Slashdot Mirror
FCC To Rule On "Paid Prioritization" Deals By Internet Service Providers
An anonymous reader writes "After a record 3.7 million public comments on net neutrality, the FCC is deciding if the company that supplies your internet access should be allowed to make deals with online services to move their content faster. The FCC's chairman Tom Wheeler says financial arrangements between providers and content sites might be OK if the agreement is "commercially reasonable" and companies say publicly how they prioritize traffic. Many disagree, saying this sets up an internet for the highest bidder. "If Comcast and Time Warner – who already have a virtual monopoly on Internet service – have the ability to manage and manipulate Internet speeds and access to benefit their own bottom line, they will be able to filter content and alter the user experience," said Barbara Ann Luttrell, 26, of Atlanta, in a recent submission to the FCC."
My guess is we are fucked.
Be seeing you...
Overwhelming response telling our leaders exactly what we wanted through our only feedback system. And it is blatently IGNORED in favor of paid interests. It's not a surprise, considering that the FCC leader is ex-cable, and they are appointees directly from big business. However it obviously shows just how badly this country is broken. I'm not an alarmist, but it this simply isn't going to change with the current US government system. They have no REASON to change it.
to the Chairman's desk. Your opinions have been routed to /dev/null.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Not really telling us anything we didn't already know though, is it? They've been saying this for months. (although I'll admit not in the NYT or PBS - it's something I follow since it was my research for TorrentFreak that started all this when we proved Comcast were screwing with Bittorrent traffic back in the summer of 07)
It won't be a straighforward result; "yes it's ok" or "no, net neutrality must rule." They'll hand us some mumbo jumbo legalese weasel-word bullshit the players involved will have to trouble navigating and the lawyers will rejoice.
Would you like Netflix with your Internet, sir?
Normally, when non-US folks whine, moan, bitch and complain about the US role in managing the Internet, the US folks answer: "You don't like our Internet? Build your own then!"
Well, I guess this retort applies to the US folks now. If you don't like your FCC Comcast Time Warner Paid Prioritization Internet . . . "Build your own then!"
I would suggest we start small, with a store and forward network, named after someone's dog.
My dog is named "Fido".
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Normally I'd take this stance. However, these companies received billions in state subsidies paid for by US citizens to build their infrastructure. The people own it. If the government wants to alter the agreement we should dismantle and jail the government leaders as traitors.
That argument would hold more weight if (a) there were a possibility of competition; or (b) the Internet had not been subsidized with taxpayer money. The reality is, this *is* infrastructure like roads and plumbing, competition is stifled by law and economic forces, and taxpayers have put hundreds of billions of dollars into building the network. Besides that, I'm sure there are plenty of legal restrictions on what chemicals a dry cleaner can use.
Overwhelming response telling our leaders exactly what we wanted through our only feedback system. And it is blatently IGNORED in favor of paid interests. It's not a surprise, considering that the FCC leader is ex-cable, and they are appointees directly from big business. However it obviously shows just how badly this country is broken. I'm not an alarmist, but it this simply isn't going to change with the current US government system. They have no REASON to change it.
Would you consider voting out the incumbents?
It's the only voting strategy that can make a difference, the only one that matters.
When congressmen realize that they can be voted out after a single term, we'll have pro-public policies.
And the best part is it's completely anonymous! No registration, no donations, no E-mail lists, no paper trail. Just resolve that "if this doesn't go in favor of the people, I'm voting against the incumbents".
Join the boot party - give 'em the boot!
(P.S. - Pass this along)
Also if these paid agreements are so "reasonable" why not buy exclusivity? That is that when these companies negotiate their fast lane contracts to make it exclusive fast lane access; that is to basically pay to block the competitors out. So Hulu could buy the all the fast lane access for video subscription streaming locking out Netflix. Or google could buy up all search engine access.
Plus this would then give comcast incentive to make an ever greater divide between the two speeds and keep slowing down the slow lane. I suspect that the ever shrinking legroom in economy is increasing first/business class ticket sales.
Basically allowing any form of non-network neutrality will only make a few scumbags richer and the rest of us greatly poorer in both money and quality of services.
Sure, everyone running TOR on their gateway for all internet traffic would be horribly inefficient. Sure, it would preclude some things, like IP multi-casting and content geo-caching.
But you know what? It would pretty much make net neutrality a de facto standard, irrespective of what the horribly corrupt FCC decides. And you know what else? It would effectively end the NSA's collection of everyone online activity. Oh, and you would get all the privacy benefits for free, forever.
On balance, given the openly hostile actors in the government, I think it would be worth it.
Its a little more complicated than that. First, these monopolies are piggybacking on infrastructure and right of ways granted by laws in most cases that were intended to remedy a public need as defined by the government. They recieved tax benifits, exclusivity, and the benifit of time before there ever was an ability to deliver internet on that infrastructure. Why it was ever considered separate is a question that muddles the mix.
Next comes the question of consumer protections. If you purchase service with speeds up to 10 meg, no matter how it is spun, you simply are not getting that if they slow your access down in order to make these fast lanes. Along these same lines, there are still benifits in yhe form of tax breaks and grants to expand infrastructure for delivering broadband to underserved areas. Now does the broadband definition still apply if the connection to your work or school VPN is slower because netflix paid for fast access and your neighbor is binging on movies the first four months of his unemployment?
Now do not get me wrong. If they can create a fast lane without slowing any other customer down below the speeds they purchased and it is optional, i do not have a problem with it. It likely will not be that way though.
Are you really this dense or just playing the part ?
For most, we're lucky to have a single provider at all. I have Comcast because my only other choice ( no a 10gb capped satellite is not a choice ) is a Verizon DSL line which, last time I tried them, my download speed topped out at a blistering 45k. K as in KILO. I had better speed via dialup circa 1996 :/
They don't take care of the copper plant any longer, so that's the service you get :/ Don't like it ? Too bad, give Comcast a ring, maybe they care. .
When tech support told me to " reboot my recycle bin " because that can cause a slowdown ( you can't make this up ) I went back to Comcast because I have no choice in the matter.
Sometimes I like to think about what sort of country we could be if we didn't spend quite so much on our war toys :/
Incorrect, you are not free to get it through any of these, typically only one of those is in your area, and the dish and such will just go through them. You typically have 1 broadband provider and 1 dsl provider (which is not classified as broadband due to 3meg max speed). In some places you may have a third option.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
In my area, I have wired broadband access through Time Warner Cable. (Likely soon to be Comcast.) Let's run through some of your "competitors."
T-Mobile, AT&T, Verizon Wireless: Wireless broadband is far too expensive for normal home use. It's only reasonable for "I'm on the go and need to check my e-mail" use. Try streaming a few dozen Netflix titles on your wireless connection and see what kind of overage fees you generate.
Verizon FIOS: Doesn't reach my area and Verizon has no plans on expanding. (They're one town over and I'm in an urban area, not a rural one. But still, no FIOS.)
Satellite: Very expensive and slower.
DSL: This one is actually available to me, but Verizon has made it clear that they want to get rid of DSL as quickly as possible. Why would I go to an older, slower technology that the company that manages it has all but declared dead?
My only real option is Time Warner Cable. If I don't like what they do, then I'm free to not have Internet at all. (Except, since I'm a webmaster by trade, not having Internet would harm my ability to do Freelance work.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
>Your access to the internet is not a public utility or a state/federal run highway
it should be. It could have been, but somehow lobbyists prevented public infrastructure build out because it would interfere with the business model of cable companies.
> A company paid to build your access to the internet
actually the government paid for a lot of it. They cable companies payed a lot in lobbying to prevent a lot of places from constructing public internet service.
> You didn't drop the copper for your access.
a trained technician did. Whats your point?
Really, this notion of "commercially reasonable" scares me the most. I'm guessing you could cover a lot of very very bad behavior by companies if the regulatory standard is "commercially reasonable".
Remember, this is the FCC head and former cable executive who was appointed by someone who people on the Right call a "Marxist". Tom Wheeler should be shown the door immediately. In fact, he never should have been allowed anywhere near a regulatory agency. Whenever tells me they want people in government who have real-world business experience, I think how that's the last thing we want. Government and regulatory agencies should under no circumstances be run like a business world and experience as a business executive is the last thing we should look for in political leaders. It's like hiring a bank teller based on his experience as a former embezzler. Which reminds me, this is every bit as big a scandal as the recent story of the banking regulators who had the cozy relationship with Goldman Sachs.
If you don't know about the recent Goldman Sachs story, you really ought to take a look:
http://www.vox.com/2014/9/26/6...
Meet Carmen Segarra, whose 46 hours of damning audio tape make her sort of the Edward Snowden of the financial world. And she's every bit as heroic as Snowden. I'm sure the lawbreaking at Goldman could be said to have been "commercially reasonable" too.
Living in an oligarchy sucks balls. Godspeed to any future whistleblowers who decide to make the personal sacrifice to give us these glimpses into the lives of our not-so-benevolent overlords.
You are welcome on my lawn.
What makes you think that? Is the USA military so inefficient that it can't deter attacks without spending several times more than its rivals? For example, the USA spends more than 7 times more on its military than Russia. Also, just before the second world war American military spending was only 0.8% of its GDP, showing that military spending can safely stay low in peace-time and still be rapidly ramped up if a major war appears. For comparison, it is currently about 3-4%.
Well said. Not only does an ad-blocker protect you from having your attention diverted and your feelings manipulated to bias your future decisions, it also closes the largest channel for distribution of viruses and other exploits, improves your privacy and speeds up page load times. The only argument against is that it may reduce the income of the web-site operators. But in this case the grandparent wans that to happen by his own word! So it's win-win, really.
In fact, by continuing to use the site while using adblock the grandparent will be (in the absence of network effects) be hurting their wallet more than if he just boycots it, since people who boycott don't put any load on their infrastruture. (That conclusion may change if you take indirect effects into account though: By posting here you make slashdot more valuable to other users, which may increase the total traffic.)
Write-ins are only allowed for candidates who have already applied, had sufficient votes to qualify as a candidate, but did not have sufficient votes to actually get printed on the ballot.
One of the common fallacies that's been perpetuated is that you can write in any random candidate and if they got enough votes they'd be elected. What would actually happen in such an instance is the votes would be disqualified and best case there would be a second vote with said candidate excluded, but more likely they'd simple take the highest 'legitimate' candidate and shove them in as president and tell the rest of us to stfu.
Anybody who thinks the buerocracy isn't well established in ensuring the status quo doesn't really understand in how many ways the system has been rigged. That's not to say that an unexpected candidate couldn't win, just that it would have to be planned out years (at least 1-2 just to have the paperwork qualify) in advance of the election and provide enough exposure to get the candidate their needed votes for each level of qualification to make it on the ballot. And if they do make it that far, you can be sure either direct or indirect pressure will be applied to either have them negatively portrayed to the public, or simply forgotten due to lack of coverage, as happened last election with the dozen or so alternate candidates that WERE available. None of whom I might add even got the 10 percent of votes necessary to recieve federal funding this go-around.
This is why I've been a proponent of people voting with the expectation of their chosen candidate losing the upcoming election, but helping them get the requisite 10 percent. If we could get 6-8 candidates with 10 percent in the next election we could significantly erode the Democrat/Republican hold on our election process by spreading the funds around. With more voices at the presidency level we could in turn help dissolve the similiar electoral holds at the Congressional and State levels eventually requiring too many payoffs to ensure preferental political treatment, especially if some of the candidates either don't cave to financially sponsored political pressures, or actually live up to the claims sometimes put forth about not taking 'political contributions' at all.
Hope you all have a good laugh imagining the odds of such a shakeup happening :)