Big business wins, net neutrality is all but dead for now.

[unokitty]

It's over. It's particularly sad to see all this happen in my lifetime.

Fuck the FCC. Fuck Obama. Fuck Congress. Fuck lobbyists.

We have a government of the 1%, by the 1%, and for the 1%.

Not to disagree. But wanted to point out that 1% is an overstatement. Its actually a much smaller group of people. About 1/20th of one percent... See:

Members of Congress and candidates for Congress spend anywhere between 30% and 70% of their time raising money to get themselves elected or their party back in power. But they raise that money not from all of us. Instead, they raise that money from the tiniest fraction of the 1%. Less than 1/20th of 1% of America are the “relevant funders” of congressional campaigns. That means about 150,000 Americans, or about the same number who are named “Lester,” wield enormous power over this government.

The number of people that 'own' the government corresponds to about the same number of people that are named Lester. That is why Professor Lessig calls the USA Lesterland.

Welcome to Lesterland! Now pay up!

Uno

 

[Uppsala9496]

Only 585 people have signed the petition so far.

 

[SlitheryDee]

I'm still not sure how this is going to affect things. Are some websites and services suddenly now going to work better than they used to, while others stay the same as they were before? So maybe now my netflix loading times will be shorter or something? That doesn't seem so bad to me.

They give an example of a gaming company not paying for a fast lane, which might cause gamers to lose interest in it. That doesn't make sense to me. Online gaming doesn't require a lot of bandwidth, and games work just fine right now in a non "fast-laned" internet. The only way I can see this affecting things negatively is if the general speed of the internet is brought down, leaving those companies that paid for priority to remain at previous speeds. That idea is extremely scary, but it doesn't seem to be what they are claiming is going to happen.

 

[MarkXIX]

I'm still not sure how this is going to affect things. Are some websites and services suddenly now going to work better than they used to, while others stay the same as they were before? So maybe now my netflix loading times will be shorter or something? That doesn't seem so bad to me.

They give an example of a gaming company not paying for a fast lane, which might cause gamers to lose interest in it. That doesn't make sense to me. Online gaming doesn't require a lot of bandwidth, and games work just fine right now in a non "fast-laned" internet. The only way I can see this affecting things negatively is if the general speed of the internet is brought down, leaving those companies that paid for priority to remain at previous speeds. That idea is extremely scary, but it doesn't seem to be what they are claiming is going to happen.

It sounds to me like they're going to allow ISPs to prioritize certain traffic which is usually done using Quality of Service or QoS in the network equipment. What that does is tag certain traffic flows so that if there's congestion on that network segment, it gets priority over other non-prioritized traffic.

So, normally when EVERYONE would be slow, now Netflix will be asked to pay to have their traffic prioritized if they don't want to have customers call and say that their Netflix service is slow.

This new ruling is skirting the boundaries of allowing ISPs to make certain network traffic slower by configuration by mandating "as is" service for anyone who doesn't want to pay the ISP.

Here's some of my main concerns though. How will the ISPs be kept "honest" in the management of their networks? Will there be government oversight and auditors of their network configurations? What about cable based ISPs whose technology doesn't allow for prioritization within neighborhoods? More specifically, if all my neighbors are maxing out our local head end for my street, how does Netflix paying for priority above that in the network really benefit my neighbors and I if they can't prioritize all the way down to my cable modem?

 

[GTaudiophile]

Comcast & Co. have lost all incentive to reinvest profits in their infrastructure.

In time, they will offer us "suitable" internet at $150/month for 10Mbps service. But for an additional $20/month, you can get 100Mbps access to Netflix, $30 buys you 100Mbps for HBO-Go, $50/month or high-speed access to a package of pr0n sites, etc. And don't forget the $100/month for the gaming package for your PS4, XB, STEAM, etc.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Comcast and the other telecoms were always likely to get what they want given an electoral system paid for by big business, but it took one more thing to tip the scales against net neutrality and that was the obvious data hogs like Netflix. When Comcast brings high bandwidth hogs like Netflix up the FCC can hardly pretend Comcast is wrong on data use.

Yeah, I know Netflix pays a fee for high usage, but many other hogs do not.


Brian

 

[GTaudiophile]

It sounds to me like they're going to allow ISPs to prioritize certain traffic which is usually done using Quality of Service or QoS in the network equipment. What that does is tag certain traffic flows so that if there's congestion on that network segment, it gets priority over other non-prioritized traffic.

So, normally when EVERYONE would be slow, now Netflix will be asked to pay to have their traffic prioritized if they don't want to have customers call and say that their Netflix service is slow.

This new ruling is skirting the boundaries of allowing ISPs to make certain network traffic slower by configuration by mandating "as is" service for anyone who doesn't want to pay the ISP.

Here's some of my main concerns though. How will the ISPs be kept "honest" in the management of their networks? Will there be government oversight and auditors of their network configurations? What about cable based ISPs whose technology doesn't allow for prioritization within neighborhoods? More specifically, if all my neighbors are maxing out our local head end for my street, how does Netflix paying for priority above that in the network really benefit my neighbors and I if they can't prioritize all the way down to my cable modem?

No doubt the TOR packets will be stopped...can't have that going on.

 

[Jimzz]

I'm still not sure how this is going to affect things. Are some websites and services suddenly now going to work better than they used to, while others stay the same as they were before? So maybe now my netflix loading times will be shorter or something? That doesn't seem so bad to me.

They give an example of a gaming company not paying for a fast lane, which might cause gamers to lose interest in it. That doesn't make sense to me. Online gaming doesn't require a lot of bandwidth, and games work just fine right now in a non "fast-laned" internet. The only way I can see this affecting things negatively is if the general speed of the internet is brought down, leaving those companies that paid for priority to remain at previous speeds. That idea is extremely scary, but it doesn't seem to be what they are claiming is going to happen.

This has already happened. After the court case making the FCC re-write its rules Comcast bandwidth dropped by around 25%+ for Netflix users. Yet after Netflix paid them to open back up its even faster now then before.

Now imagine if amazon paid Comcast more than Netflix. Now Netflix gets slows downs and amazon prime works great. The end result is we users will have to pay more no matter what.

 

[MarkXIX]

Comcast and the other telecoms were always likely to get what they want given an electoral system paid for by big business, but it took one more thing to tip the scales against net neutrality and that was the obvious data hogs like Netflix. When Comcast brings high bandwidth hogs like Netflix up the FCC can hardly pretend Comcast is wrong on data use.

Yeah, I know Netflix pays a fee for high usage, but many other hogs do not.


Brian

Here's the thing, I don't give a shit if other data hogs don't pay. ISPs are essentially regional monopolies. Competition is near impossible based on the rules and costs involved, not to mention the threat of unending litigation.

What's worse than that is that these ISPs have infrastructure that has been bought and paid for for decades! They're offering speeds to customers that are but a fraction of what they COULD offer, but they don't to keep their own costs extremely low so they can maximize profit. I'm not saying profit is a bad thing, but if all they're doing is getting richer and passing that on to wealthy investors and not innovating and putting that money back into their business, they're crooks.

With a few keystrokes my ISP could increase my speed to my house RIGHT NOW at virtually no additional cost. They won't because they can keep me capped and hold that in reserve until enough customers get angry and demand better service. Then they'll enter those keystrokes and give us another sip of speed when they could just revolutionize access and dump speed on everyone.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Capitalism at its finest.

 

[MarkXIX]

Capitalism at its finest.

Wrong. Government at it's worst is the right answer here.

The corporations are naturally inclined to ask for this in order to do what they exist to do, create profit and provide services. The role of government is to regulate them and ensure that they play fair and can't abuse their market power.

Our elected officials and their appointees have their hands in the pockets of these corporations and they shouldn't. They're supposed to be the honest brokers and they're not.

The government is who is in the wrong here. It's all these millionaire legislators who have their re-election campaigns paid for by these corporations who can no longer make unbiased decisions.

Sorry to go a little P&N, but the comment above is misdirected. Dogs will shit anywhere as long as they're allowed or they're directed by their owner where to shit.

 

[Wreckem]

Here's the thing, I don't give a shit if other data hogs don't pay. ISPs are essentially regional monopolies. Competition is near impossible based on the rules and costs involved, not to mention the threat of unending litigation.

What's worse than that is that these ISPs have infrastructure that has been bought and paid for for decades! They're offering speeds to customers that are but a fraction of what they COULD offer, but they don't to keep their own costs extremely low so they can maximize profit. I'm not saying profit is a bad thing, but if all they're doing is getting richer and passing that on to wealthy investors and not innovating and putting that money back into their business, they're crooks.

With a few keystrokes my ISP could increase my speed to my house RIGHT NOW at virtually no additional cost. They won't because they can keep me capped and hold that in reserve until enough customers get angry and demand better service. Then they'll enter those keystrokes and give us another sip of speed when they could just revolutionize access and dump speed on everyone.

That is a bit of an exaggeration. Especially for most of the country which only has ancient copper infrastructure which they certainly cannot just flip the switch and give faster internet.

As for profits, in terms of the TeleCos and not CableCos, wireless is driving their profits, not wired services. They are heavily reinvesting their profits into their wireless infrastructure(although they are still pouring billions into their wired infrastructure).

 

[Phoenix86]

Except individual bandwidth hogs are more or less subsidized by the current system. They do NOT pay their fair share. Which means Netflix is more or less subsidized because its users are more or less subsidized.

Honestly if people want net neutrality, they should accept metered usage(you pay for what you use).

I pay for my connection, they pay for theirs. Netflix pays a fair share because the ISP providing them services at a level they are profiting from.

This is double dipping on connect charges, pure and simple.

There's extremely little reason to meter, as 2MB of data does not cost significantly more to deliver than 200MB. It's not an economy of scale thing either. There are break points, of course, where 20000GB costs more than 200MB because of network congestion.

However, one day they cry the uplinks are saturated (netflix is killing the ISPs uplink) and another day it's the "last mile" interconnects (local traffic is overloading local circuit). Bullshit. There's exactly one bottleneck in any system. Once you relieve that bottleneck, you expose the next one.

 

[MarkXIX]

That is a bit of an exaggeration. Especially for most of the country which only has ancient copper infrastructure which they certainly cannot just flip the switch and give faster internet.

As for profits, in terms of the TeleCos and not CableCos, wireless is driving their profits, not wired services. They are heavily reinvesting their profits into their wireless infrastructure(although they are still pouring billions into their wired infrastructure).

I will concede the copper last mile point, though we both know that ISPs which provide DSL have milked that copper in the ground for all its worth (again, not a bad thing).

My point was more directed at cable ISPs. I know full well the limitations of DSL and copper pair based internet service.

In my mind though it's the cable companies, namely Comcast and Time Warner that are driving this FCC decision and it's so blatantly obvious that it's disgusting.

 

[Phoenix86]

I will concede the copper last mile point, though we both know that ISPs which provide DSL have milked that copper in the ground for all its worth (again, not a bad thing).

My point was more directed at cable ISPs. I know full well the limitations of DSL and copper pair based internet service.

In my mind though it's the cable companies, namely Comcast and Time Warner that are driving this FCC decision and it's so blatantly obvious that it's disgusting.

Considering we already paid for fiber, it is. By 2006 all copper should have been replaced with fiber. Bought and paid for by you and me, not delivered by the telcos. We have been paying for this since the mid-90s. We still pay for it today.

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=186

 

[MarkXIX]

Considering we already paid for fiber, it is. By 2006 all copper should have been replaced with fiber. Bought and paid for by you and me, not delivered by the telcos. We have been paying for this since the mid-90s. We still pay for it today.

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=186

I forgot all about that actually. It's funny, becuase I see fiber all over the place where I live because I work in the industry, but I'm not seeing any of the potential impacts of it.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Wrong. Government at it's worst is the right answer here.

The corporations are naturally inclined to ask for this in order to do what they exist to do, create profit and provide services. The role of government is to regulate them and ensure that they play fair and can't abuse their market power.

Our elected officials and their appointees have their hands in the pockets of these corporations and they shouldn't. They're supposed to be the honest brokers and they're not.

The government is who is in the wrong here. It's all these millionaire legislators who have their re-election campaigns paid for by these corporations who can no longer make unbiased decisions.

Sorry to go a little P&N, but the comment above is misdirected. Dogs will shit anywhere as long as they're allowed or they're directed by their owner where to shit.

So, capitalism doesn't have anything to do with Governments taking handouts for favors? Sounds like capitalism to me. I mean, the comment was sarcastic, but the truth is, it's all about the money.

 

[Jeff7]

Hm...can we get a thread-merge here?

Wrong. Government at it's worst is the right answer here.

The corporations are naturally inclined to ask for this in order to do what they exist to do, create profit and provide services. The role of government is to regulate them and ensure that they play fair and can't abuse their market power.

Our elected officials and their appointees have their hands in the pockets of these corporations and they shouldn't. They're supposed to be the honest brokers and they're not.

The government is who is in the wrong here. It's all these millionaire legislators who have their re-election campaigns paid for by these corporations who can no longer make unbiased decisions.

Sorry to go a little P&N, but the comment above is misdirected. Dogs will shit anywhere as long as they're allowed or they're directed by their owner where to shit.

No, it's not hands, and they're not in pockets.
It's more like a messy, incestuous mating, given how the regulated and the regulators like to keep trading places.
Start in the regulating agency, learn how they operate, then go into industry. Profit.
Start in industry, learn how the regulations affect the industry, then go into the regulating agency and manipulate it to inflate the value of your stock holdings and help out your many business connections. Profit.

 

[TROLLERCAUST]

It's interesting that this comes 3 weeks after the EU parliament voted in favour of net neutrality with clear numbers. The big corporations that benefit from this didn't want something similar to happen in the US. There must've been some serious lobbying going on.

 

[Jimzz]

It's interesting that this comes 3 weeks after the EU parliament voted in favour of net neutrality with clear numbers. The big corporations that benefit from this didn't want something similar to happen in the US. There must've been some serious lobbying going on.

Well there was a court case that threw out the net rules. So now I am sure the job offers are coming in for the FCC people now like the last one that left for Comcast.

 

[Jeff7]

It's interesting that this comes 3 weeks after the EU parliament voted in favour of net neutrality with clear numbers. The big corporations that benefit from this didn't want something similar to happen in the US. There must've been some serious lobbying going on.

The incentives for removing net neutrality are enormous. There are billions of dollars to be made.

 

[Markbnj]

What? You do know those sites do not PUSH content on their own, they send it to systems that request it. Those systems pay for access to the internet so they can request and get it.
Yet now you want to charge me for access then go to the sites I want and tell them if you want to get to the guy already paying you need to pay as well on top of what you already pay.

Not to mention those providers are already paying for their peer connections to the Internet. Everybody is already paying, but if you still have more money then Comcast should get paid twice, obviously.

 

[Markbnj]

Good. Glad to see freedom winning out.

Have to admit that getting people to refer to the concept as "net neutrality" rather than something more accurate like "Congress controlling the Internet" was a good PR move on their part.

You say potato, etc., etc. It took Teddy Roosevelt and Congress to break up the great trusts in the early part of the last century. Sometimes capitalism needs a guiding hand.

 

[SparkyJJO]

And Comcast bought TWC.

:hmm:

That rat stinks for miles.

 

[BladeVenom]

This has already happened. After the court case making the FCC re-write its rules Comcast bandwidth dropped by around 25%+ for Netflix users. Yet after Netflix paid them to open back up its even faster now then before.

And now Netflix is going to increase their prices to pay off the cable companies.