FCC's latest 'Net Neutrality' proposal will reportedly allow pay-for-priority Internet traffic

[Jos]

After the FCC’s  Open Internet Order, which prohibited ISPs from blocking online content and required ISPs to be more transparent about their policies, got struck down by the DC Circuit Court in January 2014, chairman Tom Wheeler is reportedly ready to propose new Net Neutrality rules next month. Unfortunately, with the court’s decision limiting his options last time around, it appears he’s ready to concede ISPs the option of setting aside a ‘fast lane’ for bandwidth intensive content companies under certain circumstances.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Wheeler's new plan would still prohibit ISPs from blocking or discriminating against specific websites, but deep-pocketed companies like Netflix or YouTube could pay extra to ensure their content is delivered fast. The proposal would require network owners to provide a baseline level of service but it’s not clear what that will be.

The FCC will require ISPs to act in a "commercially reasonable manner" when making priority access deals with content companies. Should any of these deals be challenged by a third-party, the commission would look at its impact on competition, on consumers, on free speech and civic engagement.

There’s a lot seemingly left in ambiguity and open to interpretation. Needless to say, it didn’t take long for the online backlash to pour in, calling the move everything from a turnaround in policy to a betrayal and an invitation for internet service providers to pick winners and losers online.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler responded saying his critics are “flat-out wrong” and that the new rules would protect consumers in a way that could withstand legal scrutiny after its two previous attempts were tossed out in court.

Proponents of Net Neutrality were pushing to reclassify broadband as a telecom service, which must be provided equally for all.

Image via T.J. Kirkpatrick/Getty Images

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/56519-fccs-latest-net-neutrality-proposal-will-reportedly-allow-pay-for-priority-internet-traffic.html

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

I know I'm going to be in the extreme minority of this opinion... but I don't think this is all that bad an idea. Allowing companies to pay for extra fast service will make things like UHD possible, and as the WSJ article points out "The proposal would open the door to new products from companies such as Apple which has explored the idea of offering a video service that would rely on a dedicated portion of the broadband pipe. "

The arguments against it are from the ACLU who says "Barriers to innovation will rise, the marketplace of ideas on the Internet will be constrained, and consumers will ultimately pay the price." But barriers to who? New startups? Any new startup with a good idea gets swallowed up by one of the bigger internet players already, and no startup would have access to the media content that would require a fast connection.

The benefits seem concrete, the downsides are pretty hazy.

 

[Dukenukemx]

I know I'm going to be in the extreme minority of this opinion... but I don't think this is all that bad an idea. Allowing companies to pay for extra fast service will make things like UHD possible, and as the WSJ article points out "The proposal would open the door to new products from companies such as Apple which has explored the idea of offering a video service that would rely on a dedicated portion of the broadband pipe. "

The arguments against it are from the ACLU who says "Barriers to innovation will rise, the marketplace of ideas on the Internet will be constrained, and consumers will ultimately pay the price." But barriers to who? New startups? Any new startup with a good idea gets swallowed up by one of the bigger internet players already, and no startup would have access to the media content that would require a fast connection.

The benefits seem concrete, the downsides are pretty hazy.

The problem is how do you define too much bandwidth that a service would need their own paid for dedicated pipe? YouTube and Netflix are obvious, but at what point do we start paying for even 56k speeds?

Making the internet faster should be a natural evolution of the infrastructure, not something you'd only do when payed for. I'd be happier if I could choose ISPs and let them fight over for my money. Rather then having them fight over Netflix or YouTube for their money.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

The problem is how do you define too much bandwidth that a service would need their own paid for dedicated pipe? YouTube and Netflix are obvious, but at what point do we start paying for even 56k speeds?

Making the internet faster should be a natural evolution of the infrastructure, not something you'd only do when payed for. I'd be happier if I could choose ISPs and let them fight over for my money. Rather then having them fight over Netflix or YouTube for their money.

I think making it faster is a natural evolution (look at Google Fiber), but it's a slow one. The US is huge, we're not going to be able to build new wires fast enough to keep up with demand. And then there's the problem the phone companies had years back. They built tons of infrastructure and then people started using cell phones.

The more I read about this issue, the more complicated it becomes. There are lots of technical details that are very important but hard to understand. They always talk about the 'last mile' meaning the end of the line near your home. They talk about the middle men in the equation. Even the first line of the WSJ story was "Regulators are proposing new rules on Internet traffic that would allow broadband providers to charge companies a premium for access to their fastest lanes." That implies that there are slow lanes and fast lanes, not just one for everyone to share. The news mentions these things, but doesn't get into detail. I have a feeling you'd need a degree in telecommunications and in law to really understand this issue.

 

[Guest]

I live in an East-European country: the economy and the government is as corrupt as it can get, average payment is below the frog's *ss, yet we have better ISP offers for less than the worldcrasher -leader economy of US. We never had to pay extra for anything. We only paid for the bandwidth, and they provide said bandwidth, no complains or whining.
Best part is, even if they couldn't do so, they do not have the same ways and means to bend the state's law at their benefit, they just die out the way it is meant to be.

 

[Guest]

"Making the internet faster should be a natural evolution of the infrastructure, not something you'd only do when payed for. I'd be happier if I could choose ISPs and let them fight over for my money. Rather then having them fight over Netflix or YouTube for their money."

Damn right!
Excellent logic to me

 

[wastedkill]

Net neutrality is officially corrupt...Paying for priority is good but paying to get the cap taken off is beyond a joke its a scheme to force more money out of everyone....

 

[Holotus]

The entire government has been infiltrated by corporations to do their bidding. The FCC is filled with former lobbyists who worked for the Internet Service Providers. Tom Wheeler LOBBIED for Comcast before he came into office. This is so ****ed up that I cringe at how corrupt the system is. They want to control the internet to gain power & money over you.

 

[tipstir]

Netflix and Comcast blockage deal to unblock throttle down speeds will cost me $1 to $2 more a month before the summer. But if they start raising the price be more like it was with Comcast and HBO cost $16 a month. No way will I pay that for Netflix. I have OTA and ThisTV 24/7 movies for free.

There should be no hold on the internet speeds let us have the fastest but don't charge over $100 a month for it. Netflix got to much money now from me an others they should be dropping prices but all no lets see how much more we can get from our customers so they can pay for the extra charges we have to pay out to Comcast to stop the throttling.