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.

Thread beginning with comment 652033
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
You don't vote a law's title but its content
by jigzat on Fri 15th Dec 2017 04:01 UTC
jigzat
Member since:
2008-10-30

The previous legislation was not so good either. I don't want any government ruling the internet just like China. We need actual Net Neutrality but we also need infrastructure investment and the alternative was to increase everyone's internet bill and no one was going to be happy about it. By billing heavy users like Youtube money is going to come from advertising companies that advertise for those same big companies that people seem to hate so much.

Reply Score: -2

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

We need actual Net Neutrality but we also need infrastructure investment and the alternative was to increase everyone's internet bill and no one was going to be happy about it. By billing heavy users like Youtube money is going to come from advertising companies that advertise for those same big companies that people seem to hate so much.


Congratulations. Now you have a system where everyone's internet bill is going to increase, and "heavy users" (or users we don't like politically) also get billed heavily.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

By billing heavy users like Youtube money is going to come from advertising companies that advertise for those same big companies that people seem to hate so much.

YouTube already pay for the data they transmit. They pay transit providers to carry their data. They pay IXPs for ports. They pay to store their data in CDNs that cache it as local to the end user as possible.

Most large companies transit costs would make your eyes water.

It's interesting though that you label YouTube as a "heavy user". YouTube isn't the user: the user who pays the ISP for a service is the user. So there you have it; both ends are already paying for the data they use, where's the problem precisely? Why do certain ISPs want to double-dip? Simple: because they can, and because they've spent the last decade building some solid monopolies where they now control the last-mile, and they know they can get away with it.

Reply Parent Score: 8

jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

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.

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.

And also most web companies and DNS are located in the USA.

I agree with your take on monopolies, if I had to choose between competition and government intervention I would go with the former.

Edited 2017-12-16 04:06 UTC

Reply Parent Score: -1

etherealsoul Member since:
2009-07-01

Unfortunately, that is nonsense in my eyes. I have the same ISP for the past 5 years. bought initially the contract for 60Mb/s. I have now 250Mb/s. The best part now ... no increase of monthly payment, no changes to my contract. They updated the service on their own and made it available for their consumers.

The only thing they want me to do right now, and it is optional, is to change the modem to new one, increasing then the rent by 10PLN approximately $3.3. Like this, there are the other players in the market with the same approach.
So far, I have only seen segmentation of the data on mobile internet for phones, where you can get a package for dedicated traffic for Facebook.

Using your line of though, I should have had my rent increase so they could implement new infrastructure. It is not needed as long management knows what needs to be done and to serve the public. But here is where it comes in the difference of mindset in US versus EU.
It also helps in the EU that there is no monopolies, just oligopolies. And thanks to the LTE, cable has to fight competition from that are as well.

Reply Parent Score: 3

jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

Most if not all ISPs oversell bandwidth since usage is not continuous, it's one of the reasons why internet access has become so "cheap" this days, it is like a timeshare model, of course there has been investments on infrastructure hence ISP's feel confident to offer users more bandwidth but they still expect ocasional heavy usage.

Youtube and Netflix had a huge success and ended up eating up half of the available bandwidth before ISP's lay down additional infrastructure. Also most Web Hosting companies and DNS are located in the USA.

Reply Parent Score: -1