Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
United States The Internet Your Rights Online

F.C.C., In Net Neutrality Turnaround, Plans To Allow Fast Lane 410

Dega704 (1454673) writes in with news of the latest FCC plan which seems to put another dagger in the heart of net neutrality. "The Federal Communications Commission will propose new rules that allow Internet service providers to offer a faster lane through which to send video and other content to consumers, as long as a content company is willing to pay for it, according to people briefed on the proposals. The proposed rules are a complete turnaround for the F.C.C. on the subject of so-called net neutrality, the principle that Internet users should have equal ability to see any content they choose, and that no content providers should be discriminated against in providing their offerings to consumers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

F.C.C., In Net Neutrality Turnaround, Plans To Allow Fast Lane

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Wrong battle. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CRCulver ( 715279 ) <> on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @07:45PM (#46828863) Homepage

    For my flat in Romania, I have the choice of only two ISPs, a "duoply". And yet both have offered fiber to your door (200 or 300 megabit, I forget which plan I have) for about 10€/month for about a decade now. I see one company has just rolled out gigabit internet for 15€/month. And there's no throttling involved, you can torrent hundreds of gigabytes a month if you'd like.

    So while those who bemoan the high prices and shitty connections of the US often point to monopolies or duopolies, there's got to be more to the story. (And let's not bring up population density there, it suffices to compare my metropolitan areas to your metropolitan areas).

  • by InvalidError ( 771317 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @07:46PM (#46828877)

    For most websites who serve relatively low-bandwidth content or a relatively small number of people, this probably won't have that much of an effect - it is only a tiny percentage of all websites that have aggregate peak bandwidth high enough for direct peering to make any sense bothering with and even the previous network neutrality bill would not have prevented that.

    Even the European Union which many look at for being more pro-consumer than almost anywhere else in the world has a network neutrality bill that allows direct peering deals to enhance performance, quality of service and reliability of popular online services as long as it does not interfere with or otherwise degrade other services.

    If you relied on VoIP, would you like the option to pay maybe $1/month extra to have a 1Mbps fully-QoS'd channel to guarantee that your VoIP traffic always gets through no matter how badly intermediate networks between your modem and VoIP provider might be? That's one of the use-cases the EUP offered as a justification for having to allow some degree of traffic prioritization.

    As long as ISPs are not allowed to intentionally degrade non-premium traffic on the back of direct-peering deals, I see no fundamental problem with it.

  • by Bob9113 ( 14996 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @07:53PM (#46828927) Homepage

    Only one reasonable response: Drop all your paid over-the-interent content subscriptions, and start pirating everything. Burn the media industry to the ground.

  • by AlphaWolf_HK ( 692722 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @07:54PM (#46828933)

    And a reminder of this: []

    Obama did eventually capitulate. He signed the ACTA treaty without anybody else having any say in it, because he (and Hollywood) knew full well that it would get shot down like SOPA did if the public was aware of it. The constitution requires a vote in the senate for any treaty to be ratified, but NOBODY (not even the public) was allowed to read it until Obama himself ratified it. His argument was that since our laws already comply with it, he can ratify it by himself.

    There is no precedent for that as it has never been done before (given the Constitution forbids it, it makes sense too.)

    Anyways, Obama HAS been purchased, and he IS a Manchurian candidate if there ever was one.

  • Re:Down the river... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Karmashock ( 2415832 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @08:23PM (#46829085)

    FCC only embraced Net Neutrality to get control over internet content.

    They seriously thought they would have the kind of control over the internet that they do over radio and television.

    When it became clear that wasn't going to happen they didn't care anymore.

    its about power. And if they sell us down the river they'll at least get influence at the ISPs that will profit from the "fast lanes".

    That is why there is a pivot to the ISPs. Power. That is what the FCC wants. And the ISPs are willing to give it in exchange for no net neutrality.

    You tell me which is worse... FCC in control of internet content... or ISPs filtering content based on who paid more?

  • by rk ( 6314 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @10:36PM (#46829789) Journal

    There are people who have built VPNs and proxies to Netflix in a data center host they control who got fine performance while using the VPN to their house, but would get crap performance when going direct over Comcast. I've said it before that the line between good traffic engineering and breaking net neutrality is a blurry one, so it's not a smoking gun by any means, but it's very interesting information nonetheless.

  • by Simon Smith ( 3628941 ) on Thursday April 24, 2014 @01:28AM (#46830415)
    This no doubt puts the oversight of the internet out of the hands of Congress into the hands of intelligence agencies. This is a real concern because they will be filtering the information. It will also give the feds access to all our personal information wheras Google enjoyed the monopoly on this information. This is a like act to the FCC backing off on putting monitors and censors into the newsrooms. I want to know what Google and Facebook are going to give the Obama administration in return for this arrangement? Do they have a choice with this activist administration as we know they enjoy destroying their opponents or even queationers. This is the beginning of the end of a free internet where all players are dragged into the fast lane and filters are put in place that will protect Hollywood and large corporations. Will it also protect them against auditing by governments around the world for evading paying taxes? [] Note this same FCC tried to put censors and monitors in all the newsrooms of America. This is the new left-wing facism where this I.T class in Silicon Valley and Hollywood is complicit in these secret meetings as was the media in these closed door meetings with Obama. I have already proved by screenshots that Google acts politically in its search engine here in Australia. Democracy and a free press and a free internet are all at risk here.
  • Re:Meh, vote left. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by geminidomino ( 614729 ) on Thursday April 24, 2014 @08:23AM (#46831673) Journal

    "Left" doesn't mean "freedom from opression by the rich and powerful". Never has. It means "authoritarianism".

    Bullshit.It means "the other guys" to someone who self-identifies as "right," nothing more. ALL facets of the US political spectrum are high up on the "authoritarian" axis; even the libertarians who are too naive to know that their vaunted "unregulated paradise" would just be feudalism redux.

I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.