken littles posting on this thread with 0 concept on what the Title II reclassification actually did. 
  • Reply 92 of 103
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,007member
    macwise said: Get rid of burdensome rules and regulations, and lean startups can take the market by storm. 
    The airlines were deregulated in 1978 in the United States. Are there more major carriers now than in 1978 or less? Less. 
    Nope. More. There are many more smaller regional carriers. Prices are significantly lower (though service is not as good). Routes are easier and innovation of the hub and spoke increased overall efficiency. Oh, and prices, when adjusted for inflation, are soooooo much cheaper. 

    We lost TWA, Baniff and PanAm due to gross mis-management. Picked up Southwest, JetBlue and many others.

    Deregulation of the airline industry is a perfect example of why the Title II reclassification of the Internet was simply a bad bad idea. 
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 93 of 103
    croprcropr Posts: 759member
    Apple should get into this game and offer both privacy and net neutrality to internet users in every state.

    Fortunately, it would not take a long time for Apple to do that, because of new technology that is just around the corner. In 2020, 5G cellular (phone) technology will provide much faster speeds than today’s 4G service, rivaling speeds offered by today’s cable-based internet service providers. For that reason, the move to 5G will directly pit mobile operators against ISP’s in the provision of internet service. In this battle, the ISP’s will be at a big disadvantage because their markets are segmented into relatively small market areas and because they don’t have established toeholds with hundreds of millions of mobile phone users.

    With that in mind, Apple should purchase T-Mobile for some $52 billion and fully upgrade its network for 5G service over the next two years. Then it could invite everyone in America to purchase a package of wireless, go-anywhere internet service plus unlimited phone calls and texts for perhaps $50 per month — including the aforementioned privacy and neutrality benefits.

    T-Mobile has already started down this path by offering free streaming of a limited range if lower-quality video, but what Apple could do with T-Mobile’s network would be far more ambitious. For a start, millions of devoted Apple customers would catapult T-Mobile to a scale that rivals AT&T and Verizon. That would enable Apple to extract concessions from TV networks and movie studios which have heretofore spurned Apple’s attempts to develop a full range of video entertainment similar to what it has done with Apple Music.

    Having a major player (Apple/T-Mobile) offering privacy and neutrality would also incentivize other ISP’s and wireless operators to follow suit, to avoid losing even more customers to Apple.

    Apple could accomplish all of this without undermining either company's culture by leaving current T-Mobile management in place, and issuing a few guidelines that establish the company’s new mission. Apple’s deep pockets, brand name and well-known commitment to privacy virtually guarantees the success of such a venture. After all, T-Mobile will upgrade to 5G in any event, so its prospects could only brighten with Apple accelerating the transition and attracting millions of new customers.

    Finally, Apple needs a large, high-quality investment where it could deploy a large amount of cash that earns more than a portfolio of government bonds. However, if Tim Cook is reluctant to acquire T-Mobile, he could pay T-Mobile $1 billion each year to offer the $50 monthly package of phone and internet services to iPhone users, plus a zero-interest loan to finance its 5G network upgrade. The ability of iPhone customers to get a bargain on mobile phone and internet services would give iPhone a marketing advantage not enjoyed by the buyers of other phones.
    A slight understanding about the technical and commercial aspects of cellular networks would be helpful, before you consider solutions like buying a T-Mobile.

    Mobile telecom operators are in the high volume, low margin business.  Apple is  interested in high margin business, so I don't think there is a cultural match.  Running the operations of a cellular is huge and complex job that runs behind the screens.  I don't see how this can fit with Apple's premium design philosophy.  Apple does not have a great track record for a streamlined and cost efficient iCloud operations.  

    Another aspect is that Apple has always promoted new technology.  This drives new hardware purchases and has a positive impact on the business.  A telecom service provider cannot say to an existing customer to stop paying his monthly subscription because the operator has stopped supporting the technology of his phone.

    Download speeds in fixed networks like VDSL can be guaranteed, but in cellular networks this is not the case, the speed depends of the distance of the user to the base station, the weather, the number of users ...   Typically the power budget of the base station is the main factor that drives the capacity.  And because the power budget is directly linked to radiation level, this is obviously limited.   

    Speeds in 5G networks are indeed higher than in 4G networks but only on very short distances.  If you want to have very high speed mobile connection to a decent number of users in a city environment you need to build of a lot of new base stations + antennas (every 200 meters), a very costly operation.  This can have a positive business case in down town New York, but in low density cities with few skyscrapers this is not so sure.


    So don't be so naive.


  • Reply 94 of 103
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 2,111member
    jSnively said:
    Forgive me for asking but I live in New Zealand so I don’t understand how America works but isn’t the FTC higher than the FCC? If so wouldn’t that be the best place to settle the issue because it has higher coverage?

    In New Zealand we had similar issue with Telecom who controlled the infrastructure and set prices too high for competitors. In the end the government stepped in and forced Telecom to open up to competitors properly. As a result we’ve got fibre to the door for free in available areas, unlimited text messages, high amount of voice calling time, although our data plans on cellular suck but on fibre and ADSL they’re pretty good.

    Sometimes the government DOES need to get involved but America just seems so unwilling to allow it despite it being in their best interests. I just don’t understand that mentality to be honest.

    I know the FCC made the worst decision for everyone but to me it seems the FTC is the better place to sort the issue out. But once again I’m looking from the outside in.
    That's a good question, and at the heart of argument between the majority parties we have here.

    The Democrats will tell you that the FTC doesn't have enough power to address all the problems that can arise from a lack of net neutrality, and the Republicans will tell you that they have more than they need. The reality is that the Democrats are more correct on this issue. The "technically correct" answer ends up being the messiest and most expensive to implement -- It involves both agencies with overlapping jurisdiction and/or expanded powers.

    Right now the FCC enjoys all the power it needs, so long as ISPs fall under Title II, so that's a much cleaner and easier fix for the problem as a whole. It does come with some extra overhead, but still far less than would exist if the 'technically correct' fix were to be implemented.
    True...  But I think it's more than that.
    If the pipes carrying the internet are considered vital national infrastructure then they almost certainly have to be considered a utility and outside of the bounds of corporate governance -- much like the old copper telephone lines or a water or gas company.   That is, while private companies own and operate the physical systems, they are tightly regulated to provide those services in a fair manner to all...

    Those regulations are a two edged sword:  while they tightly restrict tactics a company can use to enhance its profit (say by charging certain customers more or by blocking unprofitable customers), they simultaneously guarantee that utility reap a "fair and reasonable profit".  It's to the advantage of society to keep those utility companies strong and financially healthy.

    But, the forces of capitalism will always fight against that because they see a captive audience that they can manipulate and control to enhance their bottom line.

    We already see the impact of lack of being declared a utility on cable:
    In my neighborhood Verizon and Comcast have both run cable past every single house.  I can literally switch carriers with a phone call and unplugging one wire and plugging in the other.   But, houses not far from me do not have access to any high speed cable....   In one instance there is some limited competition but paid for at great price through duplication of effort.  In the other instance there is not only no competition, there isn't even a provider.

    Declaring the internet pipelines utilities strengthens the nation by eliminating waste and redundancy while insuring that all have equal access to the utility....
    gatorguy
  • Reply 95 of 103
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 2,111member
    Summer repeats already?

    Seriously though, I don't think anything productive will come with our current Administration.

    Especially since AT&T has been found to be paying to try to get the president's ear. 



    I hesitate to respond to this baldly partisan bait, so I'll just mention that every administration and every politician is beholden to at least one special interest or another.
    False Equivalencies ("They ALL do it!") are not only false.  They are the bastion of the weak....
  • Reply 96 of 103
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 2,111member
    lkrupp said:
    Once the telecommunications industry was made a public utility and regulated to the highest degree innovation stopped dead in its tracks. Your landline, if you still have one, is loaded own with government fees and taxes. Same thing will happen when net neutrality is cemented in place. There will be NO incentive for carriers to expand their network capacities or reach because the other guy won’t either. I suppose all you big corporation haters want the government to nationalize the Internet and make it free for all, right?
    Your argument is precisely why large segments of our country do not have access to high speed internet and also why what we call "high speed" here is low speed in other, more developed countries.

    The carriers have no incentive to service the people of the country who pays it.  Your value to that company is only in how much profit you provide to them.   No profit, No service.   That works in discretionary things and where there are sufficient alternatives and competition but it falls apart in national infrastructure projects.
  • Reply 97 of 103
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 136member
    Opponents of net neutrality, including Pai and the administration of President Donald Trump, view it as unnecessary government regulation that stifles innovation. They believe that the Federal Trade Commission, and not the FCC, should be used to punish internet service providers who abuse open access.

    I don't believe that is correct. Pai and others of his ilk believe that "the market" will punish transgressors. They believe that if a particular ISP, or any company, does something bad, that customers will vote with their feet and punish the company by going to the competition. They don't want government to regulate ANYTHING. 
    The trouble with this is of course twofold. First when it comes to home ISPs for most people there ISN'T competition. You live in a particular area you have one ISP take it or leave it. You're lucky to have even two, let alone anything approaching a healthy marketplace with actual competition. The second problem is something we see here in Canada. A limited number of telecom providers, for both home and cellular, that do not collude, but somehow all charge similar high prices for limited service. The idea that "the market" will self regulate is a hugely popular fantasy for libertarian types, but in the real world, especially the real internet world, it just does not work. 
    stourque
  • Reply 98 of 103
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 29,075member
    DAalseth said:
    Opponents of net neutrality, including Pai and the administration of President Donald Trump, view it as unnecessary government regulation that stifles innovation. They believe that the Federal Trade Commission, and not the FCC, should be used to punish internet service providers who abuse open access.

    I don't believe that is correct. Pai and others of his ilk believe that "the market" will punish transgressors. They believe that if a particular ISP, or any company, does something bad, that customers will vote with their feet and punish the company by going to the competition. They don't want government to regulate ANYTHING. 
    The trouble with this is of course twofold. First when it comes to home ISPs for most people there ISN'T competition. You live in a particular area you have one ISP take it or leave it. You're lucky to have even two, let alone anything approaching a healthy marketplace with actual competition. The second problem is something we see here in Canada. A limited number of telecom providers, for both home and cellular, that do not collude, but somehow all charge similar high prices for limited service. The idea that "the market" will self regulate is a hugely popular fantasy for libertarian types, but in the real world, especially the real internet world, it just does not work. 
    Here’s the thing: Canada has their own climate of heavy regulation and heavy taxation to support the socialistic machinery of government up there. I don’t think it’s possible for you to argue that the prices you see are “too high” or “unfair” based on the regulatory environment there. Similarly, in the US “free markets” exist in limited cases in the US (garage sales, private contract negotiations, barter trade). Most trade and businesses are HIGHLY regulated. The anti-free market, anti-Libertarian argument doesn’t fly in reality.
  • Reply 99 of 103
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 2,111member
    DAalseth said:
    Opponents of net neutrality, including Pai and the administration of President Donald Trump, view it as unnecessary government regulation that stifles innovation. They believe that the Federal Trade Commission, and not the FCC, should be used to punish internet service providers who abuse open access.

    I don't believe that is correct. Pai and others of his ilk believe that "the market" will punish transgressors. They believe that if a particular ISP, or any company, does something bad, that customers will vote with their feet and punish the company by going to the competition. They don't want government to regulate ANYTHING. 
    The trouble with this is of course twofold. First when it comes to home ISPs for most people there ISN'T competition. You live in a particular area you have one ISP take it or leave it. You're lucky to have even two, let alone anything approaching a healthy marketplace with actual competition. The second problem is something we see here in Canada. A limited number of telecom providers, for both home and cellular, that do not collude, but somehow all charge similar high prices for limited service. The idea that "the market" will self regulate is a hugely popular fantasy for libertarian types, but in the real world, especially the real internet world, it just does not work. 

    How much did AT&T pay into to Trump's slush fund so his "fixer" could tell them what Trump thought about Net Neutrality and mergers?  That's free market isn't it?   They could have donated that money to anybody.
  • Reply 100 of 103
    To be clear, there was no debate. This was muscled through by a bunch of greedy piggies out to smash and grab the Internet along with everything else in the country. They ignored the public opposition.

    At least this is being fought at the state level in blue states.

    "For all of the hue and cry over the repeal of net neutrality, the disaster scenarios presented by critics remain, for now, mostly hypothetical"

    For all the hue and cry over the foxes who just broke into the coop, the disaster scenarios presented remain, for now, mostly hypothetical.

    False equivalence is not objective journalism.
    GeorgeBMacstourque
Sign In or Register to comment.