Net neutrality? More like neutered neutrality.

By | December 21, 2010, 11:47am PST

Summary: Aren’t politicians frickin’ wonderful?

Here’s where we stand. The FCC has approved a form of net neutrality after years of debate and tail chasing.

See also: FCC approves net neutrality framework; Now the politics begin

So, what’s it all mean? Does this finally mean we’ll all get fair and affordable Internet, forever and ever?

More importantly, as ABC affiliate KTRS’ host John Brown asked me on the air yesterday, “Will you still be able to get to your Facebook profile?”

The answers are no. And yes.

No, the Internet will not be fair and affordable forever. Not even close. And yes, you’ll be able to get to your Facebook.

Here’s the thing. The FCC’s variation of net neutrality isn’t neutral. In fact, it’s the opposite. The rules the FCC approved today treat wired Internet and wireless completely differently.

The wired Internet will gain some level of net neutrality. But the wireless Internet (which, coincidentally, is pretty much where we’re all moving to) will allow vendors to sculpt traffic to their hearts’ content — creating all sorts of special cases and special treatment.

Wired Internet will be somewhat open. Wireless Internet will be controlled and manipulated by large corporate interests and you and your Web site will most likely be treated like second class citizens.

Oh, and none of this is locked in stone. The FCC has made this ruling, but they had to bend a bunch of rules to get this far. We’ve got a vengeful Republican congress coming into office in a few weeks. So it’s anyone’s guess what will stick and what won’t.

My take: like the health care bill, this is an area that desperately needed quality government attention. Instead, it got politicized, neutered, and gutted to the point where we might have actually been better off if they left the darned thing alone.

Aren’t politicians frickin’ wonderful?

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

David Gewirtz, Distinguished Lecturer at CBS Interactive, is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets.

Disclosure

David Gewirtz

At various times during his adult life, David has voted for both Democrats and Republicans, and has been disappointed by both. He is deeply disturbed by how partisanship has come before patriotism in America, which gives him the freedom to pick on both sides.

David is a frequent guest on TV and radio stations across America and can usually be heard or seen on-the-air at least once a week. He writes weekly commentary and analysis for CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 and has been interviewed by Fox News, CNN, various ABC and NBC affiliates, and Canada’s Global TV. He has been a featured guest on National Public Radio and has also been featured on Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberty where his commentaries on technology, industry, and emerging nations have been broadcast into 46 countries (all in their own unique translations).

David is the executive director of U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute, a nonprofit research and policy organization. He is the Cyberterrorism Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security and a special contributor to Frontline Security Magazine. He is a member of the FBI’s InfraGard program, the security partnership between the FBI and industry. David is also a member of the U.S. Naval Institute and the National Defense Industrial Association, the leading defense industry association promoting national security.

David is an advisory board member for the Technical Communications and Management Certificate program at the University of California, Berkeley extension. He is also a member of the instructional faculty at the University of California, Berkeley extension.

David’s “day job” is as publisher and editor-in-chief of ZATZ publishing, an online publisher of technical magazines. Other than than his ownership stake in Component Enterprises, Inc. (the parent company of ZATZ), David has no additional industry investments.

ZATZ has many advertisers who do, in part, provide for David’s lush income and extravagant lifestyle. Most of them are IBM and Lotus aftermarket suppliers, some of them make goodies for Microsoft Outlook, and a few make all sorts of strange mobile devices and add-on products. David has been a regular judge of the IBM Awards, but has no formal financial interest in or with IBM.

Because the ZATZ online magazines often review products, David and ZATZ are sent an overwhelming stream of unsolicited, silly, and often useless products to review. Because they’re such a pain to track and ship back, these products often wind up in a dumpster or fill up the corner of a large closet. Although David has no plans to review products in connection to his ZDNet blog, if he does do a product review, he will disclose any relationship completely in that posting.

Both through ZATZ and independently, David derives a small income through various advertising and sales relationships with Amazon.com and Google. These are minor relationships and they will not impede his willingness or ability to chastise either company should they deserve it.

David has many other business relationships, but none of them relate to anything he covers in his ZDNet blog. David does have a bit of the sales-guy bug and if he’s not doing a sales deal with someone at least once a month, he goes through withdrawal. He has a number of consulting clients, but none of them relate to anything he covers for ZDNet (and if they ever do, he will either disclose that fact, or decline to write about them).

Back in the 1980s, David held the unusual title of “Godfather” at Apple. He has written and published 40 incredibly simplistic applications for Apple’s iPhone.

Although David is forbidden to disclose the terms of his iPhone developer agreement, he isn’t drinking the Apple Kool Aid, will never be confused with a metrosexual, and feels free to mock Apple, and Apple users, any time the occasion permits, on alternate Tuesdays, or if he’s bored.

Biography

David Gewirtz

In addition to hosting the ZDNet Government and ZDNet DIY-IT blogs, CBS Interactive's Distinguished Lecturer David Gewirtz is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets, is one of America's foremost cyber-security experts, and is a top expert on saving and creating jobs. He is also director of the U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute as well as the founder of ZATZ Publishing.

David is a member of FBI InfraGard, the Cyberwarfare Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security, and has been a regular CNN contributor, and a guest commentator for the Nieman Watchdog of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. He is the author of Where Have All the Emails Gone?, the definitive study of email in the White House, as well as How To Save Jobs and The Flexible Enterprise, the classic book that served as a foundation for today's agile business movement.

33
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Net neutrality? More like neutered neutrality.
donald@... 11th Nov
Oxymoron: effective government.
Have you ever, EVER seen any government managed program that wasn't completely screwed up. The 10 most frightening words in the english language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
0 Votes
+ -
Move to Somalia, or Haiti....
snberk341 21st Dec 2010
@Scubajrr

No Government Managed Programs there....
0 Votes
+ -
Since you ask
Yagotta B. Kidding 21st Dec 2010
@Scubajrr

Have you ever, EVER seen any government managed program that wasn't completely screwed up

Hmm. Let me think about that:
Water service? Never let me down, even tastes decent.
Fire department? Awesome, actually. Fast response, extremely well-trained, great people to work with.
Police? For all the complaints, the great majority do a hard job quite competently.
Highways? Even when they're completely redoing roads in mountain country, they manage to do it with a minimum of disruption and get quality results.
Military? If you want to criticize them, go right ahead.
NOAA? World-class survey and monitoring for longer than any of us have been alive.
Social Security? Handles more money than all other insurance operations combined and does it with less than one-sixth the overhead.
Medical services? You take Mayo, I'll take Bethesda.

So, yeah, I think there may be one or two "government managed program(s) that (aren't) completely screwed up."
@Yagotta B. Kidding
Water Service - not a federal program and in most cities they do well
Fire department - not a federal program, does well
Police - not a federal program, does well
Highways - interstates are federal and federal dollars are used for state and local projects, for the most part I'd agree.
Military - I was in it, huge waste of cash, this department in the federal government is why people think if you throw enough money at something, eventually it will work.

My beef isn't with state and local agencies, it's with federal programs. You actually have a voice at the local level and that's were things usually get done right. Why? Because they are held accountable by the community, the press, and for the most part themselves.
@relwolf

So things like the workforce reinvestment act, or US Forest/Park services are useless and a waist of money? What about USDA? I don't know about you but I like the fact that there are standards for the food we eat. What about DOL (Department of Labor), They regulate workforce safety protocols, wage and hour standards, unemployment insurance, and re-employment programs. Trust me these are just a few government programs that aren't a waste of money.
0 Votes
+ -
@Relwolf
You asked if any government programs weren't totally messed up. I believe the gentleman gave you a good answer.

Frankly, I have little patience with a pissant like yourself that assumes the answer to the question. Certainly there is no justification for saying to the ISP's "go right ahead, set up your own online businesses, and slow down or disrupt communications with your competitors". Like telling truck drivers "go ahead and run other cars off the road".
0 Votes
+ -
Why YES I have!
JohnVoter 21st Dec 2010
@Scubajrr
Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) refused approval for an application from the Richardson-Merrell company to market thalidomide in the United States.
Of course saving hundreds of thousands of babies probably isn't that important an accomplishment to you.
0 Votes
+ -
@JohnVoter

No, according to that font of information Glenn Beck, the FDA is out to control you. I think this brings a new meaning to eat sh*t and die wink
0 Votes
+ -
@Scubajrr

Gee Americans are cute. Their refusal to believe any goverment can act benevolently to its citizens is the root cause of much of their problems.

As to wireless is the way we're heading - not with limited spectrum and having to build towers everywhere it's not. Wireless is already crowded and it promises to become more so. It's also expensive.

In Australia we are building fibre to the home with a national broadband network. I'll use wireless in a variety of places, but fibre will be the main connection.

As to Net neutrality, the only ones who object to it are those who want your money - sure they'll rationalise it with all sorts of reasons, but basically they just want to get rich at your expense.
0 Votes
+ -
hohoho, see the problem of you sheeples is that you don't understand what responsibility and accountability are. It's amazing anyone believes that big government w/ zero risk on own shoulder but endless supply of tax payers' money can somehow spend money more prudently than private industry that has to deal with the risk of failure and make ends meet on their own to achieve business success.

Your naivety is exceeded only by your gullibility.
0 Votes
+ -
@LBiege
snberk341 22nd Dec 2010
Which is why, of course, those bastions of free-enterprise - GM, Chrysler (isn't this now the 2nd time?), and ... how many banks and investment houses now? Nortel ... have basically gone bankrupt.

So, whether or not you agree that Government should have kicked in some money or not.... the point is that just because it's private enterprise does not mean that they know how to spend money prudently.

It can be argued that there is even more risk for government than private enterprise. The Board of Directors can be voted out every 4 years. Without stock options.
@snberk341
I think the point LBiege is trying to make complements yours. If a private company screws up they go bankrupt and they have no more money to screw up with. If the government screws up, they just raise taxes or run up huge deficits. I'm not suggesting we can completely eliminate the government, but with adequate competition there is no need for the government to make the rules.
0 Votes
+ -
Net Neutrality gives power to the FCC
whoisharmonica 21st Dec 2010
Net neutrality gives the FCC unprecedented power over the freest medium of expression left in the world: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTshrURtcjU
0 Votes
+ -
Put on your foil hat
JohnVoter 21st Dec 2010
@whoisharmonica
Net neutrality guarantees American consumers that THEY -- not the not-so-fast ISPs -- will decide what web sites they can use.
So take your fascist "corporations should run America" attitude back home.
0 Votes
+ -
Net Neutrality fixes a problem that isn't there
Michael Alan Goff 22nd Dec 2010
N/T
0 Votes
+ -
@goff256
Exactly! So is JohnVoter suggesting he can't already already choose what web sites he can use? Which part of the world does he live in? Also the question isn't whether "corporations should run America", but rather whether America should run corporations. Remember, it was these corporations that built their networks in the first place not the government. If there was a monopoly, I could understand, but that isn't the case.
0 Votes
+ -
While it appears obvious that neither side in this debate received all of what they were hoping, its important to keep today?s decision in context:

* This does allow for paid prioritization.
* This does not allow government censorship.
* This does enforce?to some extent?net neutrality rules via broadband.
* This does not enforce net neutrality rules via mobile broadband.
* This is a first step towards protecting consumers.
* This is not the last step towards protecting consumers.

Read more: http://bit.ly/fxd1BU
0 Votes
+ -
@mlschafer7
Well stated.
0 Votes
+ -
I guess "better left off if they had left the darned thing alone" means that we let Comcast direct us to their walled garden of captive internet services.
Maybe this article would have been better off if you had left it unwritten.
0 Votes
+ -
@JohnVoter

If you don't like Comcast, go to another provider.
Problem, solution.
0 Votes
+ -
@richdave

LOL. Face it. This ruling makes Comcast the ONLY provider in many states. Most ISPs cannot afford to upscale their operations to remain 'neutral'.
0 Votes
+ -
@richdave the only competition here is skybeam They are about 10 times worse and 100 times slower. skybeem down for 1/2 a day once a week and you might get your agreed speed 1 a month. problem more problems you choose.
0 Votes
+ -
Surprised?
"My take: like the health care bill, this is an area that desperately needed quality government attention."

Hardly. If you look at healthcare and communications, you'll see that all the problems have arisen from "quality government attention." It's so easy to blame the free market, but I would contend that we've not seen a free market in either of these industries in the last century; at least not in our lifetimes. It's called "crony capitalism," and it makes a great whipping boy.

My take: like the health care bill, this is an area that desperately needs the government to get out of the way and let the free market work it's magic.

Here's an interesting look at net neutrality as it relates to the Bell breakup: http://www.theconstitutionalisttoday.com/the-breakup-of-ma-bell/

And a classic look at the "magic" of free markets: http://mises.org/daily/4736
0 Votes
+ -
The bottom line is...
neverhome 22nd Dec 2010
Can the various service providers make money under the new rules? If so then the Internet will continue to operate as expected. If not, you'll see major providers drop their services to keep from losing money. That's the long and short of it. If it's profitable, it will continue. If not, it's gone. Then we'd see a government-run "single payer" Internet where the fed will have total control. As bad as some ISps are, I'd vastly prefer them to the laughably corrupt US government. The private sector nearly always provides better service and value than the federal government.
0 Votes
+ -
Many of you are confusing ...
rmhesche 22nd Dec 2010
Government Regulation with Government Operation.

For those of you making that confusion I have to point out how the Government making rules IS NOT the same as the Government providing the service.
0 Votes
+ -
Say good bye to free speech
Duncan651@... 22nd Dec 2010
A Democrat run Congress voted this mess down and now the FCC is going to do it anyway? Is this how the system's going to work from now on?

These are the kinds of laws our elected and citizen accountable law makers in Congress should make not some faceless bureaucrat in Washington. Who is to decide what is "fair"? The FCC or the American people? I say call Congress to day and let them know you demand free speech.
0 Votes
+ -
With the new Congress
rmhesche 22nd Dec 2010
@Duncan651@...

We can pretty much count on whatever is good for Corporate Profit is the agenda that will be pushed.
What exactly is wrong with the internet that needs anyone to control it? Mine works just fine.

PS The US Government is being taken over by Socialists, and as it turns out, they do not appreciate the free and open exchange of information.

You guys drank the Kool Aid, didn't you?
Lbiege
we can go back and forth all day on that topic.
We can say that the banks went bankrupt due to poor leanding.
Then you can claim they where lending money according to the law and rules set forth by the FED.
You could also go back and say those rules where not right and should have been changed. They where. By Barney Frank and the FED. Fannie May was told they would cover all bad loans by the Goverment.
No matter how you want to slice this all up. There is always some one out to make a buck.
The real trick here is. And the fact of the matter. That if you leave things up to the private sector to figure out. Most times, most mind you. Most times the private sector gets it right.
UPS and FEDEX or the post Office?
You can cry all you want about GM But if GM had failed someone else would have bought them up or ford, toyota, or someone else would have filled that nitch in the market.
Every time you have the Govt. regulate anything its at a loss.
I'm more willing to allow free market solutions solve the problem then have the Govt. regulate it to death.
@tarrsik
How is my message spam??? It says my message has been reported as Spam!
@tarrsik
Take it in positive light. It means that some pro government folks couldn't come up with a good counter argument and elected to flag your post instead.
Oxymoron: effective government.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix