Slashdot Mirror
From FCC Head Wheeler, a Yellow Light For Internet Fast Lanes
An anonymous reader writes "FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has decided to back-pedal just a bit on his recent proposal to end the "Open Internet" regulation regime in favor of a system with more liberal rules that could include so-called internet fast lanes, by means of which major ISPs could favor or disfavor different kinds or providers of internet traffic. Says an article at USA Today, 'Wheeler's latest revision doesn't entirely ban Internet fast lanes, leaving room for some public-interest cases like a healthcare company sending electrocardiography results. But unlike his initial proposal last month, Wheeler is proposing to specifically ban certain types of fast-lanes, including prioritization given by ISPs to their subsidiaries that make and stream content, according to an FCC official who wasn't authorized talk about the revisions publicly before the vote. Wheeler is also open to applying some "common carrier" rules that regulate telephone companies, which would result in more stringent oversight of the ISPs in commercial transactions.'" Update: 05/13 16:37 GMT by T : Oops -- I missed this earlier, substantially similar story.
From Wiki:
Thomas E. Wheeler is the current Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, appointed by President Obama and confirmed by the U.S. Senate in November, 2013. Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry, with positions including President of the National Cable Television Association (NCTA) and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA).
This space for rent.
I have no problem giving awesome speed to their own subsidiary content providers.
I have a problem with deliberately hindering particular providers when their contract with home users says they will provide certain rates of speed that the home user pays for. That is fraud.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
And force a separation of the contend side of their business from the communication side.
We're getting some common carrier stuff, ISPs can't prioritize the traffic from their parent/subsidiary companies... and it sounds like high priority non-controversial "fast lanes" (I don't mind my internet running a little slower so someone can get their MRI transmitted faster) are the only ones getting the green light. So did we win? Or am I missing something?
This guy is a goon, leave the net alone douche nozzle and create laws that foster ISP competition along with greater security (read: sans-NSA)...
Sounds to me like someone is interested in preserving their job at the FCC rather than anything as altruistic or abstract as 'protecting the public's interests'.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
It's unlikely that they figured out how to make light go faster. Whats different is that everyone who doesn't pay up is now in the slow lane.
in the US the ISPs should operated just like the baby Bells did after the breakup of AT&T: All traffic, voice, modem, fax, teletype, ISDN, ALL Of It, was treated the same. You pays your fees you gets your line.
Anything else means the politicians and/or bureaucrats have been bought and paid for.
Not good enough. But I'm not expecting anything better until we stop reelecting the crooks that got us here.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
What's going to happen is, they're going to provision their networks with two separate kinds of routers, "fast lane" routers and "slow lane" routers, and if simply never upgrading the "slow lane" routers isn't enough to get them what they want they'll sabotage them or just disconnect them entirely.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
Keep the pressure up, we can still win this thing.
No, that would be censorship. Anybody and everybody that wants to should be able to produce "content". We just have to stop protecting the monopolies.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... Big Cable Executives now work for the FCC (sounds fascist to me)
just like ex Monsanto exec works for the FDA (sounds fascist to me)
it happens with big defense contractors that have a revolving door with the government (the US Govt would make Mussolini proud)
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
So we took two steps backwards when Wheeler opened the gates for ISPs to make a "fast lane" and now we're taking one step forward as Wheeler says that the fast lane will only be used in some cases. This isn't a victory - this is the ISPs "compromising" so they get some of what they want now and waiting to get the rest later. Eventually, if this is enacted, the "fast lane" cases will get more items added to them bit by bit until we're in full blown ISP-wet-dream-fast-lane mode.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Tom Wheeler needs to STEP DOWN.
the Obama Administration needs to be held to its promise of ACTUAL Net Neutrality.
this is not over yet, not by a long shot.
including prioritization given by ISPs to their subsidiaries that make and stream content
Sigh. Comcast won't prioritize its subsidiary's traffic, it will de-prioritize its competitors traffic.
Please, just classify ISPs as a common carrier (like you should have done years ago) and be done with it.
Don Dugger
"Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale
They FCC used to classify the internet as a common carrier. They changed that in 2005 to an "information service", which they don't have rules to regulate. They already tried making up net neutrality rules, and a judge already smacked them down and told them they GAVE UP the ability to regulate broadband and that they'd need to reclassify to get it back. They can do this at any time.
Given that a court has already told them that their little rules don't apply, all these new proposals mean shit all. Any company can get around them by going to court, precident has been set. They should know this. They do.
The only reason they don't reclassify is because then they wouldn't get cushy lobbyist jobs when their time is up at the FCC.
By the way, you can email the FCC commisioners directly. Be polite! https://www.fcc.gov/contact-us
Also by the way, you should call your reps and bitch to them too. Keep up the pressure! http://whoismyrepresentative.c...
I found my reps and put them into my phone. It's amazing how much more you call when they're right there.
the TV and Internet services are two different services and there is no need to separate them
my netflix watch on demand is completely different from my MLB/NBA or my wife's reality show sit your ass down at the right time to watch the show
There is a White House petition to remove Wheeler
Update: 05/13 16:37 GMT by T : Oops -- I missed this earlier, substantially similar story.
You don't say...
Part of the concern with any offering is that by giving an inch, corporate lawyers and and other administrators will find loopholes to exploit and take the mile. As long as they follow the letter of the law (or sue to get it thrown out), they don't have to follow the intention.
Additionally, businesses can already more easily purchase fast lanes by purchasing dedicated circuits and guaranteed QoS. If a business's circuit to the Internet is 90% congested they can consider upgrading of determining why there is so much traffic. They can also more likely change providers. If a hospital wants to ensure MRIs transit quickly with a lab or another business, it can do so.
As a consumer, there is generally no choice among providers and am sold a service that offers one thing, but then has no QoS guarantees to back it up. If the ISP decides they don't want to increase peering arrangements with a transit provider whose circuit is 90% congested in the evening, there isn't much I can do.
The only way to solve this problem is forced breakup of large ISPs, content companies and disaggregation of last mile connectivity from the ISP.
No fast lanes. Period.
You get what you pay for. That's it. Anything less and the FCC can screw off.
Why not let the legislature do the legislating?
I didn't vote for anyone in the FCC.
......if this is stopped, the lobbyists wait 3 months and try again. Once that is shot down, they wait again 3 months and try again with as slightly differently worded proposal. They keep trying over and over and over, until finally it makes it through because people eventually get sick of hearing about it or fighting for it.
I have no issue with the idea that a private company should be allowed to prioritize traffic on it's own privately owned network however it pleases them. The issue is often times these private companies hold a monopoly over a region, or at best a quasi monopoly.
What do you do when the only player in town does this? How do you vote with your dollar? How do you prove collusion when suddenly the 2 options in your area start throttling at approximately the same time, when the majority of their clients would instantly switch to a competitor that did not do this........Free markets my ass....
Yellow lights aren't enough.
We need red lights.
some public-interest cases like a healthcare company sending electrocardiography results
This is a patently deceptive meme. It is intended to tug at your heart strings to sell the case, but it is not a good application of a fast lane. Cardio results do not need high performance lines, because they produce a tiny trickle of data. They need high availability, which a fast lane does not help. If Mr. Wheeler is really suggesting that paid prioiritization will render the standard lane so unusably clogged that a few bytes of cardio data won't fit over the pipe in a split second, then he is hoisting himself by his own petard.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
To me this seems like the "foot in the door" technique leading to things that are far worse. I think we can all agree that an MRI is a good thing to be sent and received expeditiously. How do we make sure that only an MRI is getting this treatment or do we just say, anything at a hospital gets priority? I seriously doubt any hospital is going to spend money implementing a fast lane for just a few things. They will just dump it all in the fast lane. Then the finance industry sees this and will demand that their transactions deserve priority as well. (and they will be get it because they are the most powerful lobby in the US) Then any other entity that has money to lobby for fast lane priority will get it as well. Then this will lead us right back to the original issue. Notice how every single comment on here is okay with giving a fast lane to MRIs, that is the "foot in door". You cannot budge on this, you let one through, you're going to let all them through. The politicians are far to manipulative, the very fact that everyone thinks this issue is about creating a "fast lane" shows that this is a losing battle. They are not creating a fast lane, they are creating a slow lane.
>> Oops -- I missed this earlier, substantially similar story
At SlashDot, that's called "par for the course."
It seems to me that one of the biggest problems with the consolidation of ISPs with content providers is that they have a vested interest in keeping upload speeds low, so that their customers can't compete with them. I would go farther than some of those commenting on this and suggest that content providers should not be allowed to own/operate ISPs or own the "last mile."
Those who own "the last mile," as well as ISPs (they should be different entities as well) should all be classified as "common carriers." Further, "last mile" owners should be required to provide (at reasonable cost) access to any/all ISPs that want to provide service to end-users.
Again, upload speeds should not be throttled. Obviously, those who want higher upload (or download) speeds can certainly pay for that service. Service bundles (TV/Phone/Internet) provide little benefit to end-users and often give incumbent monopolies customer lock-in. Give us Glass-Steagall for the Internet (I'd like it back in the financial industry too, but that's a whole other level of rip-off).
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Have no fear. Governments will always be bought out in the end. The ISPs have lots of money to buy them with.
Cartels are the new monopolies. They've figured out how to split it into 2/3 major corps that never lose control, never compete and constantly raise prices.
In the last 20 years, the bandwidth a phone cable could carry has gone from 56 kbps, to about 30,000 kbps. Web site size has not grown much. 768 kbps was more than sufficient for internet browsing. I could get by with 256 or 512 kbps, just like in the early days of DSL.
I see there is a debate over the multiple gigabyte files streamed by Netflix, and 250 GB/month data cap many ISPs impose. I hear about extorting web sites for access. I don't need streaming video. Net Neutrality has been talked about since 2006? I have been hearing predictions from alarmists, of an internet, composed of ISP approved only web sites, for about a decade now, but technology has made operating a web site cheaper. Shouldn't Comcast and AT&T be going around to the websites, and demanding high access fees by now? Where is all the coercion? Why aren't large sums of money being handed over? Why aren't web sites publicly complaining about high access fees from the major ISPs? This is ultimately about money, isn't it?
I am sick of hearing this hyperbole! IS COMCAST GOING TO EXTORT AVERAGE, RUN OF THE MILL WEB SITES, such as news.ycombinator.com, and http://kotaku.com/ , OR NOT!!!
The problem is that any road prioritization is public, with no meaningful way to hide it.
Emergency services vehicles getting priority access? All drivers can see that. Special bus or carpool lane? All drivers can see that.
With the internet, how do you see which packets are getting priority access? And if you cannot see it, would you believe the ISP if they told you, with hand held on heart, that they did not prioritize any traffic? Or that they only prioritized, say, VOIP traffic? Especially if you had a long-standing slow internet connection?
The lack of visibility into modern packet-switched networks, and the lack of aggressive network upgrades by North American ISPs, means that trust in those ISPs to not game a prioritization system is low. Real low.
Re: "Would you want the FDA to never hire anyone with a medical degree?"
That's a specious statement regarding education, not employment. The FDA needs people with medical degrees, I assume. What it does not need are people who work in the pharmaceutical industry for a few years, then work for the FDA for a few years, then back to pharma, then back to the regulator, ...
On the industry side in particular, they want someone who is willing to "play ball" and not push the industry. To do anything, really. Which means neglecting the regulatory function.
Why the FDA wants such people is a mystery to me (again, assuming they do want such people). When and if this happens I take this as evidence of corruption at the top, meaning the rulers of the FDA have been compromised. Once the leadership is corrupt then anything is possible, even direct violations of core mandate.
They pay their puppet politicians to keep the competition out. And it's the voters' fault for constantly reelecting these crooks.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
But every GOP asshat they would put up would be 10 times worse. That's why we would vote for him again.