Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 14th Dec 2017 19:46 UTC
Legal

Net neutrality is dead - at least for now. In a 3-2 vote today, the Federal Communications Commission approved a measure to remove the tough net neutrality rules it put in place just two years ago. Those rules prevented internet providers from blocking and throttling traffic and offering paid fast lanes. They also classified internet providers as Title II common carriers in order to give the measure strong legal backing.

Today's vote undoes all of that. It removes the Title II designation, preventing the FCC from putting tough net neutrality rules in place even if it wanted to. And, it turns out, the Republicans now in charge of the FCC really don’t want to. The new rules largely don’t prevent internet providers from doing anything. They can block, throttle, and prioritize content if they wish to. The only real rule is that they have to publicly state that they’re going to do it.

Nobody wanted the FCC to vote like this. Public support for net neutrality is massive. The only reason this is happening is pure, unbridled corruption at the very root of the American political system.

E-mail Print r 12   67 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 652094
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

jigzat,

I call YouTube user because they are the ones who pay dedicated channels in order to serve ads to consumers (youtube watchers) who don't pay directly to the company (unlike Netflix) and usually pay for a shared connection (hence cheaper), It's one of the reasons why ISP's wanted to profit with web browsing tracking, it is what keeps youtube afloat, it was only logical that ISP's would follow suit to pay for new infrastructure, and also to keep profits up.


I agree with you that google's real customers are the advertisers. However what difference does this make to the ISP carrying the traffic? I can't think of a good reason why it should matter to the ISP carrying 3rd party traffic.


Also remember that most ISP's oversell bandwidth because very few users used their bandwidth simultaneously, until Netflix and YouTube showed up in the scene.


Yes, I don't have a problem with overselling provided that ISPs make a good faith effort to correct the bottlenecks in order to achieve the advertised rates.


Incidentally under the obama administration in 2011 the FCC started investigating the discrepancies between advertised rates and actual rates (with telemetry data collected from real ISP customers).

Actual versus advertised rates for isps back in 2011:
https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/measuring-broadband-ame...

Our ISP was cablevision's optimum online service. The FCC's data shows that actual speed / advertised speed was 50%, this result was in fact the worst of the whole lot. I can personally corroborate the FCC's claims as we were routinely unable to get advertised rates. Alas, it was the only broadband company servicing our area.

The FCC's investigations actually made a difference, and the service improved dramatically after that. This is also reflected on the FCC data. Here's the latest 2016 report:

https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/measuring-broadband-ame...

We're actually getting 105% the advertised rate, and my tests confirm this holds at all hours of the day so it's safe to say they've over-provisioned the bandwidth. The FCC data shows that all of the delinquent cable companies made strong improvements since the FCC's initial reporting.

It shows that under good leadership the FCC does bring about positive changes to the industry. But now I worry that the bad blood occupying the FCC today will result in regressive changes.

Edited 2017-12-16 05:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

You are right but my point is that we need actual net neutrality, in the full meaning of the word, and not a law that is called like that but that it has some shady things between the lines, this goes beyond bandwidth and speed. I don't want the government or any multilateral international entity to have the power to regulate internet and it's content, because it is near impossible to fight against. Private entities can also become unscrupulous and bias but they are a lesser demon.

Bandwidth rate corroboration can be deceiving because it doesn't test every user simultaneously. It runs sparse tests and the ISP will allow the promised rates but in a rush hour it will be different and they will begin to slow down some users, that is why some countries have their own Google and YouTube cache servers, otherwise the international channels wouldn't have enough bandwidth to support traffic.

In the end I think the FCC repeal is a good thing because we can push for a better law, we need more competition and honesty from ISP's and also huge infrastructure investments. The discussion now is where should this money come from.

Reply Parent Score: 0

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

jigzat,

You are right but my point is that we need actual net neutrality, in the full meaning of the word, and not a law that is called like that but that it has some shady things between the lines, this goes beyond bandwidth and speed. I don't want the government or any multilateral international entity to have the power to regulate internet and it's content, because it is near impossible to fight against. Private entities can also become unscrupulous and bias but they are a lesser demon.


Except that the federal government hasn't done anything to interfere beyond neutrality regulation to ensure "bandwidth and speed".

Bandwidth rate corroboration can be deceiving because it doesn't test every user simultaneously. It runs sparse tests and the ISP will allow the promised rates but in a rush hour it will be different and they will begin to slow down some users, that is why some countries have their own Google and YouTube cache servers, otherwise the international channels wouldn't have enough bandwidth to support traffic.


Yes, the whole premise of overselling is not everyone maxes out their connections at the same time. I don't use my bandwidth 24/7, but the fact that I can hit 105% almost all the time means that they've done a good job of allocating enough bandwidth for peak periods. It's an accepted practice for consumer lines. Anyone who needs absolute bandwidth guaranty can often get a custom package for dedicated bandwidth, but it costs a small fortune (I inquired once and was quoted 2000/mo for a dedicated gigabit line).



In the end I think the FCC repeal is a good thing because we can push for a better law, we need more competition and honesty from ISP's and also huge infrastructure investments. The discussion now is where should this money come from.


Should we abolish the laws on murder so that we can come up with better ones? No, this makes no sense. This is not how laws get improved. It's just not a justification for removing pro-consumer laws.

Reply Parent Score: 3