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.
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?
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!
No problem. Their ads will declare (small print)up to(/small print) (large print) OUTRAGEOUS 1000MBPS SPEEDS (/large print). Then, the contract will contain - on page 48 of the fine print that nobody reads - that the ISP can't be held liable for slow downs for any reason even if they purposefully slow down some sites in an effort to get money from those sites.
Would that be fine?
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
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
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
being that the internet is dozens if not hundreds of companies,
how do you guarantee the same speed when the packets might have to pass through multiple backbone providers and the server hosting the content might not actually be able to serve everyone at those speeds
or the content owners may not have brought enough bandwidth to serve everyone at their top internet speed
"They FCC used to classify the internet as a common carrier. "
No they didn't.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
Yes he has it backwards. He's claiming that different service tiers are akin to 'fast lanes'. They aren't. They are just how fast he's allowed to 'consume' any content he requests. Netflix's connection speed is irrelevant to his connection tier.
If I'm getting data significantly faster from my ISP's streaming service than from Netflix or Youtube, then something is configured to provide different service levels...and that's the problem.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
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
No. He doesn't know what he's talking about. :D He's parroting "government bad" and saying that the government is strangling the last mile. in SOME instances he's right. But his view is not balanced, nor is it nuanced enough to accurately reflect what people are saying about net neutrality and what should be done.
The FCC reclassifying the internet as title 2, putting common carrier rules back in place, would fix this issue. Everyone who knows what the !@#$ they're talking about agrees. Then there's you people....
The invisible hand of the free market is invisible for a reason. It doesn't exist. It's a myth. A simplistic model to explain armchair economics. Look to first world countries that HAVE competition in broadband. Basically, everyone but the U.S. Know what they all have in common beyond kick ass speeds at low prices? Regulation that forces the big companies to play nice with the little companies. They have government that isn't completely bought.