FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet • Hacker News Board

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#141

Post by dublinben » Thu, May 15, 2014, 4:56 PM UTC

bitJericho wrote: post #116

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that a network that can stream 20Mbit continuously to every customer (so they always can get the "advertised" bandwidth) would be absurdly expensive, and rates would have to go up accordingly Then maybe they should advertise a different bandwidth?

No doubt. A local company in town recommends customers sign up with some absurd number like 5mpbs per every device connected on a local network. In reality the majority of customers can use the lowest possible plan (in this case 5mpbs) and have trouble free browsing and streaming. The reality is these ISPs make money by overselling services to customers and not having to deliver on it. And now they're tacking on fees…

You're not going to have a good time trying to run multiple concurrent Netflix streams on a 5Mbps connection. That's only enough for a single HD stream, assuming you even get all the bandwidth you're promised.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#142

Post by Lewisham » Thu, May 15, 2014, 4:57 PM UTC

After weeks of public outcry over the proposal, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said the agency would not allow for unfair, or "commercially unreasonable," business practices. He wouldn't accept, for instance, practices that leave a consumer with slower downloads of some Web sites than what the consumer paid for from their Internet service provider.

Because they've done such a bang-up job of that thus far..? It's no secret that at comparable advertised speed, Netflix on Comcast was far worse than Netflix on other ISPs.

I'm not sure if they're really so deluded to think their enforcement is super great, or if they're just delivering placating sound bites.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#143

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, May 15, 2014, 4:57 PM UTC

shmerl wrote: post #136

dragonwriter wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why the fuck are there party lines in the FCC? Or any other regulatory body for that matter? Because regulators aren't angels that descend from heaven, but people peforming a political function, appointed and confirmed by elected politicians. Or, more succinctly, because representative democracy .

I think the question was not why there are members of different parties in the FCC, but why do they differ in this vote based on partisan membership? I.e. why would one party find these rules good while the other not? It's as if one likes net neutrality, while the other doesn't.

> It's as if one likes net neutrality, while the other doesn't.

"As if"? For the whole length of the net neutrality policy debate, the support has concentrated in the Democratic Party and the opposition has centered in the Republican Party -- not just on the FCC, but in Congress and everywhere else. The reason the Democratic majority of the FCC keeps trying to find a way to advance Open Internet principles within the framework of existing law that at best addresses the issue indirectly is because neither mostly-Democratic supporters of express FCC authority (or mandate) for net neutrality nor mostly-Republican supporters of expressly prohibiting the FCC from regulating for net neutrality have sufficient support in Congress to pass legislation incorporating those goals and get it signed into law or override a Presidential veto.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#144

Post by mc_hammer » Thu, May 15, 2014, 4:59 PM UTC

anywhere that the internet can be routed via paid priority is the spot where the snooping can be installed.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#145

Post by masklinn » Thu, May 15, 2014, 5:00 PM UTC

rickyc091 wrote: post #122

politician wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- Why does the water supplied to my home come in clear and polluted varieties? - Why does the electricity supplied to my office come in normal power and brown power versions? Oh, wait.

Why do business services always cost more! Cable Internet for Residential / Cable Internet for Business...

> Why do business services always cost more!

Because SLA.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#146

Post by rjohnk » Thu, May 15, 2014, 5:01 PM UTC

I know all the basic ins and outs of bandwidth. But why is this so complicated? I pay x amount for access to the Internet at x speed. I use internet. I pay the access fee.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#147

Post by shmerl » Thu, May 15, 2014, 5:02 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #143

shmerl wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the question was not why there are members of different parties in the FCC, but why do they differ in this vote based on partisan membership? I.e. why would one party find these rules good while the other not? It's as if one likes net neutrality, while the other doesn't.

> It's as if one likes net neutrality, while the other doesn't. "As if"? For the whole length of the net neutrality policy debate, the support has concentrated in the Democratic Party and the opposition has centered in the Republican Party -- not just on the FCC, but in Congress and everywhere else. The reason the Democratic majority of the FCC keeps trying to find a way to advance Open Internet principles within the…

Let's rephrase it then. Net neutrality is a very reasonable idea (same way as antitrust regulations are). Why do Republicans oppose it? They like monopolistic abuses on the Internet?

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#148

Post by bcohen5055 » Thu, May 15, 2014, 5:03 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #127

worace wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adding to the confusion, the NYT has an article up right now which seems to report the opposite. To quote from the NYT article lede: "WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 on Thursday to invite public comment on a set of proposed rules aimed at guaranteeing an open Internet, prohibiting high-speed Internet service providers from blocking or discriminating against legal content flowing through t…

You are reading it correctly. And the NYT seems to be reporting it correctly. While the text is not published yet anywhere I can see, the FCC fact sheet states that the proposal (direct quotes with only formatting/presentation changes) [1]: - Proposes to retain the definitions and scope of the 2010 rules, which governed broadband Internet access service providers, but not services like enterprise services, Internet t…

Can someone please clarify this line: "- Tentatively concludes that priority service offered exclusively by a broadband provider to an affiliate should be considered illegal until proven otherwise."

the offered exclusively line is what gets me, if they offer a "fast lane" at a higher price to everyone it isn't an "exclusive" offer and therefore would be allowed?

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#149

Post by digikata » Thu, May 15, 2014, 5:04 PM UTC

natdempk wrote: post #62

twoodfin wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't allow ISPs to discriminate against users regarding their already paid for internet traffic based on what they request. It's (relatively) cheap for Netflix or their CDN partners to connect their content-serving systems to a few dozen "meet me" rooms where it's "easy" for Comcast to hook as many wires up as necessary to receive the requested data into their network at an acceptable rate. That's all Netflix or the…

Basically the answer to this is yes. If Comcast spends all of this money to upgrade their network and the cost to the end user goes up for the better service, then there are really no problems here. That's basically how a market should work. That plan would actually encourage them to upgrade their networks over time and install things like fiber to meet the new demands of customers, instead of providing poor service…

Exactly, customers in the market can then make cost/value choices for products that directly relate to how that individual ISP is managing costs.

With fast lane proposals, additional cost gets pushed back to successful websites. So for example, when Netflix pays a toll to Comcast, that additional cost is distributed among all the users of Netflix even if they're not doing business with Comcast. How does this work to support a market where consumer choice rewards efficient ISPs? It basically makes the market for network connections look more like the healthcare market where a fundamental problem in it's efficiency is how endpoint costs are highly disconnected from how efficient individual players in the market are operating.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#150

Post by JoshTriplett » Thu, May 15, 2014, 5:04 PM UTC

joelhaus wrote: post #138

JoshTriplett wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can anyone make a serious argument on behalf of the carriers? Given the court decisions, the only way to protect the American people and the economy is to reclassify ISP's under Title II. If you ignore the various arguments about ISPs trying to get paid twice for the same content, consider the possibility of an ISP and a major high-bandwidth content provider (YouTube, Netflix, Akamai, etc) trying to build a deal th…

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Care to explain your CDN/ISP hypothetical further? Wouldn't the content providers who are capable of paying have an advantage over those who aren't? I'm not clear on how money changes hands in your case, but undoubtedly this arrangement would favor the ISP. As far as peering goes, it's a bit more complicated... server locations are more mobile than consumer locations, so there is l…

> Thanks for the thoughtful response. Care to explain your CDN/ISP hypothetical further? Wouldn't the content providers who are capable of paying have an advantage over those who aren't?

Of course, just as Amazon has an advantage over smaller retailers, and Netflix has an advantage over new steaming services. Incumbents always have certain advantages, and business deals always favor those involved in them over those not involved in them. Money makes things easier. But "an advantage" isn't "an insurmountable advantage", and HN is full of startups coming up with innovative ways to circumvent incumbent advantages.

> I'm not clear on how money changes hands in your case, but undoubtedly this arrangement would favor the ISP.

Not necessarily. This doesn't need to be a win/lose zero-sum scenario; it's entirely possible, in the scenario I described, for all three of the customer, the ISP, and the content provider to come out ahead.

> As far as peering goes, it's a bit more complicated... server locations are more mobile than consumer locations, so there is less concern about an effective geographic monopoly for backbone providers.

That's certainly true. And in general, I think it's much more critical to find a solution to the ISP monopoly problem than to the network neutrality problem, because ISP monopolies lead to quite a few other issues as well.

> Without fully thinking through the economics of peering, my initial thought is that there should probably be a regulated amount that ISP's can charge to peer with backbone providers. Maybe cost plus a maintenance fee based on traffic volume.

I can understand where that idea would come from, but ick; there are so many things wrong with that idea.

Perhaps it would make sense to legally separate the "last-mile" provider from the large-scale bandwidth provider, with the former providing only connectivity to a local meet-me room. I don't particularly like that idea, but it seems far less awful than alternatives.