The investment in Obama by tech luminaries must be a huge disappointment.
FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet
51–60 of 343 posts
Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet
#52"And he promised a series of measures to ensure the new paid prioritization practices are done fairly and don't harm consumers." I have a measure in mind that won't harm consumers. Don't allow ISPs to discriminate against users regarding their already paid for internet traffic based on what they request. (Gee that sounds a lot like net neutrality.) Anything less is open for abuse. Perhaps "Discrimination" is a good w…
Why is the default QoS of residential broadband suddenly deemed sacred?
FWIW: I'd prefer guaranteed super-fast DNS and guaranteed low latency, but I don't care too much whether content from Disney happens to download 10x faster than content from Youtube.
Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet
#53Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet
#54I don't get this whole net neautrality discussion that is going on in US (and maybe somewhere else, just haven't paid attention). Consumers pay based on speed of their connection. If ISP feels like the consumers are not paying enough, raise the prices. Service providers (not ISPs, but the ones who run servers that consumers connect to) pay based on speed of their connection. If the ISP feels like service providers ar…
Comcast: Video streaming services must pay 40x the base cost, or suffer from a data cap.
Amazon: OK, we'll sign a 4 year contract for 30x the base cost.
Comcast: Great
Year 5 comes around, Amazon wants a discount. Comcast refuses. Comcast then blocks all Amazon IP Address traffic until they reach a deal.
Comcast: Customers, you cannot access Amazon video on our service, but here's a $5 coupon to our own video on demand service
Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet
#55I don't get this whole net neautrality discussion that is going on in US (and maybe somewhere else, just haven't paid attention). Consumers pay based on speed of their connection. If ISP feels like the consumers are not paying enough, raise the prices. Service providers (not ISPs, but the ones who run servers that consumers connect to) pay based on speed of their connection. If the ISP feels like service providers ar…
You need to think like an evil cable monopoly. It's a great thing because then they can charge consumers for their broadband service and charge content companies as well. A whole new source of revenue. And they can keep on jacking up the prices whenever they want, because they've got the customers of the content company hostage and can ransom them for nearly any level that would still let the content company turn a small profit.
Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet
#56"And he promised a series of measures to ensure the new paid prioritization practices are done fairly and don't harm consumers." I have a measure in mind that won't harm consumers. Don't allow ISPs to discriminate against users regarding their already paid for internet traffic based on what they request. (Gee that sounds a lot like net neutrality.) Anything less is open for abuse. Perhaps "Discrimination" is a good w…
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…
Then ISPs should stop claiming speeds they can't deliver.
Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see a problem. You can switch ISP if your current one isn't net-neutral. Why should you force businesses to operate in certain way? They're not breaking any laws.
Clearly you aren't living in the United States. My choices are Comcast, Comcast, and Comcast. I'm really starting to think mesh networks are going to be the only solution.
You forgot about Comcast. :)
Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet
#58"And he promised a series of measures to ensure the new paid prioritization practices are done fairly and don't harm consumers." I have a measure in mind that won't harm consumers. Don't allow ISPs to discriminate against users regarding their already paid for internet traffic based on what they request. (Gee that sounds a lot like net neutrality.) Anything less is open for abuse. Perhaps "Discrimination" is a good w…
> I have a measure in mind that won't harm consumers. Don't allow ISPs to discriminate against users regarding their already paid for internet traffic based on what they request. (Gee that sounds a lot like net neutrality.)
So you'd ban the large number of existing in-ISP CDNs and CDN/ISP partnerships, as well? (e.g. YouTube or Akamai mirroring content to servers directly on an ISP's network, to improve bandwidth and latency for that ISP's customers?)
Or, for that matter, you'd stop an ISP from offering a Debian mirror?
Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. And certain companies are pushing hard to make them succeed these days. Mozilla is one of them.
I don't understand this comment. Can you explain?
I think it's a reference to the DRM thing from yesterday. Honestly it was more of Mozilla capitulating to the DRM gods, it's not like they're out there pounding the pavement for DRM.
Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet
#60I'm confused by this headline (and a bit by the proceeding). After watching the FCC hearing, it seemed like all of the people who were "for" open internet, and spoke of it from the consumer level (including Wheeler) voted for the proposal. The commissioners that said the FCC didn't have jurisdiction to regulate and to leave the market alone, voted against the proposal. Isn't it the case that if they had voted against…
> I'm confused by this headline (and a bit by the proceeding).
That's because the headline is an outright lie.
> After watching the FCC hearing, it seemed like all of the people who were "for" open internet, and spoke of it from the consumer level (including Wheeler) voted for the proposal.
Exactly. After the old Open Internet order was recently struck down as exceeding the FCCs authority, there are no rules limiting paid prioritization (or any of the other anti-neutrality practices the old Open Internet order addressed.) The current NPRM is both a concrete proposal and a call for public comment on alternative approaches to restore limits on anti-neutral activities by broadband providers. It is not a proposal to allow paid prioritization -- no proposal is necessary for that, as it is currently allowed without restriction. To the extent that it addresses paid prioritization, it is a proposal to restrict it.
> The commissioners that said the FCC didn't have jurisdiction to regulate and to leave the market alone, voted against the proposal.
Right.
> Isn't it the case that if they had voted against this, that we would have been in the exact same boat we are in now
No, if they voted against it, there wouldn't be an active rulemaking aimed at limiting the practice with a defined timeline, a proposal on the table, and a request for public comments on that proposal and specific alternatives. In either case, there are no actual rules in place, since this isn't actual rules, its a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking", a formal call for public comment centered around concrete proposals and specified alternatives.