Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Chair: It's Ok For ISPs To Discriminate Traffic

Posted by Soulskill on from the pay-per-bit dept.

sl4shd0rk writes "Remember when the ex-cable lobbyist Tom Wheeler was appointed to the FCC chair back in May of 2013? Turns out he's currently gunning for Internet Service Providers to be able to 'favor some traffic over other traffic.' It would set a dangerous precedent, considering the Open Internet Order in 2010 forbade such action if it fell under unreasonable discrimination. The bendy interpretation of the 2010 order is apparently aimed somewhat at Netflix, as Wheeler stated: 'Netflix might say, "I'll pay in order to make sure that my subscriber might receive the best possible transmission of this movie."'"

12 of 365 comments (clear)

  1. What Internet? by Neuroelectronic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All I see is a bunch of telecom fiefdoms expanding their influence. It was nice having an internet for a while, but TCP/IP was never built to enforce network neutrality, and you can't stop technology from breaking old protocols and extracting value from communication before that value can be delivered to the real intended recipient.

    Deep Packet Inspection is Piracy. Return the favor.

    1. Re:What Internet? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are technological countermeasures that can be investigated. Encryption, obstucated protocols, decentralisation. Ideally some day truely decentralised mesh networking (I personally think CAN is key to making that workable), but that depends not just upon improving technology but also having a dense enough population of activist-enthusiasts.

    2. Re:What Internet? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "This has been a cat and mouse game for a long time now... and the cat is starting to be the one winning."

      Gaming the political system is not "winning". It's cheating. There is a very big difference.

    3. Re:What Internet? by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The oft repeated lie. The content creator creates traffic, 'LIE'. The end users creates the traffic by requesting the delivering of content, 'TRUTH'. So what they are saying is the end user should pay for band width and traffic and after they are charged for it, ISP, should be able to cripple the supply so they can charge someone else for it again.

      What is it all really about. The current Telecom incumbents all want to become digital publishers, so their intent is to put competitors out of business including those who self publish by either throttling their delivery services to the customers to the point of making them unusable or by over pricing them to make them non-competitive.

      Oh look it's yet another Uncle Tom Obama the choom gang coward corporate appointee, who would have believed it.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  2. They're already paying by wiredlogic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Netflix already pays for their connections to the internet. Consumers already pay in kind for their connections. The middlemen are already making money hand over fist. They would just like to avoid playing in a free market so they can make even more money.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    1. Re:They're already paying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, Netflix is paying a service provider for every bit of bandwith they use. If this isn't enough, their service provider should raise their fees.

    2. Re: They're already paying by JonBoy47 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have every confidence that Netflix is paying for all the bandwidth they're using, as are Netflix's subscribers. If there's congestion In-between then it's the backbone providers to upgrade, and build that into their cost structure.

  3. Re:well... by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

    LOL, as if the exactly two providers (one cable, one DSL) in each market wouldn't "coincidentally" adopt exactly the same anticompetitive policies!

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  4. What the hell? by HeckRuler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wheeler: "Netflix might say, "I'll pay in order to make sure that my subscriber might receive the best possible transmission of this movie."

    Huh, that's funny. I though I ALREADY PAID the ISP to get the best possible transmission.

    Oh, I'm sorry, you wanted to buy access to ALL of the Internet? You only bought basic Internet. That simply doesn't include Netflix. But it includes Youtube now that Google ponied up some cash. You need to pay the premium rate to get Netflixs. Plus an extra surcharge for Wikipedia because they said something nasty about us once.

  5. Figures this guy is a cable shill by JonBoy47 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The internet already provides the viable infrastructure for on-demand video delivery, as demonstrated by the litany of devices that support Netflix playback.

    The Great Recession already saw many people belt-tighten by canceling their cable TV. Subscriber numbers are in slow decline. Netflix, YouTube and Hulu are just a few content deals away from completely destroying the value proposition of cable TV for remaining subscribers. Cable companies believe their only hope of keeping that revenue from disappearing is to make sure their internet service isn't viable for video delivery. Net neutrality means they can't manage their network traffic and make netflix et al unusable for their subscribers.

    Cue the new FCC chief.

  6. Re:well... by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Netflix paying money to my ISP creates a new equilibrium in which the rates charged to me by my ISP may be lower.

    No. It only ever creates a new equilibrium where your ISP's profits are higher.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  7. Re:OTOH... by brainboyz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, but that works to the ISP/Cable/Phone companies' advantage. Driving up the price of Netflix reduces the competition force.