FCC Proposal Might Not Block Internet 'Fast Lanes'

Status
Not open for further replies.

atavax

Distinguished
Jan 6, 2012
18
0
18,560
0
where are they looking at comments for it?

there needs to be common carriers now. Any policies are meaningless without it. There has been stagnation in the US with internet. The only progress is in how ISPs can take more money from the consumer.

no fast lanes. How can we progress if speed limits are based on what is commonly used today? For example, how are we going to transition from streaming 1080p to 4k resolutions if commercially 1080p would be the norm; and anyone that tries to stream 4k will be punished.
 

Osmin

Distinguished
Jan 19, 2012
49
0
18,580
0
It is so easy nowadays to buy a Republican and a little harder to buy a Democrat to out-right reject the proposals. If you don't pay enough, Democrats will just reword the legislation so it has no bite or effect. They will just promise that everything will be alright.
 

ubercake

Distinguished
Moderator
Oct 28, 2009
308
0
18,960
21
If the big ISPs are determined to charge more for premium content, by golly they'll be sure to pay the right politicians to get their way. If they don't succeed initially, it's only a matter of time. It's called corporate-funded "democracy".
 

Osmin

Distinguished
Jan 19, 2012
49
0
18,580
0
Tom Wheeler is Chairman of the FCC, a position that is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry, with positions including President of the National Cable Television Association (NCTA) and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA) (Quote from Wikipedia). How much did the Cable and Cellular companies give to the Democratic Party for such a powerful position to rule upon itself? At least the Supreme Court made it easier for individual wealthy people to buy elections that also appoint regulatory positions. Now individuals can donate unlimited money for campaign contributions because it was unfair that a non-living entity (Businesses) could donate unlimited money. This is the new America we live in, where the majority have no voice to control the corruption in politics. Who's keeping Big Oil Companies, Pharmaceutical Companies, Telecommunication Companies, and Wall Street (To name a few) from price manipulations?
 

velocityg4

Distinguished
Nov 21, 2006
499
0
19,260
98
It is so easy nowadays to buy a Republican and a little harder to buy a Democrat to out-right reject the proposals. If you don't pay enough, Democrats will just reword the legislation so it has no bite or effect. They will just promise that everything will be alright.
I guess you didn't read the whole article. The three Democrats voted YES on this the two Republicans voted NO. So the Democrates are all for these fast lanes. Whether the Republicans are for net neutrality or different fast lane wording that is essentially the same is unknown.

How were Republicans bought?
 

wildkitten

Distinguished
May 29, 2008
200
0
18,830
0
I'm not understanding what is the problem with fast lanes. If ISP's are barred from blocking or slowing content, than what is wrong with some content being faster? Sounds like to me those who oppose fast lanes want all things equally slow.

It was like the debate recently about how some content providers are considering paying the cell carriers to pay for data themselves so they don't go against data caps. That could only benefit the consumer yet some people railed against that.
 

skit75

Distinguished
Oct 7, 2008
243
0
18,860
20
@wildkitten

Because it creates an unfair market for start-ups who depend on the internet for a portion of their product. One example, Netflix. Nobody knows the details of the deal but essentially they have purchased premium/guaranteed access to the fastest networks for their subscribers. A start-up won't have the capitol to play in this arena. The ISPs don't have to slow down other non-premium traffic. Neglect of those "lanes" will do it for them.
There is a business class internet being created that will appear drastically different in ten years from what we know as the internet, today. So much of this "framework" is open to interpretation for corporate legal teams to dissect. It is not a mistake, it is by design. We need a surrogate for the little guy in this debate. I have sickening feeling the letter/phone brigade hitting congressman/woman and senators will not be enough. Money talks and the ISPs have tons of it.
How can we honestly debate the proposal for 120 days when it doesn't exist? There is only a framework/guidelines. At least Wheeler will have job waiting for him at the end of this as that door revolves around and around. The last FCC chairman was just as much a tool as this guy and yes, I know who appointed him.
 

wildkitten

Distinguished
May 29, 2008
200
0
18,830
0
@wildkitten

Because it creates an unfair market for start-ups who depend on the internet for a portion of their product. One example, Netflix. Nobody knows the details of the deal but essentially they have purchased premium/guaranteed access to the fastest networks for their subscribers. A start-up won't have the capitol to play in this arena. The ISPs don't have to slow down other non-premium traffic. Neglect of those "lanes" will do it for them.
There is a business class internet being created that will appear drastically different in ten years from what we know as the internet, today. So much of this "framework" is open to interpretation for corporate legal teams to dissect. It is not a mistake, it is by design. We need a surrogate for the little guy in this debate. I have sickening feeling the letter/phone brigade hitting congressman/woman and senators will not be enough. Money talks and the ISPs have tons of it.
How can we honestly debate the proposal for 120 days when it doesn't exist? There is only a framework/guidelines. At least Wheeler will have job waiting for him at the end of this as that door revolves around and around. The last FCC chairman was just as much a tool as this guy and yes, I know who appointed him.
I hear this said all the time but it is one of the poorest analogies out there. The only content providers who would even want to deliver content faster are those like Netflix or ESPN or something similar. If a startup wanted to compete with Netflix, they would need so many billions of dollars to get the content to be able to compete that the purchase of a fast lane would be a drop in the bucket.

So please stop acting like not being able to pay for a fast lane is what is going to hold a company back, because it isn't.
 

wildkitten

Distinguished
May 29, 2008
200
0
18,830
0
ISPs should simply forward packets to their destination. No preferential treatment, no reading packet data.
So are you saying that all data should go at the slowest possible since you don't want preferential treatment? Why is it everything must meet the lowest common denominator?
 

Kadathan

Honorable
Mar 25, 2013
7
0
10,510
0
ISPs should simply forward packets to their destination. No preferential treatment, no reading packet data.
So are you saying that all data should go at the slowest possible since you don't want preferential treatment? Why is it everything must meet the lowest common denominator?
You're not even close. He's saying there shouldn't be a "Pay to go faster" option - that bandwidth and that technology should already be readily accessable to everyone, advances in technology of this kind should benefeit everyone. What did I read about that city that made it's own last mile network, didn't telecom successfully lobby to make that illegal afterwards?

It's getting completely out of hand and the end is nowhere in sight. They are showing that they have a stranglehold on the creation of rules around this new and critical technology, and they are the providers of it to us consumers. You should be VERY concerned about this.

I don't give a shit if they look at my packets, but I'm already pretty pissed about how they refuse to upgrade their consumer interfacing equipment because there is no direct competition. And they've made it illegal for anyone to come in and compete. Every time I read about this stuff it makes me disgusted with myself for needing the internet so badly in my life.
 

house70

Distinguished
Apr 21, 2010
1,465
0
19,310
39
You're not even close. He's saying there shouldn't be a "Pay to go faster" option - that bandwidth and that technology should already be readily accessable to everyone, advances in technology of this kind should benefeit everyone. What did I read about that city that made it's own last mile network, didn't telecom successfully lobby to make that illegal afterwards?

It's getting completely out of hand and the end is nowhere in sight. They are showing that they have a stranglehold on the creation of rules around this new and critical technology, and they are the providers of it to us consumers. You should be VERY concerned about this.
This +1000. ISPs should not have such great leverage in creating these rules, simply because they can not look at this in an impartial manner. They have direct financial interest (good for them), therefore they can not be on the consumers' side at the same time.
Unfortunately, history has shown that once the boulder starts rolling on the wrong side of the hill, there is little to none chance to reverse it. This Wheeler guy (former lobbyist for -gasp- ISPs) either has no idea of what he's started, or he knows exactly what he's doing but doesn't care. Either way, we're bound to lose. The fact that ISPs have created these monopolies/oligopolies in all the US markets is not helping either.

 

wildkitten

Distinguished
May 29, 2008
200
0
18,830
0
ISPs should simply forward packets to their destination. No preferential treatment, no reading packet data.
So are you saying that all data should go at the slowest possible since you don't want preferential treatment? Why is it everything must meet the lowest common denominator?
You're not even close. He's saying there shouldn't be a "Pay to go faster" option - that bandwidth and that technology should already be readily accessable to everyone, advances in technology of this kind should benefeit everyone. What did I read about that city that made it's own last mile network, didn't telecom successfully lobby to make that illegal afterwards?

It's getting completely out of hand and the end is nowhere in sight. They are showing that they have a stranglehold on the creation of rules around this new and critical technology, and they are the providers of it to us consumers. You should be VERY concerned about this.

I don't give a shit if they look at my packets, but I'm already pretty pissed about how they refuse to upgrade their consumer interfacing equipment because there is no direct competition. And they've made it illegal for anyone to come in and compete. Every time I read about this stuff it makes me disgusted with myself for needing the internet so badly in my life.
What you are saying is in fact that things should go as slow as possible when you say a content provider should not pay to go faster.

Explain how it hurts anyone if Netflix or ESPN want's to pay more for content someone wants from them to be sent faster? I mean, if a person is on a 10Mbps connection and ESPN wants to pay for the customer to get content at 50Mbps than no customer, or content provider, has been held back. But what you and he is saying is that the customer shouldn't receive anything beyond the 10Mbps, in other words, the slowest common denominator.
 

wildkitten

Distinguished
May 29, 2008
200
0
18,830
0
You're not even close. He's saying there shouldn't be a "Pay to go faster" option - that bandwidth and that technology should already be readily accessable to everyone, advances in technology of this kind should benefeit everyone. What did I read about that city that made it's own last mile network, didn't telecom successfully lobby to make that illegal afterwards?

It's getting completely out of hand and the end is nowhere in sight. They are showing that they have a stranglehold on the creation of rules around this new and critical technology, and they are the providers of it to us consumers. You should be VERY concerned about this.
This +1000. ISPs should not have such great leverage in creating these rules, simply because they can not look at this in an impartial manner. They have direct financial interest (good for them), therefore they can not be on the consumers' side at the same time.
Unfortunately, history has shown that once the boulder starts rolling on the wrong side of the hill, there is little to none chance to reverse it. This Wheeler guy (former lobbyist for -gasp- ISPs) either has no idea of what he's started, or he knows exactly what he's doing but doesn't care. Either way, we're bound to lose. The fact that ISPs have created these monopolies/oligopolies in all the US markets is not helping either.
Why do you all want everything to be as slow as possible?
 

wildkitten

Distinguished
May 29, 2008
200
0
18,830
0
ISPs should simply forward packets to their destination. No preferential treatment, no reading packet data.
So are you saying that all data should go at the slowest possible since you don't want preferential treatment? Why is it everything must meet the lowest common denominator?
You're not even close. He's saying there shouldn't be a "Pay to go faster" option - that bandwidth and that technology should already be readily accessable to everyone, advances in technology of this kind should benefeit everyone. What did I read about that city that made it's own last mile network, didn't telecom successfully lobby to make that illegal afterwards?

It's getting completely out of hand and the end is nowhere in sight. They are showing that they have a stranglehold on the creation of rules around this new and critical technology, and they are the providers of it to us consumers. You should be VERY concerned about this.

I don't give a shit if they look at my packets, but I'm already pretty pissed about how they refuse to upgrade their consumer interfacing equipment because there is no direct competition. And they've made it illegal for anyone to come in and compete. Every time I read about this stuff it makes me disgusted with myself for needing the internet so badly in my life.
And no, the ISP's didn't make it illegal to compete because private citizens can't pass laws. Local governments set up the local monopolies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
R Streaming Video & TVs 0
gtr22 Streaming Video & TVs 5
R Streaming Video & TVs 1
J Streaming Video & TVs 1
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
G Streaming Video & TVs 12
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 32
G Streaming Video & TVs 10
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 30
G Streaming Video & TVs 21
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 80
Marcus Yam Streaming Video & TVs 72
Marcus Yam Streaming Video & TVs 41
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 50
G Streaming Video & TVs 2
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 4
G Streaming Video & TVs 3
G Streaming Video & TVs 1
G Streaming Video & TVs 34
G Streaming Video & TVs 1

ASK THE COMMUNITY