FCC approves plan to allow for paid priority on Internet

[green73]

The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted in favor of advancing a proposal that would dramatically reshape the way consumers experience the Internet, opening the possibility of Internet service providers charging Web sites for higher-quality delivery of their content to American consumers.

The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, could unleash a new economy on the Web where an Internet service provider such as Verizon would charge a Web site such as Netflix for the guarantee of flawless video streaming.

Smaller companies that can't afford to pay for faster delivery would likely face additional obstacles against bigger rivals. And consumers could see a trickle-down effect of higher prices as Web sites try to pass along new costs of doing business with Internet service providers.

The proposal is not a final rule, but the three-to-two vote on Thursday is a significant step forward on a controversial idea that has invited fierce opposition from consumer advocates, Silicon Valley heavyweights, and Democratic lawmakers.

cont.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...allow-for-paid-priority-on-internet//?print=1

No tag for 'net neutrality'?

 

[specsaregood]

good

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I missed an opportunity to discuss this with my Congressman.

After thinking about this issue, my thought on this is that it needs to be on the shoulders of the consumer. They need to charge based on usage (perhaps after some sort of baseline), and that would be the most "market-oriented" solution. Users who are not charged for their actual usage will not modify their behavior. Best not to hide costs from consumers. That is a recipe for disaster.

Right now, it's like an "all you can eat" buffet, and people (and the restaurants) are complaining about the people who eat the most. The real solution is to make it like any other restaurant, and charge the people for what they eat.

Schemes which put burdens upon websites and internet services will inevitably result in favoritism and censorship.

 

[brandon]

I haven't read the bill or really followed this latest push. Why do they need to approve a plan to allow paid priority? Was it not already allowed?


Anyway... legislation in general is probably bad so I'm probably against it. But CDNs, ISPs etc should certainly be able to route and throttle packets however they see fit.

 

[brandon]

They need to charge based on usage (perhaps after some sort of baseline), and that would be the most "market-oriented" solution.

That's the way most ISPs worked in the 90s and the market decided it sucked, so the limits were phased out and flat rates were brought in. It would make good business sense to have some kind of caps. It sucks when one dude in your neighborhood decides to download/seed torrents 24/7 so the rest of the multiplexed neighborhood gets sub par service.

I'm just hoping google fiber comes to my area sooner than later.

 

[Petar]

The only good regulation is a dead one.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I haven't read the bill or really followed this latest push. Why do they need to approve a plan to allow paid priority? Was it not already allowed?

Anyway... legislation in general is probably bad so I'm probably against it. But CDNs, ISPs etc should certainly be able to route and throttle packets however they see fit.

Since it is already a regulated industry, I believe the big guys (Comcast, ATT, etc.) went to the FCC for approval of a scheme which essentially allows them to charge Netflix for priority on internet bandwidth.

That's the way most ISPs worked in the 90s and the market decided it sucked, so the limits were phased out and flat rates were brought in. It would make good business sense to have some kind of caps.

Nothing is done that doesn't benefit the profit margin. Flat rate schemes are priced such that the average consumer will actually pay more than if it was pay for usage.

This will lead to de facto censorship. The big media companies are part of the media-government complex, and they know damn well what this will lead to. Eventually, anyone who wants to put up a website will have to pay a fee, and meet certain criteria. Say goodbye to anything other than major media and big business websites.

 

[PRB]

I haven't read the bill or really followed this latest push. Why do they need to approve a plan to allow paid priority? Was it not already allowed?


Anyway... legislation in general is probably bad so I'm probably against it. But CDNs, ISPs etc should certainly be able to route and throttle packets however they see fit.

because liberals and other ignorant people are under some impression that internet access is a right, like the constitution guarantees everybody gets it, or some stupid thing like that.

ISPs SHOULD be allowed to charge whatever they want, and censor whoever they want.

 

[eduardo89]

good

I agree. Companies should be free to chose how they deliver and charge for a service.

 

[PRB]

This will lead to de facto censorship.

Only because some people depend on the internet to communicate, which is neither a duty nor a right.

The big media companies are part of the media-government complex, and they know damn well what this will lead to. Eventually, anyone who wants to put up a website will have to pay a fee, and meet certain criteria. Say goodbye to anything other than major media and big business websites.

you mean like paying webhosting fee and domain registration? I think it'll probably backfire on the consumer level first.

Consider how slow speed mobile internet is already chilling people's use of it. While it's physically possible to do many things you normally need a computer for on your smartphone, the speed, small screen, lack of easy way to authenticate website identity, ...etc, make mobile internet on phones both limited and dangerous for consumers. So what do people do? they go back to using their computers when it comes to paying bills, buying stuff, doing important things.

If the internet in general took this route for profit, they can expect people will use it less, it may still hurt the consumer, but not without hurting their profits.

Similarly, just watch while Netflix price hikes lead to lower subscription renewal. You can only fool the same consumers for so long.

 

[dillo]

How is bandwith generated? Or more specifically what limits how much bandwith an ISP has to give out?

 

[eduardo89]

How is bandwith generated? Or more specifically what limits how much bandwith an ISP has to give out?

Bandwidth isn't created, it is purchased, generally from one of the backbone Internet providers like UUNET, Sprint, Qwest and Level3.

 

[PRB]

How is bandwith generated? Or more specifically what limits how much bandwith an ISP has to give out?

by running a bitband miner, you can download it to your computer and run it, you can then sell it on the bitwidth exchange.

 

[PRB]

Bandwidth isn't created, it is purchased, generally from one of the backbone Internet providers like UUNET, Sprint, Qwest and Level3.

I think you mean, it's first created, through infrastructure/hardware, it's then resold as consumer level bandwidth, much like how products are repackaged into smaller boxes.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I missed an opportunity to discuss this with my Congressman.

After thinking about this issue, my thought on this is that it needs to be on the shoulders of the consumer. They need to charge based on usage (perhaps after some sort of baseline), and that would be the most "market-oriented" solution. Users who are not charged for their actual usage will not modify their behavior. Best not to hide costs from consumers. That is a recipe for disaster.

Right now, it's like an "all you can eat" buffet, and people (and the restaurants) are complaining about the people who eat the most. The real solution is to make it like any other restaurant, and charge the people for what they eat.

Schemes which put burdens upon websites and internet services will inevitably result in favoritism and censorship.

People that pay for their usage would pay a disproportional amount because of all the other users that only use low bandwidth, kind of like health insurance.

 

[brandon]

How is bandwith generated? Or more specifically what limits how much bandwith an ISP has to give out?

The internet has become a very complex network in the last decade. To simplify it, imagine there are three entities.

1) Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) - these are massive super fast networks that host most of the content on the internet. They are replicated all over the place. For example their might be CDN in every region of the country that is hosting the same youtube videos.

2) Internet Server providers (ISPs) - these companies generally connect end user's (you) to the content delivery networks, to other user's on the same ISP, and to other ISPs. They maintain the physical infrastructure in general.

3) End users (you)

Simplified network: You <-> ISP <-> CDN

You pay your ISP for network rights. The ISP pays the CDN based on usage. The ISP also pays other ISPs for communication through them.

Your bandwidth is limited by the physical connection in your neighborhood and how many people are using it at the same time, and the ISPs connection to the CDNs. In this case ISPs are saying that if people are using them to stream massive amounts of video from netflix, than they should be able to charge netflix an extra fee based on that. Seems reasonable to me.

 

[eduardo89]

I think you mean, it's first created, through infrastructure/hardware, it's then resold as consumer level bandwidth, much like how products are repackaged into smaller boxes.

Yes, you're right. I was talking about it from the ISP's perspective. They do not create bandwidth and are limited to selling the capacity they can possibly buy from a backbone provider which in turn is limited by their infrastructure.

 

[brandon]

Yes, you're right. I was talking about it from the ISP's perspective. They do not create bandwidth and are limited to selling the capacity they can possibly buy from a backbone provider which in turn is limited by their infrastructure.

. ISPs build and maintain infrastructure. They are closely partnered with the IXPs and CDNs. If comcast needs more throughput somewhere they will build it. Some ISPs like Verizon actually are their own tier 1 network which means they can reach every other network on the internet without needing to peer on other networks.

 

[eduardo89]

. ISPs build and maintain infrastructure. They are closely partnered with the IXPs and CDNs. If comcast needs more throughput somewhere they will build it. Some ISPs like Verizon actually are their own tier 1 network which means they can reach every other network on the internet without needing to peer on other networks.

I just looked it up and there are 7 Tier 1 providers in the US: Level 3 Communications, TeliaSonera International Carrier, CenturyLink, Vodafone, Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T Corporation.

 

[brandon]

How is bandwith generated? Or more specifically what limits how much bandwith an ISP has to give out?

Actually forget everything I typed above. The old "tubes" analogy really is a pretty decent one. Think of it like water flowing through pipes. You can only fit so much water at a certain pressure. If you need more water you need more pipes. That's basically it.