WTF: FCC cites Android as reason we don't need wireless Net Neutrality

Guess what turned up in the reasons given by the the FCC for not requiring net neutrality for wireless: because Android is open-source! This indicates "meaningful recent moves toward openness." Though not the only reason given in the FCC's press release, conflating the appliance with the pipe does sound like a shibboleth regarding the Commission's willingness to understand the issues. [via Engadget]

• [Anonymous]

  You pay for access to our well pump.

  You can bring any bucket you like.

  But if we don’t like it we’ll drill a hole in it or put a false bottom in it. If your bucket is the wrong color we’ll crank down the spigot to a trickle whenever you come by. If you are using the water to make noodles, we set the spigot to one rate, but if you are going to make dumplings, we’ll set it to another. If you are using to wash your lover, there’s no extra charge, but we will note it on your monthly bill.

  You are free, peasants, because you can bring any bucket you like!

• [BastardNamban]

  Oh, because something called Android exists, and it’s supposedly “open”, that somehow changes the thing it accesses, the thing that matters, THE INTERNET?

  That’s like saying there’s this one kind of car, and it works better than others in a way, but that alone somehow justifies an enormous logic jump to say that is why we must not fool with the roads.

  Example: “This car has doors you can open, all other cars have their doors welded shut for some reason. We see the existence of this single type of car as a reason not to fund more road building. Cause, like, we can take the doors off and throw them down to build more roads!”

  FCC, I know you aren’t that fucking stupid. On this particular issue, there are way, way more people savvy to the bullshit you pulled today than you seem to realize.

  Mobile Internet is THE SAME FUCKING THING as THE Internet. It’s all the same destination, exact same- the roads are all linked and made of the same concrete. Your organization selectively choosing to “ignore” the fact the all the fucking roads are actually linked has been noticed by your more tech savvy citizens.

  THIS IS BULLSHIT. You just created an internet ghetto- it won’t be long before assholes like AT&T, who just don’t give a fuck about infrastructure investment, begin charging for every tier they can create. Hell, they already got rid of unlimited plans, because they claimed “not enough people used them”.

  This is like destroying a turnpike because not enough people wanted to pay a ridiculous 50$ toll to drive on it. It’s insane from both sides- they destroyed something that could have been useful to people, and they did it because they were ultimately too fucking greedy to see usefulness beyond dollar signs.

  I want a way to scream at the FCC right now. I want a loudspeaker connected to a FUCKING BULLHORN, in front of AT&T AND the FCC, and a chance to spit on the steps and feet of both.

  Welcome to the future, ruled still by the incredibly greedy, useless gobshite assholes of telecoms, and the worthless, toothless fuckwads who were supposed to tell THEM what to do.

  This whole money talks bullshit is really, really beyond tiring. SOMEONE JUST DO THEIR FUCKING JOB PLEASE

  • [EH]

    What exactly do you think their job is?

• [RobertBigelow]

  This isn’t about the Android OS or the hardware it runs on. It isn’t about any particular mobile phone or device. We’re being handed a slippery slope fallacy to try distract us from what this is really all about: the mobile networks.

  We went through a similar experience with our ISPs like Comcast, Cox, Time-Warner and the their such ilk some ten years or so ago. These days, it’s the mobile networks that are becoming the new “cash cow” to be exploited.

• [Rob Beschizza]

  PS. Don’t you just love the vague implication that carriers adopted Android to make their networks more open to consumers? You don’t even need to go near counterpoints (“cheap iOS competition,” “taking advantange of Google’s belief it could reshape the mobile market”, “most Android phones are locked down with unremovable software”) to see how bad it is.

• [ultranaut]

  Is it just me or is everything rigged to fuck us over?

• [Anonymous]

  It’s the same as water sanitation. My municipal water supply shouldn’t be regulated with needless oversight because I can take apart my faucet.

• [Zac]

  Oy, what a mess . . .

  Though I doubt this is an example of outright deception on the FCC’s part, otherwise they’d push it and not bury it in a report.

  No what probably happened is this: Old people who don’t get it were in charge of making these rules. Google talked to them and said “Look at our open-source Android, see, open-source.” And the old people said, “yeah that makes sense” and then innovation died.

• [Church]

  They don’t even care that they’ll be called out on their absurd assertions. Just repeat it often enough.

• [BadIdeaSociety]

  I really don’t feel comfortable with the FCC being run by people who have no clue how communications systems work.

  It is bad enough that they don’t know how the First Amendment works.

• [msbpodcast]

  What does competition/collusion between the carriers have to do with net neutrality?

  That makes as much sense as Microsoft declaring how “vibrant” competition was for the internet when they had just forced Netscape to go broke.

  Just after the DoJ finding that Microsoft was indeed a monopoly.

  America is screwing itself into the grave by letting the media oligarchs get back in control.

  I’d better learn Chinese real quick…

• [EH]

  They were going to come up with a lame excuse no matter what; that’s how corruption works.

• [Niklas]

  I just came here and read about Apple’s lame attempt at justifying its deletion of the Wikileaks app. Then I see this. Today is a real “WTF are people thinking” day.

• [ranjit]

  Looking at carriers crippling android to serve their own designs (no tethering for example) it is a blod claim that they are moving towards a more open approach.

  Besides, claiming net neutrality needen’t be protected because Android is open source is like saying the rain forests needen’t be protected as long as the lumberjacks use biofuel for their trucks.

• [Anonymous]

  I agree with the poster that urged us to take the long view. If corporate interests try to lock wireless internet down, then the wireless internet will simply route around them. They’ll be left holding a lot of monopoly money. Seriously, this isn’t even that hard to do anymore, and there’s a clear staging path to achieve it, not to mention a *huge* revenue potential for whatever group does it.

  • [RevEng]

    The problem with “routing around them” is that the infrastructure is far too expensive for anybody to bother trying. Consider the market for somebody who decides to try and compete on wireless internet with the mobile phone services:
    * You have a few large companies who have saturated the market with customers on contracts, covered the country in their wireless network (or at least the good profit centers), and aren’t interested in letting you share their piece of the pie.
    * Creating your own network will cost billions of dollars.
    * Integration of wireless services (internet and mobile phone) is part of what’s driving the market, so if you don’t offer both, you already start at a disadvantage.
    * Your selling point (a free and open connection) is only understood by 5% of your market.

    That would be a hard sell by any stretch of the imagination and it’s far too expensive to be considered by any one person or even existing company. Only a behemoth like Google could take a bet on this, and even they would do what they could to milk it for all that it’s worth.

    The “routing around” argument is the same as the “free market” argument, but we know that’s false; there are only a few players in the game, they play by the same rules, and there’s no incentive for somebody else to join in the pot.

    That’s where regulation is *supposed* to come in, but the governments of the world are far too busy being paid off by lobbyists to be concerned about what is better for their constituents. There is no country “for the people”.

• [Tim]

  i’m going to choose to believe that this won’t be as bad as everyone says, because it’s Christmas time and I really don’t want to depressed right now.

• [acb]

  To be fair, it’s not only because Android is open-source. It’s because Android is open-source, Chewbacca is a Wookiee from Endor and there are no Wookiees on Endor.

• [Anonymous]

  As Engadget points out, how curious that Google was for net neutrality and then flip-flopped to oppose it when they got into Verizon’s bed. So Verizon/Google lobby the crap out of the FCC to let carriers control cellular internet and FCC cites a Google strawman product as a reason for the decision? Sure, okay.

  I look forward to the internet routing around any corporate attempts at controlling the flow. Remember how well WAP worked out for cell carriers. One needs to take the long view.

• [Anonymous]

  Chairman Genachowski’s press release announcing his acceptance of a position at a major carrier in 3… 2… 1…

• [andyhavens]

  Props for “shibboleth,” Rob. Well played.

• [remmelt]

  Devil’s advocate here, but how can you complain?

  First there’s the entire “the free market will fix it!” spiel, and then when the supposedly free market turns out not to be so free after all (surprise!) people complain?

  Apart from that, I wonder if there really are people who actually, honestly believe that the no-neutral net is better for them. Apart from the share holders, who are these people?