The Trump Administration Just Voted To Repeal the US Government's Net Neutrality Rules (recode.net) 591
The Federal Communications Commission voted on Thursday to dismantle landmark rules regulating the businesses that connect consumers to the internet, granting broadband companies power to potentially reshape Americans' online experiences. The agency scrapped so-called net neutrality regulations that prohibited broadband providers from blocking websites or charging for higher-quality service or certain content. The federal government will also no longer regulate high-speed internet delivery as if it were a utility, like phone services. From a report: Under the leadership of Chairman Ajit Pai -- and with only the backing of the agency's Republican members -- the repeal newly frees telecom companies from federal regulation, unravels a signature accomplishment of the Obama administration and shifts the responsibility of overseeing the web to another federal agency that some critics see as too weak to be effective. In practice, it means the U.S. government no longer will have rules on its books that require internet providers to treat all web traffic equally. The likes of AT&T and Verizon will be limited in some ways -- they can face penalties if they try to undermine their rivals, for example -- but they won't be subject to preemptive, bright-line restrictions on how they manage their networks. Meanwhile, the FCC's repeal will open the door for broadband providers to charge third parties, like tech giants, for faster delivery of their web content.
Ha ha, land of the free! (Score:2, Insightful)
Free to be slaves! But your guns TOTALLY keep the Queen of England at bay.. keke
Misleading Title Totally (Score:2, Informative)
Name Position State of Residence Party Term Expires†
Ajit Pai Chairman Kansas Republican June 30, 2021
Mignon Clyburn Commissioner South Carolina Democratic June 30, 2017
Brendan Carr V
Re:Misleading Title Totally (Score:5, Insightful)
To be clear:
The two Democrats on the FCC — Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel — voted to keep the rules in place.
And who appointed Ajit Pai? Trump. He is part of the Trump administration.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To be clear:
The two Democrats on the FCC — Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel — voted to keep the rules in place.
And who appointed Ajit Pai? Trump. He is part of the Trump administration.
He was appointed by Obama in 2012.
Re:Misleading Title Totally (Score:5, Insightful)
For the first 5 years, yes and Trump renewed his appointment for another 5 years. He was part of Obama's administration now he is Trump's administration. It is and was Trump's administration who repealed NN. It was Obama's administration who installed NN.
Just like if you were working for Pepsi, if Coke purchased them, you are no longer working for Pepsi, you are employed by Coke. This is no different. Ajit, is working for Trump, not Obama.
Re:Misleading Title Totally (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, then the Bush Tax cuts and the Patriot Act are Obama's because he renewed them.
Re:Misleading Title Totally (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I mean, they kind of were, weren't they? At least in the case of the Patriot Act, which he used and defended to a greater extent than W...
And unless any big surprises happen, they're now Trumps (or at least soon will be).
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Misleading Title Totally (Score:5, Informative)
It's customary for the FCC's five member panel to include two members from the opposition party. Mitch McConnell recommended Pai to Obama to be one of the two Republican commissioners.
Re:Misleading Title Totally (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair though, Trump appointed him Chairman... presumably for a reason.
Re:Misleading Title Totally (Score:5, Informative)
He was appointed to the FCC by Obama because Obama was required to appoint a certain number of Republicans.
Trump made Ajit Pai chairman of the FCC. In fact, it was one of the very first things he did after getting sworn in, and Trump did it with an explicit understanding that the Net Neutrality rules would be thrown out by Ajit Pai's FCC.
http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com]
Re:Misleading Title Totally (Score:5, Insightful)
I probably shouldn't be angry that net neutrality is going away, I should really just be surprised it managed to last this long if nerds on slashdot are unable to work out how we got here.
Re:Misleading Title Totally (Score:5, Informative)
To be clear:
The two Democrats on the FCC — Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel — voted to keep the rules in place.
And who appointed Ajit Pai? Trump. He is part of the Trump administration.
To be clear, Corporations appointed him.
Sick and tired of reminding people who the government ultimately answers to. Enough of the fucking ignorance that assumes Trump is pulling the strings. And the only ones to blame here are the American people who continue to allow this kind of corruption because they don't give a shit enough to care.
Re:Misleading Title Totally (Score:5, Interesting)
Two days ago, ALABAMA voted in a pro-choice democrat.
You're suggesting we can't stand against a bunch of douche-bag MBAs, corrupt politicians, and lobbyists? Go fuck a rusty railroad spike, you dumb coward. This is fucking easy. You don't need to elect perfect saints in order to make progress on net neutrality or legal bribery, just vote for people who talk about those issues specifically rather than bleat about the bible or terrorism and this solves itself.
If you can't bring yourself to do that, move to another shit-hole country or commit suicide so you're not dead weight in the next census and aren't wasting resources.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And who appointed Ajit Pai? Trump. He is part of the Trump administration.
Umm, I'm no fan of Ajit or Trump but Obama appointed Ajit.
Re:Misleading Title Totally (Score:5, Informative)
Just to be clear, he was appointed to the commission by Obama in 2012. But Trump appointed him to the position of chairman in 2017.
(And i'd love to see some discussion as to why Obama chose make that first appointment, but it's kind of secondary at this point)
Re:Misleading Title Totally (Score:5, Interesting)
That's easy. He had to slap two republicans on the council anyway, I don't think he cared who they were as long as McConnell wasn't going to make a big fuss.
Re:Misleading Title Totally (Score:5, Informative)
I believe he actually went to McConnell and McConnell recommended Ajit. Obama couldn't just put all Democrats on the panel any more than Trump could put all Republicans. So Obama used McConnell's recommendation knowing that his Democrat majority would overrule Ajit. Unfortunately, then Trump elevated Ajit to chairman and Ajit immediately put Net Neutrality in front of the firing squad.
Re: (Score:3)
While it would be idiotic beyond even american conservative capability to suggest that this is because of Obama, he should have done a lot more to protect the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Misleading Title Totally (Score:5, Insightful)
Conservatives also claimed that Obama was born in Kenya and there's a secret pedophilia ring under a pizza parlor.
I wouldn't put much stock in what conservatives claim.
Re: (Score:3)
Just wait until Trump gets impeached or loses the next election. They will turn on him just as quickly as he turns on his former best buddies.
They always turn on each other eventually. Always.
Re:Misleading Title Totally (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah all on party lines with a FCC chief in charge appointed by Trump. You can't coat this any other way if you're a Trump supporter. Republicans will vote for monopolists over the people every time and are for corruption and big money. The democrats all voted against it.
Wow did not expect this (Score:2, Informative)
Pretty sure last year there were Trump supporters swearing up and down that this would never happen.
Re:Wow did not expect this (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't worry. Already they're trying to pretend that it's all Obama's fault.
Forgot to pay my ISP bill for /. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Forgot to pay my ISP bill for /. (Score:5, Funny)
I think they only care about high-bandwidth sites.
Internet Service Fees (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Internet Service Fees (Score:4, Insightful)
I could go on, but it's all about extracting the maximum amount of $$$ from already paying customers.
Re: (Score:3)
New ISP service plans (on top of what you're already paying)
I think that where you are wrong.
Net neutrality is not a way to prevent price gouging. It is to prevent preferential treatment and anti-competitive practices.
In fact, in most cases, net neutrality violation are about offering something for free rather than making you pay what was previously free. I think a more realistic change would be :
Your service plan now comes with unlimited Netflix! (we also halved your data cap, but because Netflix doesn't count against it, you won't need the other half, right?).
RIP Internet (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't the internet we've come to know and love mostly involve Usenet and a lot of github traffic, much of which is text? Considering that's in the noise when it comes to bandwidth, would Net Neutrality affect that? It seems like a lot of the traffic that crotchety old people use gets a free ride bandwidth-wise compared to video traffic.
Re:RIP Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
FFS the Net Neutrality regulations are exactly 18 month old, what hellish conditions did these regulations rectify, what nightmares from 2015 will come back to haunt us now?
Bottom line, these regulations went in-place along party lines, and they were removed along party lines. Let's see some actual federal legislation on this topic, instead of random executive orders like we've had so far, OK?
"Restore Internet Freedom" You Stupid Fucks (Score:5, Informative)
You wanna see what FCC chairman Ajit Pai thinks of you? Here is a video he posted yesterday to tell you why you should not worry about losing Net Neutrality.; He posted it on the right-wing website Daily Caller. (for real, you should watch this 1.5 minute video from Trump's FCC chairman, as he reveals he has no idea what Net Neutrality is, and also that he is a massive fuckwit.)
https://youtu.be/JeKK637IYAg [youtu.be]
He's telling you all the things you'll still be able to do on the Internet after he signs over control to Comcast. Oh, and by the way, in the part of the video where he does the "Harlem Shake", one of the girls he's dancing with is a blogger who promoted the "Pizzagate" pedophilia controversy.
https://gizmodo.com/ajit-pai-t... [gizmodo.com]
http://www.slate.com/blogs/fut... [slate.com]
Re:"Restore Internet Freedom" You Stupid Fucks (Score:5, Insightful)
He absolutely knows what it is - he isn't stupid. What he says and what he believes are unlikely to be the same thing.
Which means he's evil.
Re:"Restore Internet Freedom" You Stupid Fucks (Score:5, Insightful)
Well duh! (Score:4, Funny)
Do I understand correctly that there will be (Score:2)
Ya know... (Score:4, Insightful)
Republicans (in office) constantly complain about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau [wikipedia.org] because its single director has too much power, no external accountability and isn't subject to Congressional oversight (ie. control) and should either be abolished or changed to be run by a board of Commissioners, like the FCC.
Funny how they don't complain about the FCC behaving much the same way, even considering the FCC *has* a board of Commissioners and *is* subject to Congressional oversight. Maybe it's because the FCC is protecting corporations, not consumers - exactly like Republicans (in office) want.
I say "in office" because it seems many Representatives are doing what is in their best interest, regardless of what their constituents, who may also be Republicans, want. Sometimes, it seems the masses are more reasonable and responsible than their elected officials - sometimes.
Having the pie and eating it. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is mind boggling that you have government control on one side by granting potentially abusive monopolies, and at the same time you remove any consumer protective regulation so that these monopolies can be as abusive as they want... Sure, the US has a decent GDP/capita, but that really is no excuse to have up to 10x the telco cost compared to other developed countries (and/or depending the location get stuck with circa 2000 internet speeds).
Well, OK, the fact that it is happening is not mind-boggling - just follow the money... The lack of realization/resistance from the people is the stranger and scarier aspect.
A challenge to everyone (Score:2, Interesting)
So I see a lot of negativity about this, even though in the past with no NN rules almost nothing happened, and when it did was shut down quickly (like torrent throttling).
So I have a challenge for you all worried about this. Today, make a note of how much your internet costs. Then do some speed tests and record the results.
In a year, do the same thing. How many of you seriously think we will be worse off?
I personally do not think much will change, if anything... there is little practical downside to the
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
1. Does the price of services that I'm using go up? Yes
2. Do these services maintain a similar quality of service as they do today? Yes, at some higher price for the service.
3. Will I be able to rent a movie via AppleTV and have it still be instantly watchable? Yes, at some higher price for the service.
4. Will Netflix and Hulu still stream at a watchable rate? Yes, at some higher price for the service.
The rent seekers want you to pay them, not shut you down. This is history; In 2014 Netflix si
Re:A challenge to everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
I personally do not think much will change, if anything... there is little practical downside to the choice of the FCC, and so much fear mongering from the other side of things that it greatly strains credulity.
In the next 1-2 years? Sure. There's no way they're going to go full corporate dictator at the outset. The first thing they'll do is start negotiating with the big content providers, while fending off the inevitable legal challenges. They'll also need to go full throttle on getting friendly Congresspeople (mostly Rs) reelected next year.
After that? I think we can expect to see a lot more zero rating packages and more investment in their own content services. Data caps will be pushed down to make these services and zero rating more attractive. Further down the line, they'll be extending their "partnerships" with more and more edge providers.
Eventually, they'll have enough deals that cover just enough of what people use that they can start throttling down anything else while most people will neither care nor notice. It may not happen in a year or two, but watch for *this* to happen. It won't at the outset.
You really think they've been pushing and spending this much because they *don't* expect to maximize their revenue and control?
Re: (Score:3)
From the very beginning, there were ALWAYS net neutrality rules. The Obama administration merely reiterated the existing rules that had been in place for decades. Now there are no rules at all. We will see how disastrous this ends up being in the long term.
Re:A challenge to everyone (Score:4, Interesting)
So I see a lot of negativity about this, even though in the past with no NN rules almost nothing happened, and when it did was shut down quickly (like torrent throttling).
From 2001-2008 the Bush administration was in charge and the tech and business infrastructure to really exploit the lack of net neutrality wasn't around yet.
From 2009-2016 the Obama administration was in charge and anxious to implement NN, so the telecoms were doing everything they could to make it look like NN was unnecessary.
From 2017-2020 the Trump/Pence administration will be in change, the telecoms can do whatever they want and nothing will get regulated, and by the time 2021 rolls around even if a Democratic administration is in change the internet landscape will have changed enough to make implementing NN very disruptive and difficult to do.
Re:A challenge to everyone (Score:5, Informative)
So I see a lot of negativity about this, even though in the past with no NN rules almost nothing happened, and when it did was shut down quickly (like torrent throttling).
You are mistaken. There's a rich history of actual and intended net neutrality violations in the past before the regulations went into effect. Unfortunately the top link returned by a search on this currently offline, but here is some info pasted from this reddit thread [reddit.com]:
There's nothing hypothetical about what ISPs will do when net neutrality is eliminated. I'm going to steal a comment previously posted by /u/Skrattybones and repost here:
2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.
2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.
2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones. 2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)
2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace
2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)
2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.
2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.
And...
2005, AT&T suggested giving preferential treatment to some web giants in exchange for money, starting the whole thing.
2014, Verizon and Comcast throttled Netflix data and held those customers hostage to a huge bribe from Netflix.
Also, links for everything you just said.
Madison River Communications: https://www.cnet.com/news/telc... [cnet.com]
Comcast hates pirates: https://www.lexology.com/libra... [lexology.com] (article from '08)
AT&T VOIP hostage: https://www.wired.com/2009/10/... [wired.com]
Google wallet hostage: http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/0... [cnn.com]
Verizon hates tethering apps: https://www.wired.com/2011/06/... [wired.com]
AT&T claimed blocking facetime wasn't a net neutrality issue: http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/2... [cnn.com]
"Verizon lawyer Helgi Walker made the companyâ(TM)s intentions all too clear, saying the company wants to prioritize those websites and services that are willing to shell out for better access.": https://www.savetheinternet.co... [savetheinternet.com]
Also, the thing to realize is that violations of net neutrality are not likely to be reflected on a general speed test, or necessarily in the fees the ISPs charge. It's much more likely that they will violate it by charging the content providers, like they have already done with Netflix. It will be insidious, and most people will not notice unless they are watching very closely. The effects will like
Ain't over 'till it's over, folks (Score:2, Interesting)
Never forget (Score:2)
Oh no! Back to the Internet wasteland of 2015! (Score:3, Funny)
Remember way back in 2015, when we were all forced to pay $1 a byte for Internet service?
Me neither.
Re:Oh no! Back to the Internet wasteland of 2015! (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty much everything else has been private companies investing billions of dollars to get their own networks to talk to other people's networks. There is no "the internet" anyway. Just a lot of individual networks with a wide range of agreements between private parties who carry traffic across each others' infrastructure at great expense to the people who own them. Those peering arrangements are not some mandatory unicorn utopia of equality of service across all networks. Never has been.
Re: (Score:3)
There were no rules prior to 2015 either, that was the OPs point.
NN rules have existed for 18 months, that's it.
Flag icon (Score:4, Insightful)
Shouldn't the flag icon in the title be at half mast?
Re: OMG (Score:5, Insightful)
No one is crying for Facebook and Google. It's a much bigger threat to small businesses than to the tech giants.
but end users will not put in meters on internet t (Score:3)
but end users will not put in meters on internet that are not checked and don't have an seal of approval.
IF a gas pump was rigged like any of ISP meters then there will be big fines.
Re: OMG (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody is crying for Netflix, either. This is about small businesses who won't have such an easy time paying the fees that ISPs could charge. It's a completely unnecessary barrier to entry that prevents competition and innovation.
Re: OMG (Score:5, Insightful)
If it is such a non-issue, why would they bother reversing such a law? And why do big ISP put money into bribing (lobbying) for such a change?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it is such a non-issue, why would they bother reversing such a law? And why do big ISP put money into bribing (lobbying) for such a change?
Now we wait for the other shoe to drop.
Re: OMG (Score:5, Funny)
Trump gets a hard-on every time he gets to undo anything Obama managed to accomplish during his presidency.
Also, the two big cable companies that have divided and monopolized the US market get to make more money for crappy service! What's wrong with that?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it is such a non-issue, why would they bother reversing such a law?
Among other reasons, BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER A LAW. If you think it SHOULD be a law, rather than an Obama-era edict to apply a decades old telephone framework to modern networking, then you should be delighted this is gone, and seeking to get some actual legislation in place. Something that reflects an era after rotary dial phones.
Re: (Score:3)
Because after all these decades of doing nothing, now that it's GONE we can come up with something better.
I know, everything was such a disaster in 2015. Just horrible. It's no wonder Obama waited years and years after having the power to do something about it, to ... do what the huge corporate donors at places like Google and Amazon wanted him to do.
that's actually not harming anyone
Sure, unless you're, perhaps, a small company trying to set up rural users with fixed wireless service, or some other activity that's very important to people you don't care about.
Re: OMG (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't theoretical at all. That's disingenuous. There are plenty of examples of ISPs attempting to engage in behavior that was prohibited by NN rules. Those rules are now gone.
This allows ISPs to block content as they see fit. Large ISPs like Comcast have already attempted to do this, though the NN rules did not allow that. Ajit Pai has said he believes Comcast should have the ability to block content or entire protocols. ISPs have engaged in zero rating services or content. For example, Verizon allows businesses to pay for their content to be zero rated. Comcast implemented their own streaming video service that didn't count against their data caps. None of this is theoretical at all.
This policy was pushed through in an extremely corrupt manner. Ajit Pai has made numerous false and misleading statements about NN. Many comments were submitted on behalf of individuals without their consent, people who aren't American citizens, people who are dead, or even people who don't exist at all. Most of the fraudulent comments were opposed to NN rules. The FCC has been far less than transparent in investigating this matter. They've selectively disregarded comments based on standards such as the legal language of the comments that weren't made known to the public during the commenting period. The process was rushed through despite the many objections I just listed. It was an extremely corrupt process by an extremely corrupt administration. If eliminating the NN rules isn't harmful, there would be no need for the process to be opaque, for Pai to make dishonest statements, and to rush the process.
Re: OMG (Score:5, Informative)
Hi. I'm Sarten-X. It's a big deal to me.
I've been working on a silly little web project, that someday I hope to turn into an income-generating company.
Unfortunately, my project relies on having fairly snappy response times (mostly low bandwidth/low latency, but occasionally having bursts of high bandwidth usage) for a good user experience. Without neutrality, I can't expect that any more. Traffic to and from my tiny little project will be queued behind the high-definition stream for Netflix, because I can't afford to pay Comcast (or Spectrum, or Verizon, or AT&T, or whoever else owns the customers) the millions of dollars in fees to get fast-lane prioritization.
Yes, it's speculation. It's also history, because I lived through the last round of these problems. I remember working with ISPs in the 90s and 2000s to figure out why certain traffic was unusually slow... sure enough, it's because that particular service had been deemed "low-priority" and was throttled. Fortunately at the time I had a big enough team of corporate lawyers that we could force a bit more throughput from the small ISP, but that's not usually the case today.
The reality is that probably 90% of Americans won't notice a difference. Their Netflix subscription might cost a few cents more, or their telecom stock value might get a small boost, but that's about it. The real loss is in potential. The next big Internet-based success might just be someone's silly little project today, and it'll likely never be able to grow because of the arbitrary limits placed by ISPs.
No, it's not just about torrents. It's about waiting for a product demo video to buffer, or waiting for an AJAX call to update a GUI, or waiting for a site's style sheet to properly load. It's about my user experience (and thus my project's success) being heavily dependent on how much extra money I pay to which ISPs, rather than how good my actual product is.
Yes, it's a big deal.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I remember working at an ISP in the 2000s. We used QoS to prioritize or deprioritize traffic to certain services, mainly because warez and WoW were clogging the pipe. That was targeted at services. What they can do now is prioritize or fuck over specific businesses and the business will never know unless s
Re: (Score:3)
I think you are mistaken. The next big thing will just happen elsewhere (China, or the EU) where they don't have ISP issues. It'll filter here once/if it gets big enough to be able to afford the fees, so we will only be 5-7 years behind the rest of the world.
Re: OMG (Score:4, Insightful)
And poor (insert local business) that doesn't have the money to pay for the premium internet pipe.
Re: How is that any different now (Score:2, Interesting)
you are being dishonest. You know perfectly well that this will be used to throttle bandwidth for non-paying content, and to censor.
To wrap that in bandwidth shows you don't know how the internet works, or if you do know then you are simply lying. I don't know you... you wouldn't lie, now would you????
Re:That is exactly backwards (Score:5, Insightful)
The ISP's have no reason to censor
Sorry, are you seriously trying to say that Comcast, Time Warner, etc (The majority of ISPs are also TV providers) have no reason at all to want to censor Netflix, Amazon Video, Hulu? They have no reason to try and get people to switch back (or slow down) people from getting out from under their $250+ cable bills?
Wow.
Re: (Score:3)
You could buy unlocked phones before NN was signed and will continue to be able to buy them in future. Try again.
Re: OMG (Score:5, Informative)
Netflix pays for their internet access just like everybody else, you numbnut.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
But now they get to pay twice, or even more. It will be so much better!!!
Re: OMG (Score:3, Funny)
And so will we as we pay to unlock each website we visit.
I'm expecting ISP lootboxes in 2018.
Maybe this week you get 25mbps, maybe you get 5mbps. Ooooh? Didn't want that one? Buy another lootbox then.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Poor us, who will see Netflix have to raise their rates as cable tv providers attempt to kill their competition with unwarranted fees
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They are going to charge Netflix you idiot so they can make it an unattractive option. Either it will be slow or have to raise prices.
Re: OMG (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait a second. Netflix doesn't pay for their own internet access?
See I see it as this, I pay for a connection to the internet, Netflix pays for a connection to the internet. Nobody else should be charging either of us extra to talk to each other as fast as any other website on the internet.
Re: (Score:3)
And that's the whole premise behind net neutrality; you've paid for your access, it shouldn't matter where you're connecting to.
Unfortunately, with the regulations that will govern what ISPs can do once this change goes into effect, as long as the ISP tells you up front what they're doing, it's all hunky-dory and legal. So if your ISP announces a change in terms of service that states that, because of the religious beliefs of the ISP management, customers will no longer be able to access any website that of
Re: OMG (Score:5, Informative)
Netflix pays for internet access, not for a connection to a third party. Just like you pay Comcast for internet access, not just for access to Comcast's WAN. There is enough bandwidth on Netflix's side to reach all transit providers without congestion. The amount of traffic that can pass from the Tier 1 backbone operators (transit providers) into Comcast's WAN is a matter of negotiation between Comcast and the backbone operators. Comcast is not buying enough of that access to satisfy the contracts it has with its customers, who paid for internet access, not Comcast access.
The above explanation of the way every bit of Internet traffic is already paid for should be sufficient, but just to prove that Comcast really has no leg to stand on with that argument, here's more: Netflix will, at their own cost, provide servers and direct peering connections to any medium and large ISP, to cut the transit providers out and reduce the cost to themselves and the ISPs. They don't have to do that. Comcast thinks it should be paid for direct access to the Comcast network. Fine, then they should pay the transit providers. They took their customers' money for internet access, and they need to provide it.
But isn't buying enough transit to carry the data that Comcast's customers paid to access expensive? No, it's ridiculously cheap: You can buy 10Gbps unfettered bandwidth (transit to and from the whole internet) at $1500/month. That's $15 for 100Mbps, with a 1:1 contention ratio. Typical contention ratios for business connections are 1:10, for consumer connections 1:50. That means Comcast would have to pay between $0.30 and $1.50 to actually provide the internet access that Comcast's customers already pay for, but they want to get paid by both sides, so they make up these stories about expensive bandwidth and how content providers get a free ride. They're holding their captive customers hostage to extort money.
Re: OMG (Score:5, Insightful)
Just wanted to add that there's evidence Comcast did this on purpose in order to put Netflix in a bind. (Customers have alternative choices with Netflix, but not as many with Comcast.) They wanted to force Netflix to either agree to their demands to have their service unusable. Basically, mafia-style "this is a nice store you've got here, it'd be a shame if something happened to it" tactics from an ISP that holds a monopoly in many areas.
And now these tactics are legal again.
Re: (Score:3)
Because of Net Neutrality Laws, now Comcast has to shoulder the increased cost of all that traffic without being able to charge.
I don't get this. Doesn't Comcast already charge their customers for the bandwidth they use? Why should they be allowed to go shakedown the companies that their customers happen to access? Isn't it just Comcast's job to carry traffic from the edge of their network to their customers, at prices agreed with their customers? Why should they be able to discriminate based on where the traffic originated, and use that to extort money from the sources?
Re:OMG (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Big corporations love barriers to entry - keeps the little guy from innovation and disrupting the marketplace. Repealing Net Neutrality is an obvious dance to big money concerns.
Vote these bums out!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yea, democracy sucks when you insult half the country and they vote a way you don't like.
I suggest you keep it up. If I get called names just a few more times I'm likely to start voting democrat.
Best regards,
Deplorables
Re:Fuck Trump supporters. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you voted for a candidate solely because the other side made you feel butthurt, who's the real snowflake?
This country would be much better off if more people voted with their brain, rather than their ego.
Re:Fuck Trump supporters. (Score:4, Informative)
To be fair, none of them were embroiled in scandal *while campaigning.* ...and Most of them resigned as the scandals came out.
Republicans, on the other hand, almost seemed to use the accusations as a positive point.
=Smidge=
Re: Fuck Trump supporters. (Score:4, Informative)
Hillary had the same exact plan.
Citation for that? She is on the record supporting net neutrality, possibly going even further [youtube.com] than the FCC has so far.
Re: Fuck Trump supporters. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC is essentially punting their regulatory duties to another agency (FTC) that has little legal jurisdiction here. There needs to be at least a temporary injunction to halt this.
Demonstrating the irreparable harm to justify an injunction should be interesting
Re:No, Not Trump Administration (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Nice. An article written by a lobbyist and no proof Obama regulated the internet. All he did was say no to paywalls and throttling since the US government actually owns the internet
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The FCC is not the Trump Administration (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
After Trump was sworn in, he nominated Pai as chairman.
And now you know...the rest of the story!
Re: (Score:3)
You going to start throwing out the Constitution now because it's too old?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The FCC should Rey was created using the force, like Anakin, by Yoda and Obi-wan use the tools available to us
Were you writing two posts at the same time?
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
An ISP is a telecommunications service provider. Where is the argument that it isn't, outside of nutty libertarian blogs trying to torture language?
The law makes a distinction between the two. The argument comes from the law, court rulings on the law, and regulatory decisions based on the law. Yes, the FTC is a nutty libertarian blog that uses tortured language... -.-
FCC jurisdiction over broadband services arises under the Communications Act. Central to the broadband discussion is a distinction under that Act between “telecommunications services” and “information services.” The former, but not the latter, are subject to substantial mandatory common carrier regulations under Title II of the Communications Act. While not subject to the Title II common carrier regulations, information services are treated by the FCC as subject to its general, ancillary jurisdiction under Title I of the Communications Act.
As noted above, a series of regulatory and judicial decisions have helped to clarify both the distinction between information and telecommunications services and the status of broadband services as information services. That clarification is, to an extent, in tension with early regulatory and judicial attempts to grapple with the novel technologies that enabled the provision of Internet access. For example, in 1980, the FCC promulgated rules designed to address, among other things, the growing commerce in data-processing services available via telephone wires (the “Computer II Rules”). With reference to those rules, the FCC subsequently applied certain common carrier obligations, such as non-discrimination, to local telephone companies providing early DSL services. Further, as recently as 2000, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that “the transmission of Internet service to subscribers over cable broadband facilities is a telecommunications service under the Communications Act.” Still, the FCC’s current view that broadband services are information services has its roots in earlier decisions by the FCC and the courts. The same Computer II Rules that grounded the early DSL determination distinguished between “basic” and “enhanced” services and did not subject the latter to Title II common carrier regulation.In the following decade, the FCC recognized that ISPs provide not just “a physical connection [to the Internet], but also . . . the ability to translate raw Internet data into information [consumers] may both view on their personal computers and transmit to other computers connected to the Internet.” Moreover, the 1998 Universal Service Report regarded “non-facilities-based” ISPs – those that do not own their own transmission facilities – solely as information service providers. Indeed, even the Ninth Circuit opinion that held that ISPs offering cable broadband were offering telecommunications services recognized that, under the Communications Act and FCC implementing regulations, a significant portion of those services were information services.... In Brand X, the Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s determination that cable broadband is an information service as a reasonable construction of the Communications Act, reversing a Ninth Circuit decision that had relied on City of Portland as precedent.
The FTC [ftc.gov] has a good understanding of the issues and concerns. Since they are now going to be the ones regulating the internet, their opinion is appropriate.
The old excuses about hampering innovation no longer apply
No they still apply because it is part of the law. " It shall be the policy of the United States to encourage the provision of new tec
Re: (Score:3)
The supreme court disagrees with you. 545 U.S. 967 (2005).
No amount of magical finessing of language will get me to buy into the clearly ridiculous assertion L2 transceivers (Cable modems) and L3 forwarding of datagrams (ISP) constitute an "information service".
What's makes this farce even more absurd is concurrently asserting picking up a phone and calling someone is using a telecommunications service when sending an L3 datagram to that same person conveying the very same information is not a telecommunications service.
The DSPs in the CO must be exerting quite a
Re: (Score:3)
So, let me get this straight. ISPs do not "generate, acquire, store, transform, retrieve, utilize or make available information via telecommunications" in your mind?
CORRECT. They merely provide a "string" (telecommunications) that transmits and receives information to and from information services outside the ISPs administrative domain.
Maybe you can explain to me how the internet works without any information and is as dumb as a copper line.
Because you don't understand the difference between an eyeball network and a content network.
The Internet network itself...the portion that ISPs supply simply routes packets. It literally is a dumb wire with no intelligence baked into it at all.
All of the intelligence all of the information and data are at the edges of the network far