Skip to comments.FCC to cripple the Internet
Posted on 05/15/2014 6:26:13 AM PDT by dayglored
The Federal Communications Commission thinks the Internet in the United States can be run at two speeds. Backtracking from an earlier proposal, the FCC now believes it will be just fine to let Internet service providers (ISPs) control what you access online, with a few exceptions that the FCC would police.
While this new proposal might not kill the Internet, as it exists now, it would certainly cripple it at least for American consumers and businesses.
Multiple leaks about FCC chairman Tom Wheeler's proposal to the commission, which will be presented on Thursday, indicate that the agency would not allow ISPs to give preferential treatment faster Internet access to their own subsidiaries. But it would allow other companies to pay for faster, more reliable access. (No matter that such a similar restriction has already failed in the case of Comcast giving preferential treatment to its own Golf Channel.)
Unfortunately, there is no halfway approach to how data should flow over the Internet. It's a binary proposition: Either access to the Internet is equal, no matter the type or size of the business, or it is not. Letting Amazon have better access because it can pay and because it is not owned by AT&T will not make the situation more equal.
If the Internet does not maintain net neutrality, wherein all digital data is treated the same, countless businesses tech companies in Silicon Valley, auto companies in Detroit, health care providers in Houston, startups in New York will suffer. And, of course, you and I will pay for diminishing service and be denied the option of choosing what we want to read, view and listen to at faster speeds.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The "fast lane" proposal is the death knell for sites like FR. Do you think the big liberal media outfits are going to give a conservative political forum a fair chunk of bandwidth, when their liberal buddies have tons more money to pay for faster/better/more reliable access?
If you think so, you're dreaming.... because this FCC proposal is the coming of the nightmare.
Have at, fellow FReepers....
I forgot what the anti-net neutrality case is - can anybody refresh my memory?
Just wait until a Lois Learner is in charge of which web sites are allowed to vend bits.
I think the government and the major carriers are less interested in privileging certain content providers than they are in suppressing certain protocols - e.g. bittorrent.
Why do we even need an FCC?
That the government shouldn't tell private property owners what they can do with their own property.
Except of course the telecommunications industry isn't very private. It's both one of the most regulated and one of the most privileged industries in existence.
I think it boils down to the service providers such as Netflix are heavy users of the infrastructure, and that their willingness to pay extra to ensure an acceptable service quality for their users will fund ongoing upgrade and maintenance of the infrastructure, which will subsidize the "slow lane".
Of course, if you buy that line of reasoning, I've got a bridge to sell you.
FreeRepublic would not be affected by a system that permits Netflix and Amazon to pay extra for a high speed delivery of HD video. Most web browsing experiences don’t need multi-megabit throughput. Emailing and reading news web pages can tolerate multi-second delays that would be distracting to movie viewers. This is not the end of the world. My first FreeRepublic visit was via a 9600 baud dial up modem. I don’t remember the experience as painful.
Example is the way the cellphone companies limit you to small amount of data like 5g per month and restrict you from tethering the cellphone to your computer so you can see the website on a bigger screen.
Right now there are ways around this using “user agent” and a plugin for IE and Firefox but that could be blocked in the future.
T-Mobile blocks tethering and puts up a page that tells you to pay more money for very limited 1gb for mobile hotspot for $10 more. You can pay more and more for each GB up 11gb for $70 per month. 11gb is not much if you watch video. If you go over your artificially capped data plan your speed drops to 2g which means like dial up speed.
There is no limit for the bandwidth, it is artificial just like charging you for texting when a phone call uses far more data.
Now imagine the democrat party deciding which sites will be blocked or slowed down just as they are using the federal agencies now like the IRS stop democracy!
Even such leading Lefty Journ-O-Listers as Ron Fournier think that if the FCC goes ahead with this, the Millenials are going to go absolutely ape-dung and tear Democrat heads off at the ballot box.
True.Also, AMZN is currently a free rider, bandwidth wise. There will be many unanticipated consequences here.
The libtard way - If it ain’t broke, fix it ‘til it is.
I seem to recall that Congress forbade the FCC from regulating the Internet. The FCC charter gives them control over “public” airwaves like radio on TV broadcasts, but not paid media like ISP or cable TV. Who the heck is letting them get away with this? This is just another ploy by Obama to have total government control of all media.
Nut-job Conspiracy Theory Ping!
To get onto The Nut-job Conspiracy Theory Ping List you must threaten to report me to the Mods if I don't add you to the list...
My copy of Art 1 Sec 8 does not allow the FedGov to have an FCC...
Beginning to sound like a broken record, aren’t I...
The argument is that ISPs are generally net neutral already because of the demands of customers and that ISPs are more likely to respond better to the demands of the American public than FCC regulators. In other words, do you believe in the free market, or do you believe government regulators can best control the economy?
This argument is argued will at:
Allowing a provider to charge more for enhanced services will be good for everyone and will drive additional services and features.
It will also be the final blow to traditional Cable TV and allow everyone to pick their channels ala carte.
Net Neutrality is an unnatural hindrance on innovation and competition.
That's not at all accurate.
Text-based internet flows are incidental, at best.
Composing less than 5% of all traffic...it is carried without so much as notice by any backbone provider.
Besides, IF a site were to be genuinely "blocked" by any ISP or backbone provider, they would start losing customers right quick.
This fight is about whether backbone providers and ISPs will be allowed to CHARGE content providers for additional, enhanced services...not whether there will be blockage anywhere of anything on the internet.
Really? Amazon gets bandwidth from their ISP for free? Wow. I gotta get me somma that! Where do we sign up for free bandwidth?
To some extent the same issue as NFLX who also pay for a lot of bandwidth at their facilities, but ride for free on the wide pipes into peoples homes.
Same again for all that crap video advertizing that pollutes many sites.
Man.. would hate to take my torrenting to TOR.. would be dial-up speed >.<
With all due respect, I think that is short-sighted. It assumes infinite bandwidth. In fact, although the pie increases as technology improves, this proposal is about giving higher-paying sites a bigger piece of the existing pie, meaning less available for everybody else.
If in fact there was no penalty to the vast majority of smaller sites (whether text-based, heavily-graphical, video-based, interactive, or otherwise), then I would not have a problem with a "pay-to-play" system -- that's just free-market which I whole-heartedly support.
The problem is that this is NOT a free-market for folks like me. I have only one practical choice for ISP -- the local phone company's DSL-over-copper offering. As a result, if they decide to play "extra-nice" with (say) Netflix and Amazon, they're going to have to get nasty with everything else because there just isn't a bigger pie to divide up.
And all the nice talk about ISPs remaining fair because of pressure from customers if they get unfair -- that's just talk out here. It'd be great to have a lot of choices, but the fact of Internet Providers is that most of the country doesn't have a wide enough range of practical choices to make a free market operate correctly.
Trust me, I wish it were otherwise. I hate regulation, and accepting any of it as a necessary evil makes me very unhappy.
Anybody who thinks that this won't be abused -- whether by high-rolling liberal media interests, or liberal government bureaucrats -- is living in a dreamworld that will collapse in a matter of a few years.
It is sad the yutes only care when it effects their “stuff.” Owebama is destroying their future in a free, powerful and prosperous America and not a peep. Oh look, squirrel.
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
> That's not at all accurate.
You're correct -- in a technical sense.
But I wasn't talking about the technical aspect of text-based HTML being low-bandwidth -- I was talking about the fact that the high-rolling liberal media interests who can, and will, take advantage of a "pay-to-play" system represent a political threat to sites like FreeRepublic.
A lot of FR's readership is like me -- not in the big cities, but out in the more rural areas which don't have multiple ISPs competing for my internet-service dollars. I only have ONE practical choice, and if they decide to start limiting bandwidth to some sites to give more to the liberal media higher-payers, well, that'll be a damn shame for the conservative political sites, won't it?
(Jim: also pls see my comment above, #28)
Most of the cabinet departments including the FCC are unconstitutional, oppressive, a waste of money and should be nuked.
Most of the cabinet departments including the FCC are unconstitutional, oppressive, a waste of money and should be nuked.
Shout it from the rooftops.
I’ve done that... Luckily, my neighbors don’t seem to mind the noise.
I thought one of the basic premises of internet service was that each site or consumer paid for the bandwidth from their ISP and last-mile, not the bandwidth of the remote places their content was coming from, or going to.
The fundamental flaw in this proposal is that it allows moneyed liberal media interests to not only get great bandwidth at their own end, but also at their consumers' end, which unbalances an underlying condition in the original intent of the internet.
That's the crux of what the American People have to decide. Freedom from government or dependence on government and oppression. The Constitution is against government and on the side of freedom. Will people embrace the Constitution or let the Progressive Socialist tyrants have their way?
TOR is also a protocol. I’m sure they would throttle that as well.
No, what it will do is fund upgrades for more advanced services wile leaving the current content unaffected.
The overall picture is much better off without the FCC. It's not perfect, but it's way ahead of government interference. And with government out of the way, sooner or later, you'll probably have more of the choices you want.
Well, we'll see how FReepers put up with that kind of delay in page rendering.
My recollection is that whenever FR has experienced more than a second of delay, people start griping, and when it's more than a few seconds, they start posting threads about "Is Everyone Else Getting Slow Response from FreeRepublic?".
I've been on the internet since the late 1980's, when a 2400-baud modem was standard access and email was done with UUCP bang-paths. And today, I'm in a rural area of upstate NY, where the best access I can get is 3Mbps down, 0.3Mbps up, from one provider, take it or leave it. And I'm glad to have that.
I'm not happy about the prospect that I'll be further limited because some liberal media group is going to pay to take even that away from me.
But I still contend they are unfounded.
The backbone portion of your ISP (Ma Bell in your case) is not where the congestion exists.
It exists in the Tier1 Backbone providers, the peering relationships with each other AND the local loop in some cases.
There is no downside to you local phone company adding additional resources (paid by the content provider) for enhanced services.
And your local loop will be constant...whatever you choose is what will be on it.
As a Marine Airwinger (1988-1994), I second that notion... ;-)
In other words, the consequences of non-neutrality are interesting, to say the least. FR and other sites that are very high value, low bandwidth, shouldn't worry, I think.
Good point... but I don&t think the idiots in admin even understand (or know of) TOR.. I think, last time I checked, 60+% of networking was on TOR (undernet)..
I’m curious why this can’t be addressed by the free market.
ISPs who give equal treatment to all sites can advertise it, and those consumers who want this can switch to them. Customers who don’t care or who like the idea of a fast lane for some sites can use ISPs with those policies.
To make this work, there might need to be a law that ISPs post their policies in this regard.
It’s also interesting that the present system is the result of the government prohibiting content providers and ISPs from contracting freely with each other.
IOW, the proposed change would reduce government interference, not increase it.
Odd that so many conservatives want to continue this government regulation of a very important industry.
Because the ISP market is an oligopoly (and, in many/most areas, a local monopoly), not a free market.
I’m not sure that’s as true as it used to be.
I have at least a dozen options where I am, but that certainly may not be true everywhere.
If the free market could work, possibly those ISPs that accepted payments from content providers for preferential treatment could provide their services at a lower price, relative to ISPs that obtained revenue only from subscribers.
Consumers could decide which model they preferred.