Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 23rd Apr 2014 22:23 UTC
Internet & Networking

The Federal Communication Commission's proposal for new net neutrality rules will allow internet service providers to charge companies for preferential treatment, effectively undermining the concept of net neutrality, according to The Wall Street Journal. The rules will allow providers to charge companies for preferential treatment so long as they offer that treatment to all interested parties on "commercially reasonable" terms, with the FCC deciding whether the terms are reasonable on a case-by-case basis. Providers will reportedly not be able to block individual websites, however.

While several parts of the world - Chile first, Netherlands second, EU followed only recently - move towards proper net neutrality, the US tries to kill it dead for its own citizens.

Thread beginning with comment 587425
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Priest
Member since:
2006-05-12

As I am reading more its starting to confirm my suspicion. The new rules being proposed seem to deal with the last mile and outlawing "blocking". "blocking" would be the practice of saying "if you want to get to Google that's $5 more a month".

I doubt ISP's were ever planning on trying that as a business model but that was the biggest fear of many net neutrality supports and the new law would prohibit it officially.

So it looks like the new law outlaws blocking but doesn't outlaw paid peering. I am still trying to find the reason I should be outraged.

Reply Parent Score: 2

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Yeah, as long as they're not blocking/throttling anything, I am pretty happy. Hell, I might actually PREFER to have one or two services 'turbo boosted'. In other words, if everything has the same preferential treatment and Youtube videos are always buffering in the evenings because everybody in my neighborhood is streaming Netflix at 1080p during that time, perhaps I might want an extra 2-3mbps just for that.

I don't think it is such a terrible thing, as long as the consumers are making these kinds of decisions.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

WorknMan,

Yeah, as long as they're not blocking/throttling anything, I am pretty happy. Hell, I might actually PREFER to have one or two services 'turbo boosted'. In other words, if everything has the same preferential treatment and Youtube videos are always buffering in the evenings because everybody in my neighborhood is streaming Netflix at 1080p during that time, perhaps I might want an extra 2-3mbps just for that.


There's actually a contradiction there. Ie "turbo boosting" some traffic implies throttling some other traffic. An ISP that does traffic shaping like this may have good intentions, however giving some services a bandwidth advantage at the expense of others is exactly what net neutrality sought to prevent.

My opinion is that the available bandwidth should be divided evenly across all active users in the same class, and it should be up to the users how to use their own share. So if I use my internet connection primarily to VPN to the office, my session won't be degraded in favor of people watching netflix (or whatever else).

Edit: And of course, any users not using their share at any given time leaves more bandwidth for those who are. There's no need to prioritize packets based on content/deep packet inspection, just give everyone equal share. This seems like the fairest approach to bandwidth distribution to me.

Edited 2014-04-24 02:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

silviucc Member since:
2009-12-05

You will end up being throttled anyway, not by the ISP doing packet inspection and whatnot but simply because your ISP will have no incentive to upgrade their infrastructure and increase bandwidth capacity.

Why would they? They can always extort money from companies offering services over the internet, which will end up coming from your pockets because... well, that's how it's going to be.

These dinosaurs have it good. They massively oversubscribe their current capacity and then they extort money for "fast lanes"...

... but hey, as long as they don't block shit and give you the illusion of choice, it's all good.

Reply Parent Score: 4