FCC moves plan forward to allow paid priority on the Internet


Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,383
UK

Sydde

macrumors 68020
Aug 17, 2009
2,105
2,163
IOKWARDI
All the utilities, including the telecoms, need to be required to have a non-profit charter.
 

edk99

macrumors 6502a
May 27, 2009
701
709
FL
So I guess you guys would agree with Senator Cruz on this issue. The FCC should be enforcing laws not creating them.

Ted Cruz bill would ban 'FCC's latest adventure in net neutrality'

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, wants Congress to ban "the FCC's latest adventure in 'net neutrality,' " saying the proposed changes to Internet regulations would damage the industry.

"A five-member panel at the FCC should not be dictating how Internet services will be provided to millions of Americans," Cruz said in a Wednesday afternoon statement. "I will be introducing legislation that would remove the claimed authority for the FCC to take such actions, specifically the Commission's nebulous Sec. 706 authority. More than $1 trillion has already been invested in broadband infrastructure, which has led to an explosion of new content, applications, and Internet accessibility. Congress, not an unelected commission, should take the lead on modernizing our telecommunications laws. The FCC should not endanger future investments by stifling growth in the online sector, which remains a much-needed bright spot in our struggling economy."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/ted-cruz-bill-would-ban-fccs-latest-adventure-in-net-neutrality/article/2548441
 

TheHateMachine

macrumors 6502a
Sep 18, 2012
836
850
A potential ban of all paid prioritization as well as common carrier is still on the table. Also, slowed service because your traffic is not prioritized is apparently not supposed to happen (Not sure how they will accomplish that unless there will be a section of "reserved" bandwidth). It is a mixed bag. OF course that could all be worthless butt patting in an attempt to sate the people who want common carrier and the likes.

So I guess you guys would agree with Senator Cruz on this issue. The FCC should be enforcing laws not creating them.
Nope.
 

Peace

macrumors Core
Apr 1, 2005
19,467
3,833
Space--The ONLY Frontier
So I guess you guys would agree with Senator Cruz on this issue. The FCC should be enforcing laws not creating them.
So congress should pass a net neutrality law itself?
While I strongly disagree with the FCC ruling,passing this decision making off to congress would make it worse. You would have a TON of lobbyist paying off congress to do what might be worse things to the internet.

Ted Cruz and the like making those decisions ?

I don't think so.

Congress should have oversight though.
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
This is not enforced yet. This was just the initial vote, and public comments are due by July 15th. I suggest sending comments in, writing your Senator and Representative, as well as possibly proposing that the cable companies, since they are getting into internet and phone service, be classified as a Title II "Common Carrier" and be regulated like a utility.

But we need to act on this and now is that time.

BL.
 

Happybunny

macrumors 68000
Sep 9, 2010
1,752
1,351
I'm glad I live this side of the water.:p

Europe Votes For Net Neutrality In No Uncertain Terms

The European Parliament has voted to protect net neutrality, limiting the power of telecoms providers to charge third parties for faster network access.

Members of the European Parliament approved the legislation by 534 votes to 25, with 58 abstentions – clear support for Commission vice president Neelie Kroes, who has pushed strongly for the changes.

Currently, only the Netherlands and Slovenia have net neutrality laws in place and some countries, such as the UK, are deeply unenthusiastic. Telecoms regulator BEREC says that several internet access providers across the region have been blocking or slowing down services such as Skype or Netflix NFLX +2.15%, with the Commission suggesting that as many as 100 million users may have been affected.

Providers will now be allowed to slow or block internet access only to enforce a court order, preserve network security or prevent temporary network congestion. Even in these cases, meaures must be “transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate”, and mustn’t last longer than necessary.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawool...certain-terms/
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,544
7,802
CT
It is ironic that the vote went 3-2 and the 3 were democrats. I thought they were the ones pushing for net neutrality. Now they are the ones that want to kill it.
 

alent1234

macrumors 603
Jun 19, 2009
5,654
122
It is ironic that the vote went 3-2 and the 3 were democrats. I thought they were the ones pushing for net neutrality. Now they are the ones that want to kill it.

democrats are owned by the movie and tv studios

i'm against paid prioritization but it was netflix who started this whole thing trying to change a system that has been in place for almost 2 decades

----------

This is not enforced yet. This was just the initial vote, and public comments are due by July 15th. I suggest sending comments in, writing your Senator and Representative, as well as possibly proposing that the cable companies, since they are getting into internet and phone service, be classified as a Title II "Common Carrier" and be regulated like a utility.

But we need to act on this and now is that time.

BL.

what is that going to do, classifying them as common carriers?
 

Hieveryone

macrumors 601
Apr 11, 2014
4,152
1,476
USA
This is a SHAME. Not because of what it is now- certainly no one can argue that having a faster Netflix connection or youtube connection is a bad thing. BUT it's a shame because of what it can lead to.

The big boys in Silicon Valley pay top dollar for the best, the little guy who's starting out can't afford it. His voice never gets seen. His voice never gets heard.

That's NOT American :apple:
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,409
Don't worry guys, the cable ISPs just want to sell you Internet access like they sell you TV channels.

 

jnpy!$4g3cwk

macrumors 65816
Feb 11, 2010
1,100
1,293
open secrets dot org

check al franken's donor list. all the content people are deathly afraid of a huge comcast because that's a lot of lost revenue in case of a blackout
I have no idea what you are trying to say.

There are plenty of reasons to be afraid of a huge comcast.
We already have a monopoly, or, at best, a duopoly, at most people's homes. What we are now seeing is the development of a horizontal monopoly on cable. It the cable monopoly also owns/controls large swaths of content, we have a genuine, you-should-be-frightened, free speech problem.

WOW. This picture is mortifying. I see revolution if this becomes the internet.
We have a genuine problem developing, but, I find myself frustrated by the use of the word "internet" in these discussions. Core internet carriers may find it convenient to offer different service classes, so that phone calls may be carried via VOIP over their cores. Or, a class of service that allows loss-free distribution of network video content across the country. It is a perfectly harmless market-driven business decision. There is no reason why "net neutrality" rules should stop carriers from differentiating service for different kinds of traffic. In fact, a lot of money has been spent over the last ten years making this practical, because bulk data transfer has different requirements than, for example, voice.

This is entirely different than a cable monopoly using its market power to restrict deliberately the amount of traffic from sources that don't agree to pay extra rent, or, reduce the viability of content that they do not control. The "last mile" cable provider is not "the internet" any more than AOL was "the internet" in the mid-90's.

The following article explains the situation fairly well, but, is much more sympathetic to the last mile ISP's (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, TWC) than it is to the core carriers:

http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-vs-netflix-is-this-really-about-net-neutrality/

Other articles are much more skeptical about the ISP's behavior:

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/03/level-3-blames-internet-slowdowns-on-isps-refusal-to-upgrade-networks/

What to do about monopoly abuse is not obvious in this case. Technologies have been changing radically over the last 20 years, and, I'm sure Libertarians would prefer to let new technology correct existing monopolistic abuse. That does not seem to be working very well the last few years, though.
 

jnpy!$4g3cwk

macrumors 65816
Feb 11, 2010
1,100
1,293
The net neutrality battle

An interesting article on how cable companies are succeeding in restricting competition:


Government agreements blocking wide citizen fiberoptic access

updated 10:11 am EDT, Wed June 4, 2014

Verizon, Comcast anti-compete agreements, other legislation stymie process

Many US cities have large fiberoptic networking installations paid for by taxpayer dollars that are "dark," unknown, or unusable -- primarily due to telecom company lobbyists and threats to localities. At least 20 states have enacted laws or other legal barriers to prevent community access to these networks, and even more have signed non-compete agreements with Internet providers.

Washington DC and surrounding communities have access to the country's first 100Gbps fiberoptic network, but it is only accessible to non-profits and the government. Comcast threatened to cut off cable access to the metropolis, and following the re-negotiation that saw many Internet and cable TV bills jump by 30 percent nearly overnight, Comcast agreed to provide access to the network for the "exclusive use" of the government. The agreement mandated that the city not perform "any activities or outcomes that would result in business competition between the District and Comcast" despite the network being heavily subsidized by tax dollars. A similar agreement with Verizon continues the block to the network to this day.

Vice notes that in 2009, a bill was introduced in North Carolina which lawmakers decided would "create extraordinary financial accounting and administrative burdens on municipal broadband providers that would render their existence fiscally difficult, if not impossible." The bill heavily favored extant networks in its attempt to level the playing field between telecommunication companies and municipalities trying to build fiber networks, and its goal was very thinly veiled during the debate and approval process.

San Francisco, home to technology giants, also has a fiberoptic network not available to its citizens. It is trying to build a business plan to allow local businesses to resell the fiber, but in order to break even on the plan, fiber access would have to be offered at $200 a month, just to meet costs.

Municipal fiber networks are the key to improving average US connection speeds. The FCC is about to issue a call for public remarks increasing what it calls broadband, which will drop the number of citizens technically considered served by the telecommunications industry. The prevalent non-compete agreements blocking citizen access to these networks all over the country are harmful to wide broadband deployment, and are indicative of a larger problem with the regulatory climate favoring telecommunications company interests over that of the people in the US.
http://www.electronista.com/articles/14/06/04/verizon.comcast.anti.compete.agreements.other.legislation.stymie.process/
 

jnpy!$4g3cwk

macrumors 65816
Feb 11, 2010
1,100
1,293
Net neutrality is not enough

Seeing how the courts negatively viewed the Apple/Google non-compete agreements, I would surmise that a single lawsuit would kill this non-compete.
In Forbes (of all places!):

Net Neutrality Isn't Enough

Bundling broadband with other services gives ISPs an unfair advantage over new competitive Internet services.

The proposed mergers of Comcast with Time Warner Cable and AT&T with DIRECTV has fueled passionate discussion over net neutrality provisions to ensure that equal and open access to all services on the Internet is preserved.

While net neutrality is a crucial aspect to maintaining an open and competitive Internet, what is not being discussed is the inherent advantage that the Internet Service Providers (ISPs – cable and telco companies) have because of their ability to bundle multiple revenue streams through multiple services: phone, television and broadband.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/garymyer/2014/06/09/net-neutrality-isnt-enough/
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
Looks like the Blues are wanting to take a stand. Slim to no chance that the Reds will let it get anywhere. This is one of those chances where I really hope they (read: I want them to) prove me wrong.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/06/17/322914843/senate-dems-unveil-a-bill-to-ban-internet-fast-lanes-net-neutrality

Democrats Unveil A Bill To Ban Internet Fast Lanes
by Elise Hu
June 17, 201412:01 PM ET

Net neutrality has become a hot topic this summer, despite its snooze-inducing name. The principle governs that data on the Internet should be served to customers on a level playing field — at the same speeds — without priority for certain companies that might be able to pay for "fast lanes" for content.

Now, congressional Democrats want to put a ban on fast lanes, using legislation. A bill unveiled by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Calif., requires the Federal Communications Commission — the authority charged with enforcing net neutrality — to use whatever authority it sees fit to stop "paid prioritization" agreements between broadband providers (like Comcast) and content providers (like Netflix). This aim of the Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act is to make sure your Internet providers don't speed up some types of content (like Netflix videos) but not others.

"Americans are speaking loud and clear," Leahy said. "They want an Internet that is a platform for free expression and innovation, where the best ideas and services can reach consumers based on merit rather than based on a financial relationship with a broadband provider."

The FCC was enforcing net neutrality before it was struck down in court this spring, after a legal challenge from Internet service provider Verizon. That sent the FCC back to the drawing board, and it's now in an open commenting period on how it should enforce net neutrality.

Internet service providers like Comcast and Time Warner support a proposal that opens the door to charge for fast lanes. Critics, who include consumer advocates, Internet companies and Democratic lawmakers, argue this is likely to stifle innovation — leaving out startups that can't afford to pay for faster delivery — and, moreover, quash the notion of a free and open Internet.

Chances that this proposal goes anywhere are slim, as The Washington Post explains:
"The fact that Republicans control the House [makes] it unlikely that the Leahy-Matsui bill will advance very far. Still, the politics of net neutrality are obscuring the underlying economics at stake, according to [a Democratic] aide, who asked not to be named because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly.

" 'People are missing the point,' the aide said. 'The point is: Ban paid prioritization. Because that'll fundamentally change how the Internet works.' "
BL.
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,544
7,802
CT
Just treat ISP's like public utilities. They can't hide behind being a cable company that offers internet service.