The FCC Just Approved A Proposal That Will Completely Change The Internet As We Know It

[DRDNA]

"REUTERS

A win for the big guys.

The FCC voted today 3-2 to approve creation of an "internet fast lane."

This will have massive ramifications for how all internet companies operate in the future."


I wonder how much kick back money or lobby money or what ever bribe it took to make this happen?



http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fcc-just-approved-proposal-completely-160754565.html

 

[Easy Rhino]

They approved of something that already occurs so this will not change anything. The only thing it changes is the increased government beaucracy to create more problems down the line.

 

[remixedcat]

#thanksobama

 

[Hilux SSRG]

They approved of something that already occurs so this will not change anything. The only thing it changes is the increased government beaucracy to create more problems down the line.

Wrong.

As long as an isp can provide up to the speed a consumer pays, they will be okay. Now it has the government's stamp of approval.

 

[Easy Rhino]

Wrong.

As long as an isp can provide up to the speed a consumer pays, they will be okay. Now it has the government's stamp of approval.

Did I say that wasn't true? The ISPs already provide fast lanes to companies like Netflix, the FCC just said it was OK to do.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Another link:
http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/fcc-fast-lane/index.html


I saw this on CNN a while back and it is exactly what is going to happen:
http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/13/technology/internet-fast-lanes/index.html

1. Higher Costs - America already pays more than most countries for worse service.

2. Slower Speeds - America is ranked somewhere around 30th for internet speed globally and we're falling, fast. This decision ensures that trend continues by encouraging ISPs to charge out the ass for bandwidth and give it to shareholders instead of improving infrastructure.

3. Prioritized Content - Comcast is going to boost it's owned content (like NBC) and slow it's competitor's content (like ABC/Disney).

4. Better service for some applications - basically QoS and they already do this. The FCC did not need to intervene on this front.

Did I say that wasn't true? The ISPs already provide fast lanes to companies like Netflix, the FCC just said it was OK to do.

What this FCC ruling does is tell Comcast it can charge Netflix directly for using so much bandwidth. If Netflix doesn't pay, Comcast can throttle Netflix down to, well, nothing. If Netflix doesn't pay up, expect online videos to get choppy and grainy from compression.

Netflix does need a fat connection to the internet which they paid for before this ruling and will continue to pay for after this ruling. The difference is assholes like Comcast, whom has competing services, can price Netflix out of their market. If you like YouTube, Netflix, and everything else that uses lots of bandwidth (I bet Valve is going to get strung up too), you might find you're ability to use those services greatly diminished because of these rules that are pro-big-media, anti-internet/consumer.


If you like the internet, it is time to think about leaving the USA. This shit is only going to get worse. Comcast is already talking about imposing a 350-500 GB limit on all accounts regardless of how fast the connection you're paying for is. My pathetic ADSL connection can handle more than 1 TB/month.

 

[Hilux SSRG]

They approved of something that already occurs so this will not change anything.

This will change things for the consumer in a big way, how could it not?

This will guarantee that an isp can provide less speed and not get in trouble, charge companies e.g. Netflix for "faster lanes" at the expense of residential consumers, and increase costs to said consumers.

 

[Arjai]

This sucks. What ever happened to the ideals of this country? Somewhere back in the Reagan era, things began to fail us, the people. Now it is so common it is ignored and treated as if it is normal.

It is not Normal! It is the strangulation of the rights of the American people, it continues to become worse as Big Money and Big Companies buy the votes they need to pass these draconian measures.

I don't know the answer but, my bet is on a house cleaning of a violent nature. Don't know when, hope I am already retired to Italy, when it happens.

Sorry, I am a bit old to take up arms, or rather a bit unwilling because I am getting older. Anyways, I hope this can sort itself out in other ways but, as far as it has come, not sure how else to get things changed to, For the people, By the People. Like it should be.

/Rant

Whew, didn't know I had the vinegar!

 

[Easy Rhino]

Another link:
http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/fcc-fast-lane/index.html


I saw this on CNN a while back and it is exactly what is going to happen:
http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/13/technology/internet-fast-lanes/index.html

1. Higher Costs - America already pays more than most countries for worse service.

2. Slower Speeds - America is ranked somewhere around 30th for internet speed globally and we're falling, fast. This decision ensures that trend continues by encouraging ISPs to charge out the ass for bandwidth and give it to shareholders instead of improving infrastructure.

3. Prioritized Content - Comcast is going to boost it's owned content (like NBC) and slow it's competitor's content (like ABC/Disney).

4. Better service for some applications - basically QoS and they already do this. The FCC did not need to intervene on this front.

All of those things have happened because local governments grant monopolies and duopolies to ISPs.

What this FCC ruling does is tell Comcast it can charge Netflix directly for using so much bandwidth. If Netflix doesn't pay, Comcast can throttle Netflix down to, well, nothing. If Netflix doesn't pay up, expect online videos to get choppy and grainy from compression.

This already happens and Netflix is more than willing to pay. How is it a problem?

Netflix does need a fat connection to the internet which they paid for before this ruling and will continue to pay for after this ruling. The difference is assholes like Comcast, whom has competing services, can price Netflix out of their market. If you like YouTube, Netflix, and everything else that uses lots of bandwidth (I bet Valve is going to get strung up too), you might find you're ability to use those services greatly diminished because of these rules that are pro-big-media, anti-internet/consumer.

This will only be an issue if local governments continue to grant monopolies and duopolies to ISPs.

If you like the internet, it is time to think about leaving the USA. This shit is only going to get worse. Comcast is already talking about imposing a 350-500 GB limit on all accounts regardless of how fast the connection you're paying for is. My pathetic ADSL connection can handle more than 1 TB/month.

The FCC cannot fix the problem. In fact, net neutrality will only strengthen the hold Comcast and others have by increasing the barrier to entry now.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Obviously we need more big government and regulation to fix this. Its worked out awesome for our combat vets and health care. We should apply it to everything.

 

[Ja.KooLit]

damn. good thing we dont that in korea.

 

[Easy Rhino]

Obviously we need more big government and regulation to fix this. Its worked out awesome for our combat vets and health care. We should apply it to everything.

Don't you know that government regulation can only make things better, never worse

 

[FordGT90Concept]

All of those things have happened because local governments grant monopolies and duopolies to ISPs.

The problem stems from internet providers (e.g. Comcast) not being separate from content providers (e.g. NBC).

This already happens and Netflix is more than willing to pay. How is it a problem?

You think Netflix had a choice? If Netflix didn't sign the dotted line on Comcast's blackmail, Netflix was going to lose millions of subscribers.

This will only be an issue if local governments continue to grant monopolies and duopolies to ISPs.

As if "local governments" had a choice either. They let Comcast, Time Warner, and these other monolithic corporations in because they provide a service the locale needs. The problem is they're so massive, they crush all existing local ISPs which leads to the monopoly. Then, as people discover how shady Comcast is, they want to leave but can't because everyone else closed up shop. Anti-trust regulators in Washington, D.C., have been asleep for a long time. It's their job to break monolithic companies like Comcast apart so smaller outfits can compete. Local governments become the victims here. The problem is much larger than they can tackle.

The FCC cannot fix the problem. In fact, net neutrality will only strengthen the hold Comcast and others have by increasing the barrier to entry now.

Yes, it can. The consumer bill of rights was the right thing to do but internal politics (and likely a massive amount of lobbying) drove all the nails into that coffin. Net neutrality means no bandwidth caps, no filtering internet traffic, no charging servers for serving data, and no scrutinizing packet data beyond routing. It would hurt Comcast more than any other ISP out there because they're the ones doing these things.

Obviously we need more big government and regulation to fix this. Its worked out awesome for our combat vets and health care. We should apply it to everything.

We need fewer regulations and more explicit rights belonging to the people (like privacy and net neutrality). This puts disputes in the realm of the judicial branch instead of legislative.

 

[Hilux SSRG]

This already happens and Netflix is more than willing to pay. How is it a problem?

This will only be an issue if local governments continue to grant monopolies and duopolies to ISPs.

The FCC cannot fix the problem. In fact, net neutrality will only strengthen the hold Comcast and others have by increasing the barrier to entry now.[/QUOTE]



1. All this can be made clearer if the FCC reclassifies internet access an UTILITY of the 21st century, under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. I am aware there are loopholes in that, but Congress hopefully can figure how to fix those .

2. Remove murky BS like “commercially reasonable but discriminatory deals" that the providers can sign at will. I am not opposed to Netflix paying more bc they take 30+% of evening broadband traffic in the US.

3. Local government [if possible] should be stripped of granting these kinds of things and allow at the state level competitive bidding in one shot [not lowest qualified bidder crap neither].

 

[TheMailMan78]

We need fewer regulations and more explicit rights belonging to the people (like privacy and net neutrality). This puts disputes in the realm of the judicial branch instead of legislative.

You're crazy a massive centralized government setting blanket rules and regulation is the only way to go. Only people who believe a government can be corrupted want less regulation. Sounds to me like terrorist talk. Only terrorist want less government and regulation.

 

[CJCerny]

The FCC just formally approved a proposal. The process is far from approved or over. Relax. Contact your Congressman and let them know how you feel.

 

[Easy Rhino]

The problem stems from internet providers (e.g. Comcast) not being separate from content providers (e.g. NBC).

I think that is a moot point. Comcast was charging for a fast lane before they bought NBC.

You think Netflix had a choice? If Netflix didn't sign the dotted line on Comcast's blackmail, Netflix was going to lose millions of subscribers.

It doesn't matter if Netflix had a choice. Netflix is a business that uses bandwidth. They pay for better access as they should.

As if "local governments" had a choice either. They let Comcast, Time Warner, and these other monolithic corporations in because they provide a service the locale needs. The problem is they're so massive, they crush all existing local ISPs which leads to the monopoly. Then, as people discover how shady Comcast is, they want to leave but can't because everyone else closed up shop. Anti-trust regulators in Washington, D.C., have been asleep for a long time. It's their job to break monolithic companies like Comcast apart so smaller outfits can compete. Local governments become the victims here. The problem is much larger than they can tackle.

Comcast is very aggressive. Nothing wrong with an aggressive company so long as they play by the rules and they did.

Yes, it can. The consumer bill of rights was the right thing to do but internal politics (and likely a massive amount of lobbying) drove all the nails into that coffin. Net neutrality means no bandwidth caps, no filtering internet traffic, no charging servers for serving data, and no scrutinizing packet data beyond routing. It would hurt Comcast more than any other ISP out there because they're the ones doing these things.

Net Neutrality means a higher Internet bill for everyone then and much slower access to services like Netflix.

1. All this can be made clearer if the FCC reclassifies internet access an UTILITY of the 21st century, under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. I am aware there are loopholes in that, but Congress hopefully can figure how to fix those .

2. Remove murky BS like “commercially reasonable but discriminatory deals" that the providers can sign at will. I am not opposed to Netflix paying more bc they take 30+% of evening broadband traffic in the US.

3. Local government [if possible] should be stripped of granting these kinds of things and allow at the state level competitive bidding in one shot [not lowest qualified bidder crap neither].

If the FCC reclassifiies the internet then you will see Comcast grow even larger as it owns the infrastructure and will be severely limited by government forces on what it can charge. So you can kiss innovation goodbye.

 

[TheMailMan78]

The FCC just formally approved a proposal. The process is far from approved or over. Relax. Contact your Congressman and let them know how you feel.

Why would I bother contacting him? He knows whats best for me. Just tell me where to send the check. Better yet deduct it from my pay like everything else is now.

 

[Easy Rhino]

Why would I bother contacting him? He knows whats best for me. Just tell me where to send the check. Better yet deduct it from my pay like everything else is now.

While we are at it, you shouldn't be allowed to pay for priority shipping either. That medical device that you need to get across the globe goes in the same bin as the one containing your neighbors letter to his grammy.

 

[TheMailMan78]

While we are at it, you shouldn't be allowed to pay for priority shipping either. That medical device that you need to get across the globe goes in the same bin as the one containing your neighbors letter to his grammy.

Of course man. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Its just common sense.

 

[silkstone]

This already happens and Netflix is more than willing to pay. How is it a problem?

They were not more than willing to pay, they fought against it tooth and nail. After the deal, they increased subscription charges.

The big deal is that now the ISPs are being paid twice for the same service. Once by you, then a second time by content providers. The content providers are more than willing to pay for the infrastructure and maintenance that comes with increased bandwidth requirements, but ISPs want them to pay for access to their customer base. (while their customer base already pays for access to internet services!)

ISP/Media outlets, are now in a much more favorable position to take over all (profitable) content services. You can bet your ass, they are willing to pay themselves top dollar for fast access. This will drive the cost up for other content providers (as there is no law now stopping them doing this) and essentially price competition out of the market.

I'm sorry, ER, but you really have no idea what you are talking about. Internet doesn't work like electricity, like so many people believe!

 

[TheMailMan78]

They were not more than willing to pay, they fought against it tooth and nail. After the deal, they increased subscription charges.

The big deal is that now the ISPs are being paid twice for the same service. Once by you, then a second time by content providers. The content providers are more than willing to pay for the infrastructure and maintenance that comes with increased bandwidth requirements, but ISPs want them to pay for access to their customer base. (while their customer base already pays for access to internet services!)

ISP/Media outlets, are now in a much more favorable position to take over all (profitable) content services. You can bet your ass, they are willing to pay themselves top dollar for fast access. This will drive the cost up for other content providers (as there is no law now stopping them doing this) and essentially price alternatives out of the market.

I'm sorry, ER, but you really have no idea what you are talking about.

Dude the government made the law. You sound like you are questioning the government. You act as if they are corrupt. If you start talking about state sovereignty Ill have to call the FBI. Have you filled out your facebook profile yet? You should.

 

[Easy Rhino]

They were not more than willing to pay, they fought against it tooth and nail. After the deal, they increased subscription charges.

The big deal is that now the ISPs are being paid twice for the same service. Once by you, then a second time by content providers. The content providers are more than willing to pay for the infrastructure and maintenance that comes with increased bandwidth requirements, but ISPs want them to pay for access to their customer base. (while their customer base already pays for access to internet services!)

Why shouldn't ISPs charge for access to their customers?

 

[TheMailMan78]

Why shouldn't ISPs charge for access to their customers?

We should only have enough bandwidth depending on our need. And those with more bandwidth should have it distributed by the government.

 

[Sasqui]

All of those things have happened because local governments grant monopolies and duopolies to ISPs.

Therein lies a big part of the problem.

I'm absolutely pissed about this. Technically, an ISP could throttle Netflix, Youtube, etc. if it proved to be competition to the content the ISP has you pay them for. It's wrong.