So long, net neutrality? FCC to propose new pay-for-preferential treatment rules

PC World ^ | 4/25/14 | Grant Gross

[SoFloFreeper]

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission will take public comments before moving forward with a new set of net neutrality rules that sparked controversy when they were leaked in a news report earlier Wednesday.

The FCC will release a proposal soon to reinstate net neutrality rules that would allow broadband providers to negotiate with content providers for preferential treatment, an agency official confirmed Wednesday.

[Mariner]

"Cronyism....now the FCC will be able to control what "news" you get on the 'net....."

That's an unfounded assertion and not how the internet works.

All this allows is somebody like Netflix can pay extra for expedited transfer of their data over privately owned networks.

It will be the best action taken by the FCC in at least a decade.

It will spark new services and higher bandwidth.

[Mariner]

"Maybe someone who really understands this issue can explain how a pure Net Neutrality system would handle a Netflix decision to convert all their movies to 4K putting huge pressure on the ISPs to handle the increased bandwidth requirements for a single content provider."

First of all, quit falling for the leftist, govt control of the internet propaganda!

Today, a company like Netflix or Googl can overwhelm the backbone and access provider with THEIR traffic. Arbitrarily they can increase the bandwidth requirements to deliver their content.

Sure, the ISP/Backbone provider can charge them more based upon the amount of traffic they generate, but with the interconnected matrix of the internet, that has ripple effects all the way from the source to the end users.

ISP have very limited ability to recover the additional costs of network upgrade to accommodate this surge in demand.

What you end up with is Netflix and Google consuming the vast majority of available BW...and worse...diminishing the prospects of delivering their content effectively.

Want TRUE HD video over the internet? Only by allowing the content provider to pay extra for that complex and expensive upgrade will you see it delivered effectively and reliably.

Want innovation and new services? Same thing.

[InterceptPoint]

Want TRUE HD video over the internet? Only by allowing the content provider to pay extra for that complex and expensive upgrade will you see it delivered effectively and reliably.

Agreed. Exactly right.

So is that in accordance with "Net Neutrality". Or is it the opposite?

[Mariner]

"So is that in accordance with "Net Neutrality". Or is it the opposite?"

The original "net neutrality" prevented that. This new, proposed rule allows it.

In fact it would be good to eliminate ALL FCC involvement in the internet and allow both the content providers and the carriers to achieve their own market equilibrium based on market forces, not government interference picking winners and losers.

[SoFloFreeper]

hmm. had not thought of that. Good point.

Would it not also allow net providers to tell Free Republic they had to pay to be permitted on “their” ‘net, though, while allowing Democratic Underground free access?

Or Comcast, owned by NBC, disallowing Fox News on their “net”?

Just askin’.

[SoFloFreeper]

Please see my questions on post 25. If I am wrong about this, let me know.

Generally speaking, I agree with you that government regulation is to be avoided, which is why I oppose the FCC’s proposal....how am I missing the boat?

[Mariner]

Text-based sites on the internet are "incidental traffic" consuming less than 3% of all traffic.

Besides, what provider would want to force users to a competitor to get what they want?

Jim could probably answer this better, but I would be surprised if the FR servers consume even 100mbs of outbound traffic.

Netflix and Google generate steady flows of up to 10+gbs and peak much higher than that.

[InterceptPoint]

The original "net neutrality" prevented that. This new, proposed rule allows it.

Thanks. That's what I thought. Nice to get some confirmation.

[FreedomNotSafety]

As my business partner likes to remind me, “We get our money from just one place...our customers.” The customer pays. The question is about how to go about getting the money out of the customers hand.

The monopoly agreements influence that process. If my local government will not allow my ISP to charge me more for higher bandwidths then maybe the ISP can get Netflix to pay it. Of course Netflix in turn will charge me.

[Flame Retardant]

If my local government will not allow my ISP to charge me more for higher bandwidths

Say what? Every ISP charges more for higher bandwidth (e.g. $X/mo for a 5Mbps connection, $X+Y/mo for a 20Mbps connection, etc).

If (for example) Netflix starts serving up high-definition video, the people with slower connections will have lots of pauses and stutters because they didn't buy enough bandwidth, and thus will be motivated to upgrade their connections (and pay the ISP more money) or do without (and reduce the ISP's bandwidth needs). If customers already purchased connections with enough bandwidth to watch high-definition video and the ISP can't handle the load... well, it sucks to be them, just as it sucked to be Max Bialystock when the house of cards fell down on him.

[FreedomNotSafety]

Good point. I think I am confusing bandwidth with total usage. The ISP will sell you all the band width you want but they have practical if unstated limits on how much you can utilize that bandwidth to the max. It is particularly acute on the wireless providers but even the cable providers cannot give everyone maximum bandwidth all the time. Try getting a high bandwidth then utilize it to the max. On most cable ISPs a few people can get away with but if too many try it everything slows down.