Slashdot Mirror
Comcast Hints At Plan For Paid Fast Lanes After Net Neutrality Repeal (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: For years, Comcast has been promising that it won't violate the principles of net neutrality, regardless of whether the government imposes any net neutrality rules. That meant that Comcast wouldn't block or throttle lawful Internet traffic and that it wouldn't create fast lanes in order to collect tolls from Web companies that want priority access over the Comcast network. This was one of the ways in which Comcast argued that the Federal Communications Commission should not reclassify broadband providers as common carriers, a designation that forces ISPs to treat customers fairly in other ways. The Title II common carrier classification that makes net neutrality rules enforceable isn't necessary because ISPs won't violate net neutrality principles anyway, Comcast and other ISPs have claimed.
But with Republican Ajit Pai now in charge at the Federal Communications Commission, Comcast's stance has changed. While the company still says it won't block or throttle Internet content, it has dropped its promise about not instituting paid prioritization. Instead, Comcast now vaguely says that it won't "discriminate against lawful content" or impose "anti-competitive paid prioritization." The change in wording suggests that Comcast may offer paid fast lanes to websites or other online services, such as video streaming providers, after Pai's FCC eliminates the net neutrality rules next month.
But with Republican Ajit Pai now in charge at the Federal Communications Commission, Comcast's stance has changed. While the company still says it won't block or throttle Internet content, it has dropped its promise about not instituting paid prioritization. Instead, Comcast now vaguely says that it won't "discriminate against lawful content" or impose "anti-competitive paid prioritization." The change in wording suggests that Comcast may offer paid fast lanes to websites or other online services, such as video streaming providers, after Pai's FCC eliminates the net neutrality rules next month.
We're gonna turn into Portugal, and it's going to be a big fuckin mess.
Vonal Declosion
to grasp that concept that if there is prioritization, then de-prioritization must be occurring at the same time. "Fast Lanes" create de-facto "Slow Lanes"
Sounds like scope for a very small white-list of very large companies to me.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
You didn't think they spent a ton of money on political donations and PR for nothing, did you?
What was that about Obama instituting policies that were unnecessary and unneeded?
Wasn't that one of the major arguments against NN?
The prioritization is mostly in last mile since that is where comcast has relevance. Why is comcast relevant in the last mile? Because no one but the big ISPs are allowed to lay cable to the last mile.
The solution has and will continue to be ensuring Right of Way access to Poles and Conduits for alternative infrastructure providers.
to prove this is a shit show, examine that even Google... one of the richest and most powerful companies in the world frequently cannot lay last mile cable.
Think about that.
They have the resources.
They have the connections.
They have the ability to do the paper work and the regulations.
But they can't get access to poles and conduits to lay last mile cable.
Why?
And if they can't, what chance does a smaller company have to compete? It has NOTHING to do with net neutrality. It has everything to do with corrupt franchise license agreements that lock out everyone but the local duopoly.
People need to stop clapping like trained seals and see what is actually been going on all along. Rather than fixate on NN, focus on ACTUAL Right of Way access to poles and conduits for alternative service providers.
Do that and Comcast and say or do whatever they want. Worst case they'll make themselves poor service providers and will lose market share.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I've seen that in a private college. They blocked all Democratic sites, redirecting dailykos to rushlimbaugh.com.
This is trivial to do, and I can see an ISP injecting malware into a HTTPS stream, Phorm style, in order to discredit a candidate.
Because I'm sure someone will foolishly argue against the obvious:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Lots of companies offer faster services, fast lanes does not equate to throttled or blocked traffic.
I was at the movie theater the other day with my family. There was a long line at the concession stand. I noticed a sign that said "premium members" pointing to an empty set of ropes. I reminded my wife that we were premium members. We got in that line and were called to the next open cashier - ahead of at least a dozen people who where waiting before us.
Unless there is no line at all, fast lines absolutely do equate to throttled or blocked traffic.
Interestingly, back in the old days the common carrier status was what the ISPs used to argue that they shouldn't be held responsible for material like child porn, regular porn, copyrighted material, hate speech, etc. that traversed their networks. Now they want to relinquish the common carrier status. How long do you think it's going to be before some attorney or DA figures this out and goes after them?
All the "What if" scenarios are simply what the ISPs have been stating they want to do. It's not crazy tin foil conspiracies. It's planned reality.
Why do you think fast lanes would be necessary? Because they will throttle you if you don't pay more!
They're already throttling OpenVPN and ssh connections globally under the pretense that all encrypted traffic constitutes unlawful use. Why have they still been allowed to get away with this while claiming they're not doing it?
Lots of companies offer faster services, fast lanes does not equate to throttled or blocked traffic.
Er what? That's like saying there's plenty of Google fiber in the country. Just not in my neighborhood or many other neighborhoods, but man, is Google Fiber fast.
With LTE 5 and ViaSat 2 that just went up, and Viasat 3 going up in 2019, Facebook & Google offering internet access, within 5 years, Intenet access will be even more accessible and global.
Again what? Mobile isn't a replacement for broadband. Fiber that isn't in my neighborhood isn't a suitable replacement. Like many Americans, all we have limited broadband options. It isn't also about money. For example, broadband availability for 90210 shows 1 viable cable and 1 DSL provider (Time Warner Spectrum and AT&T) for most of the zip code. There are 4 broadband providers but 2 of them only service 3% of the area. There are 2 satellite services. There is no fiber option. I would say that 90210 is a pretty affluent zip code. And yet they can't get more than 2 choices.
FCC is working on guidelines to communities to allow new community ISPs and new companies to run services to the pole.
Are we talking about the same national ISPs that sued local municipal ISPs from providing service to towns that they themselves didn't service?
The FCC deregulating ISP's so smaller ISP's dont have the same regulations as big carriers and can now evenly compete again.
Again the history of ISPs shows that the big carriers will not tolerate smaller ones. This has the opposite effect of what you are saying.
All I see is so much hyperbole and chicken little "sky is falling" without any facts to back them up. Its all "What if" scenarios, for a bill that's only been in place for 2 years and didn't fix the monopoly issue.
So your argument against net neutrality is that it was put into place for 2 whole years and it didn't break up monopolies that have been in place for decades besides the fact net neutrality was never meant to break up the monopolies. Ever. The regulations were in place to keep the monopolies from gaining an unfair advantage, not to break them up.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
...ISP to offer 'fast lanes', and it's all over. Everyone else will follow suit. Then the blocking and throttling of competitors services.
Ready yourselves for Intersplit.
Great fucking job. I hope those of you that voted for this got what you wanted.
Comcast is in favor of Net Neutrality? Then why have they spent millions to lobby for ending it?
All I see is so much hyperbole and chicken little "sky is falling" without any facts to back them up. Its all "What if" scenarios, for a bill that's only been in place for 2 years and didn't fix the monopoly issue.
Need I remind you that Comcast doing fuckery to the net is exactly why Net Neutrality was enacted and made into law? It's painfully obvious ISP's *WILL* engage in fuckery when the gloves are off. The hyperbole isn't. The sky is indeed falling, bro.
Sample list of things ISP's have done and are not just "what if" scenarios:
Madison River blocking Vonage
Comcast blocking p2p
AT&T/Apple blocking Skype/Google Voice
Windstream Communications hijacking search queries
MetroPCS tried to block streaming video
Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN, and Wide Open West hijacking search queries
AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon blocking Google Wallet
Verizon blocking tethered connections
AT&T blocking FaceTime
People need to stop clapping like trained seals and see what is actually been going on all along. Rather than fixate on NN, focus on ACTUAL Right of Way access to poles and conduits for alternative service providers.
It's not an either/or situation. We can push for Right of Way access but that will take years to build out the infrastructure. In the mean time, we can ensure the ISPs don't mess with the existing Internet. Also I have to point out that even if there was more Right of Way, that doesn't stop any ISP from prioritizing traffic according to their own guidelines.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
The summary is biased, and the story already has 8 different versions of it in the last 3 days (i.e. Pai is the devil incarnate). Enough is enough.
Also, Just for the record, reclassifying the internet as title 2 has other implications. The FCC gets the same power over it as radio. That means anything from forced "decency filters" to "providing equal time for opposite view points" (hello fairness doctrine).
I'm 100% for the free flow of packets, but doing it via title 2 is potentially a VERY bad idea, and yet there's a hysterical reaction to all this that title 2 is the only way to save the internet (when in reality, it could be it's death knell). Tell the legislators to get off their lazy asses and make a title 3 especially for it, so the internet is not regulated by a law from 1934.
Sigh. It's misinformation like this that propagates the need to repost the issue OVER AND OVER, cuz idiots like you just don't fucking get it.
The NN rules enacted in 2015, classifying ISP's as Title II common carrier had MANY MANY exemptions to Title II's so as to not apply stupid nonsense telecom rules to ISPs.
Title II is exactly the correct classification with the built-in exemptions. They are common carriers, and should be treated and behave as such.
If you're expecting new laws out of the Republicans, you'll be waiting an awful long time. Repubs are so disorganized and disagree with each other on everything, because deep inside, they know they're defending undefendable positions. It's fucking hilarious. They've done absolutely nothing since Trump took office, they're no less deadlocked than they were with Obama was President. Except now, all the excuses are used up, they have no excuse other than outright incompetence. I don't want that incompetent congress passing laws.
And while we're at it, what was wrong with the fairness doctrine? All I hear now on the radio is loudmouth right-wing the sky is falling armageddon is here bullshit, ever since that was revoked.
Look at the VPN products that can escape the best China and its global contractors could do with the Great Firewall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What new things could a US ISP do that China did to do to control all its domestic networks? The best VPN products got around some of the most well funded and intrusive global network tracking by Communists governments.
Given a level playing field a VPN with the best staff will win and offer its users the freedom to enjoy fast networks int he USA every day.
How will a politically well connected ISP stop a VPN that can change to any attempts to detect, slow or block its encrypted products?
Call in the US federal government to track US VPN CC payments? To block CC payments to a VPN service detected been active in the USA?
To report VPN users who attempt to pay for a VPN with a US CC?
What a ISP cant win on a network they will enforce with new federal network use and CC payment regulations?
Federal color of law changes will keep the USA in the slow lane?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
No its not, I said companies offer faster services, its called priority services and its not just internet related. Saying ISP's can only offer faster services for medical, is the only one needing faster priority is a weak argument. Traders want faster service and built out their own networks.
Which is relevant and helpful how to millions of Comcast customers, how? Most people can't build their own network you know and don't do high speed trading.
Well actually it is. There are many communities that dont have high speed broadband, not everyone lives in the the cities, many live in rural america. Wanting things to be real vs what is real, I'm talking about is current and real.
Did you even read my post? You don't get many options for broadband in Beverly Hills, CA not to say middle of nowhere, Alaska. Please tell me how the one example of 90210 doesn't destroy your argument?
ViaSat 3 and LTE5 is a contender with terabyte speeds. Try doing some damn research on where the tech is going.
So how fast do you max out your mobile cap at supposed "terabyte" speeds? Or did you think that most mobile having a data cap really limits what you can do thus mobile isn't a substitute for broadband. As for satellite, you are aware that Viasat 3 will not provide "terabyte" speeds? Or have you not done your research?
Again, no, the history of ISPs show you are wrong. The history is many cities gave them monopoly because they had no IDEA what the Internet was. Some cities went the other way and put in dark fiber and even allowed community ISPs. There is no universal access. States are widely different.
What? Are you not aware of the multiple instances where a city tried to build broadband to service their towns because there was no broadband only to be sued by the major ISPs to prevent them from doing so?
My argument is what exactly I said it was. Deregulation and competition is a good thing, more choice is good. And your hyperbole of "the internet is gonna die!" is bullshit.
Ah the deregulation == good, regulation == bad argument. That's extremely simple thinking especially since you are rooting for less choice not more. And you don't even know it. But to be clear, you fault net neutrality for not taking down monopolies even though that was never the intent?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Comcast: "We only want the option to throttle and block content...we would never, ever actually do that but we want the ability to do it even though we never would. Trust us, we'd never do that but we still want to be able to do it even though we'd never really do that, even though we want the ability to do it..."
It's like when my 5-year old son said he just wanted to "hold the candy" and he assured me that he wouldn't eat it, he just wanted to hold it...
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
This has nothing to do with speech and everything to do with identifying and milking high-bandwidth users of their network.
Why shouldn't the high-bandwidth users pay more for their use? If 1% of the people are using 50% of the available bandwidth, why shouldn't they be charged a lot more than the 99% who split the other half? Yes, I deliberately put this in terms of the "1%-ers".
There are already tiers of access, so how is charging high-bandwidth users more changing anything? It isn't against net neutrality to charge more for more service.
If the incumbent ISPs really do end up jacking rates for full internet access like all the Chicken Littles fear, that price differential will create a market incentive for one of the nearby providers to come in to your neighborhood and poach the hell out of the disaffected customer base. This seems pretty basic.
What nearby providers? I think you're under the assumption that there are providers nearby. That the big ISPs won't sue and obstruct any kind of competition like they currently do now.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Except it limits what services you can use. What if I create netmovies.com as a competitor to Netflix? In Portugal that service can never start up as it won't be a part of a pre approved package.
You can't use duck duck go as your search engine because they didn't pay the isp like Google did.
That is what is at stake. New services can't compete because they won't get the bandwidth to the users.
Lastly I pay the isp for a pipe. It provides me with an average of 50Mb persecond of service 24 hours a day. I get to choose what i stream over that. Portuguals system says i have to pay for that, plus pay extra to access facebook, pay extra for netflix, pay extra hulu, not to mention i then have to pay hulu, netflix again for servbice.
In the end under portuguals system you pay 3-4 times what you shou is be paying for the same thing. If I made you pay me $500 a month for the privilege of driving a car that you pay $500 a month for the loan of, plus made you pay a $500 a mo nth access fee to drive on the roads and made you buy gas only from me at ten times current cost of gas. How far would you drive? On top of all that you still have to pay local taxes to maintain the roads.
That is portuguals system that you admire so much. Only idiots can't see how that wouldn't hurt the economy.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.