Slashdot Mirror
NCTA Asks For Net Neutrality Law Allowing Paid Prioritization (arstechnica.com)
DarkRookie2 shares a report from Ars Technica: Cable industry chief lobbyist Michael Powell today asked Congress for a net neutrality law that would ban blocking and throttling but allow Internet providers to charge for prioritization under certain circumstances. Powell -- a Republican who was FCC chairman from 2001 to 2005 and is now CEO of cable lobby group NCTA -- spoke to lawmakers today at a Communications and Technology subcommittee hearing on net neutrality. Powell said there is "common ground around the basic tenets of net neutrality rules: There should be no blocking or throttling of lawful content. There should be no paid prioritization that creates fast lanes and slow lanes, absent public benefit. And, there should be transparency to consumers over network practices."
Despite Powell's claim of "common ground," his statement on paid prioritization illustrates a divide between the broadband industry and proponents of net neutrality rules. Obama-era Federal Communications Commission rules banned paid prioritization as well as blocking and throttling, while Trump's FCC overturned the ban on all three practices. Net neutrality advocates are trying to restore those rules in full in a court case against the FCC, and any net neutrality law proposed by Democrats in Congress would likely mirror the Obama-era FCC rules. Republican lawmakers are preparing legislation that would impose weaker rules. The report notes that Powell's proposal for paid prioritization is full of caveats: "There should be no paid prioritization that creates fast lanes and slow lanes, absent public benefit." "His testimony to Congress didn't explain how ISPs can charge online services for prioritization without dividing Internet access into fast lanes and slow lanes, and his statement seems to indicate that slow lanes would be allowed as long as the paid prioritization creates some 'public benefit,'" reports Ars. "How 'public benefit' would be defined or who would determine which paid priority schemes benefit the public are not clear."
Despite Powell's claim of "common ground," his statement on paid prioritization illustrates a divide between the broadband industry and proponents of net neutrality rules. Obama-era Federal Communications Commission rules banned paid prioritization as well as blocking and throttling, while Trump's FCC overturned the ban on all three practices. Net neutrality advocates are trying to restore those rules in full in a court case against the FCC, and any net neutrality law proposed by Democrats in Congress would likely mirror the Obama-era FCC rules. Republican lawmakers are preparing legislation that would impose weaker rules. The report notes that Powell's proposal for paid prioritization is full of caveats: "There should be no paid prioritization that creates fast lanes and slow lanes, absent public benefit." "His testimony to Congress didn't explain how ISPs can charge online services for prioritization without dividing Internet access into fast lanes and slow lanes, and his statement seems to indicate that slow lanes would be allowed as long as the paid prioritization creates some 'public benefit,'" reports Ars. "How 'public benefit' would be defined or who would determine which paid priority schemes benefit the public are not clear."
You can't make one thing faster without making something else slower. That's just how the internet works. So if throttling wouldn't be allowed, but prioritization would, you've just made a contradiction as they are exactly the same thing.
A freeway full of gridlocked traffic and their " fix " isn't to improve the freeway but rather build a Toll Road which allows you to bypass all that gridlock.
For a price of course.
Once the Toll Road becomes saturated with traffic as well, the fix is to simply build another Toll Road :|
-facepalm-
When the link is at max capacity, iPv4 and 6 know what to do.
That's when we start routing around the slow link, or capitalize and spend money upgrading the link.
OH WAIT, I SAID SPEND $$$$$. That means less shareholder return and more capital costs! OMG DID I SAY THAT?????
Hire more cashiers??? There's a Kroger MBA who's head is exploding with your metaphor.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
IPv4 packets have had mechanisms for prioritization since 1984. Ethernet has had mechanisms for prioritization since 1998.
So us, Network Engineers realize prioritization is important, usefull and beneficial.
having said that. Is perfectly logical to want videoconferencing have more priority than tv streaming, which in turn will have more priority than text chat, which in turn will have more priority than web browsing, which in turn will have more priority than email, which in turn will have more priority than conventional file download, which in turn will have more priority than torrenting/p2p
nothing wrong with that.
the problems begin when we try to make movie streaming from, say, hulu, faster than movie streaming from netflix.
if the change comes about because hulu pays my ISP, that's a big no-no. If the change comes because my ISP just felt like it, that's also a big no-no.
But if the change comes because I explicitly told my ISP that I like it that way, and I am willing to pay for said change, welcome indeed.
Telecoms make more money, public pension funds that invest in telecoms make more money, therefore the public benefits!
(Wow, that was too easy, I didn't realize I had the evil in me.)
But there is a place for QoS. For instance, prioritizing VoIP makes it work, at the expense of web browsing being slightly slower.
I don't have an issue with paid prioritization, as long as it's bandwidth added to the promised service level, or perhaps no more than 10% in the case of "unlimited."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Quote: "There should be no blocking or throttling of lawful content." Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. That is like the water company saying "There should be no blocking or throttling of lawful water use.". What? They sell water they have NOTHING to do with what you do with what the water! If someone used the water for something unlawful that is NOT their problem. If someone uses the Internet for something unlawful that is NOT the ISPs problem, nor should they get involved.
common ground around the basic tenets of net neutrality rules: There should be no blocking or throttling of lawful content.
THERE SHOULD BE NO THROTTLING OR BLOCKING AT ALL. 'Cause the only way to know if there is unlawful content is to LOOK AT THE CONTENT. This is implicitly allowing ISPs to sniff all traffic. No thank you.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
B.S. My cable internet connection was 5 Mbps in 1998. It's 150 Mbps today. That massive speedup did not come at the expense of slowing down someone else's connection speed.
The problem with fast lanes / paid prioritization is not that the extra speed must come at someone else's expense. It can come at someone else's expense. Or it can come from improving the infrastructure. The problem with fast lanes / paid prioritization is that the customer can't tell which case is happening. This creates an incentive for ISPs to try to cheat and use it to try to sneak in a speed reduction for some customers without a corresponding reduction in their price.
If you're going to make paid prioritization legal, then it must come with the stipulation that the slowest speeds regular customers experience cannot become slower. If it does become slower, the ISP should be required to lower prices for those customers by a proportional amount. That removes the incentive to cheat and degrade connection speeds for non-fast lane customers, while preserving the carrot of the ISPs getting paid extra for giving faster connection speeds to the customers who want it. The result then is same or faster speeds for everyone.