Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

F.C.C., In Net Neutrality Turnaround, Plans To Allow Fast Lane

Posted by samzenpus on from the pay-to-play-the-movie dept.

Dega704 (1454673) writes in with news of the latest FCC plan which seems to put another dagger in the heart of net neutrality. "The Federal Communications Commission will propose new rules that allow Internet service providers to offer a faster lane through which to send video and other content to consumers, as long as a content company is willing to pay for it, according to people briefed on the proposals. The proposed rules are a complete turnaround for the F.C.C. on the subject of so-called net neutrality, the principle that Internet users should have equal ability to see any content they choose, and that no content providers should be discriminated against in providing their offerings to consumers."

22 of 410 comments (clear)

  1. Down the river... by towermac · · Score: 5, Insightful

    we are sold.

    1. Re:Down the river... by dmbasso · · Score: 5, Informative

      And you can make a difference with this PAC: http://www.wolf-pac.com/

      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    2. Re:Down the river... by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There seems to be some kneejerk reaction on /. that saying "government isn't helping us" == "let the corporations win". That's the false dichotomy. With a government owned by the corporations, there's no "government or corporations" in play. There's no choice like that right now. The choice is "more corporation-run government" or "less corporation-run government".

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  2. Just more bullshit by pitchpipe · · Score: 5, Funny

    The rich get more privileges. Nothing to see here my fellow Americans. We love this shit. Fast lanes for the job creators. After all, we wouldn't have all of these jobs if we started impeding them. /s

    --
    Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    1. Re:Just more bullshit by crioca · · Score: 5, Insightful
      No it's actually quite an accurate characterization; the established players ("the rich") are now able to leverage that position to raise barriers to new entrants. Being rich is being privileged in the most classical usage of the term.

      The Internet has acted as a great equalizer, removing many of the barriers that people without great wealth face when trying to make opportunities. Now we're putting those barriers back in place, by making it so that established players can use their wealth to hold a privileged position within the market.

      This can only serve to benefit the established players at the cost of consumers and new entrants.

    2. Re:Just more bullshit by ClickOnThis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mod parent insightful.

      The internet began as a communication medium. Slowly but surely, we're seeing it turn into a broadcast medium.

      It all began years ago, when cable companies started offering internet service with unbalanced bandwidth: outgoing speed was (and still is) a small fraction of the incoming speed. So began the process that has led to what we have today.

      Imagine your Telephone Company sold you a phone service that let you call only certain other parties, who wrote a check to the Telephone Company so you could have the privilege. What's more, the number of words in the conversation depends on the payment, and the telephone subscriber (you) can never say more than one word for every 10 to 100 words you hear.

      Welcome to the death of the internet.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  3. Nice Website You Have There... by CrazyDuke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...shame if something where to happen to it...

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    1. Re:Nice Website You Have There... by n8_f · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As long as ISPs are not allowed to intentionally degrade non-premium traffic on the back of direct-peering deals, I see no fundamental problem with it.

      Non-premium traffic with be de-facto downgraded, because even if they don't actively do it, large monopoly ISPs will be incentivized to make non-premium traffic as unreliable as possible. So whether it is simply slashing the capital budget of non-premium infrastructure or not performing repairs in a timely manner or a hundred other small things, non-premium traffic has to suffer. How long before there are multiple tiers of premium traffic? The monopoly ISPs face no competition or regulation; now they simply have to figure out how to maximize their rents.

  4. I informed you thusly... by EmagGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hate to say it, but I told you so. I said it then, and I'll say it now. The moment Obama appointed yet... another... lobbyist to head the FCC, one who spent years as a cable company and telecom lobbyist:

    Net... Neutrality... Was DEAD... PERIOD.

    Need I remind all of you Obama-lovers of this little tid bit from no other website but ethics.change.gov:

    http://change.gov/agenda/ethic...

    "I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists â" and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president."

    -- Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA
    November 10, 2007

    I informed you thusly...

    1. Re:I informed you thusly... by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And a reminder of this:

      http://boingboing.net/2012/01/...

      Obama did eventually capitulate. He signed the ACTA treaty without anybody else having any say in it, because he (and Hollywood) knew full well that it would get shot down like SOPA did if the public was aware of it. The constitution requires a vote in the senate for any treaty to be ratified, but NOBODY (not even the public) was allowed to read it until Obama himself ratified it. His argument was that since our laws already comply with it, he can ratify it by himself.

      There is no precedent for that as it has never been done before (given the Constitution forbids it, it makes sense too.)

      Anyways, Obama HAS been purchased, and he IS a Manchurian candidate if there ever was one.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    2. Re:I informed you thusly... by artor3 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Democrats tried to pass net neutrality into law through an act of Congress, so that we wouldn't need to rely on the FCC-commissioner-of-the-moment. The Republicans blocked it. Obama then implemented a reduced version of net neutrality through execute order. The courts struck that down. The Democrats tried again to pass net neutrality through Congress. The Republicans again blocked it. Now net neutrality is dead and gone, and the Republicans are claiming its the Democrats' fault.

      I wish I could say this is unbelievably dishonest, but it's actually quite standard these days.

  5. Well, what did we expect? by Golgafrinchan · · Score: 5, Informative
    Tom Wheeler is Chairman of the FCC.

    From his Wikipedia page: "Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry, with prior positions including President of the National Cable Television Association (NCTA) and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA)."

    When the FCC chairman used to be a lobbyist for the companies he's now regulating... well, what did we expect would happen? It shouldn't be surprising that he'd be in favor of pushing through regulations that are more favorable to his cronies.

    --
    My userid is prime!
  6. Stop complaining and do something about it by synthesizerpatel · · Score: 5, Informative

    The FCC has an open issue for this, 14-28 Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet

    You can see existing comments here:

    http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comme...

    You can add your two cents here:

    http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/uploa...

  7. so... by deander2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    me: "i just created a new 'horoscope by phone' startup, and it's really popular! woohoo!"

    at&t: "hey, we've noticed a lot of people are calling your new company. it would be a shame if 20% of your calls were to drop. would you like to pay us to not drop them?"

    me: "WTF? your customers are calling me! THEY paid YOU already for their phone service! you can't just threaten me, that's extortion and a violation of the common carrier law!"

    at&t: "oh yeah, nevermind. we'll wait until you start a website..."

    --
    http://kered.org
  8. Drop Netflix, Pirate Everything by Bob9113 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Only one reasonable response: Drop all your paid over-the-interent content subscriptions, and start pirating everything. Burn the media industry to the ground.

    --
    Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
  9. Re:Wrong battle. by n8_f · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Still wrong battle. Franchises are simply agreements to use a city's rights-of-way. They've been non-exclusive since 1992. The problem is that building wireline infrastructure is extremely capital expensive and has severely diminishing returns in areas that are already saturated by a competitor. Your business plan is to sink a bunch of capital into a business and then compete on price with a company that has no capital costs? Good luck raising the billions you'll need for that.

    No, the solution here is municipal fiber networks that are managed as public utilities that sell wholesale to ISPs. Just like how we have multiple shipping companies that use public infrastructure to transport packages between customers. Then you can have as many different competitors as the market will bear with as many different business plans. In that situation, the Comcast-Netflix deal would never have happened, because the competing ISPs would have been begging Netflix to install hardware in their data centers to make their customers' experience as good as possible. An ISP trying to make Netflix slower would have lost every customer that cares about Netflix (which apparently is a lot of them).

  10. Re:Meh, vote left. by josephtd · · Score: 5, Funny

    Do I vote for the Democrat that is going to blast me in the ass or the Republican that is blasting my ass?

  11. Re:rotfl They want to outlaw themselves!?!? by dmbasso · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I see... you think "smart" means bringing a knife to a gun fight. Good for you.

    --
    `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
  12. Re:rotfl They want to outlaw themselves!?!? by green1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Knowing how to work within the system to change the system seems brilliant to me.

  13. The term is "regulatory capture" by Beeftopia · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the Wikipedia:

    "Regulatory capture is a form of political corruption that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure; it creates an opening for firms to behave in ways injurious to the public (e.g., producing negative externalities). The agencies are called "captured agencies".

    See also: "Exaggerated threat":
    1) "If we don't invade Iraq, they're going to bake the yellow cakes and explode a nuke in New York City."
    2) "If we don't bail out the financial sector, we're going to have a depression."
    3) "If we don't allow companies to favor content, the US technology sector will grind to a halt."

  14. Re:If super pacs are evil, and they are a super pa by Teun · · Score: 5, Insightful
    (as a foreigner) I am not fully aware of the possibilities of a PAC but I don't see it as a democratic problem when like-minded people band together to push a subject, compare it to starting a political party.

    What makes it bad and undemocratic is when the democratic principle of one-man one-vote is breached because some can contribute vastly more to 'their' PAC than others can to an opposing PAC.

    Using the means available is their lawful right.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  15. Re:or 3. they are trying to mislead people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    not sure if trolling...

    Our system is corrupt from the inside out, and the only way to affect change is through large amounts of money (e.g., this very story). In order to change that system, one must necessarily put together a PAC, even if the change you're going for is to take money out of the system.