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 587464
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by mutantsushi
by Priest on Thu 24th Apr 2014 10:28 UTC in reply to "Comment by mutantsushi"
Priest
Member since:
2006-05-12

I think the "last mile" rule is about not restricting your access to something and saying "if you want faster speeds to hulu or to use VoIP at all like your neighbor we can offer it for $5/month"

Something like your connection speed or cap would be legal to change because it's agnostic of service/application type. That seems like a fair approach because why should they care what the actual data is? It's all just bits.

It doesn't govern how companies peer with each other because that is much harder to legislate and doing it wouldn't be fair (as I pointed out above). If I have a business instead of home should charging me for Internet access still be legal? Yes. If my business is Startup Inc. is it legal? Yes. If my business is Netflix is it legal? NO

How does the FCC draw that line in the sand for companies like Netflix that demand they shouldn't have to pay for peering/connectivity at all?

If its determined they should receive free connectivity rewind back to my small startup I'm being charged to connect to a provider, why is it fair to me? So my startup should be free too. Now what about my home office?

Why should businesses get free Internet if you have to pay as a residential subscriber?

At the end of the day you must draw a line in the sand somewhere and the only place it makes sense is to allow companies to legally negotiate and charge for connectivity/peering.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by mutantsushi
by Soulbender on Thu 24th Apr 2014 11:09 in reply to "RE: Comment by mutantsushi"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

like Netflix that demand they shouldn't have to pay for peering/connectivity at all?


Peering is different from connectivity. Netflix certainly pays a, probably very handsome, sum of money for their hosting and connectivity. I also don't think you understand how peering agreements work.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by mutantsushi
by Alfman on Thu 24th Apr 2014 12:16 in reply to "RE: Comment by mutantsushi"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Priest,

If its determined they should receive free connectivity rewind back to my small startup I'm being charged to connect to a provider, why is it fair to me? So my startup should be free too. Now what about my home office?



It's not really about free connectivity for anyone though (including netflix). Everyone already pays to get their bits onto the network (albeit some with very large scales of economy). I think it's misleading to suggest that any traffic today is getting a free ride. These extra deals involve the priority of traffic that's already paid for. It's an extra toll that will prioritized some traffic at the expense of other traffic.

Reply Parent Score: 3