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!
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.
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.
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.