Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

From FCC Head Wheeler, a Yellow Light For Internet Fast Lanes

timothy posted about 4 months ago | from the what-I-meant-was dept.

Government 149

An anonymous reader writes "FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has decided to back-pedal just a bit on his recent proposal to end the "Open Internet" regulation regime in favor of a system with more liberal rules that could include so-called internet fast lanes, by means of which major ISPs could favor or disfavor different kinds or providers of internet traffic. Says an article at USA Today, 'Wheeler's latest revision doesn't entirely ban Internet fast lanes, leaving room for some public-interest cases like a healthcare company sending electrocardiography results. But unlike his initial proposal last month, Wheeler is proposing to specifically ban certain types of fast-lanes, including prioritization given by ISPs to their subsidiaries that make and stream content, according to an FCC official who wasn't authorized talk about the revisions publicly before the vote. Wheeler is also open to applying some "common carrier" rules that regulate telephone companies, which would result in more stringent oversight of the ISPs in commercial transactions.'" Update: 05/13 16:37 GMT by T : Oops -- I missed this earlier, substantially similar story.

cancel ×

149 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

From Wikipedia: (5, Informative)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about 4 months ago | (#46990537)

From Wiki:

Thomas E. Wheeler is the current Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, appointed by President Obama and confirmed by the U.S. Senate in November, 2013. 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).

Re:From Wikipedia: (2)

CheshireDragon (1183095) | about 4 months ago | (#46991001)

A conflict of interest if I ever saw one.

Re:From Wikipedia: (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46991243)

I don't think you know what a conflict of interest is. A fucking conflict of interest isn't "I used to work for a telephone company, now I work for the FCC!" That's what's known as EXPERIENCE, you fucking imbecile. A conflict of interest is "I STILL work for a telephone company, AND I RUN THE FCC!" Now THAT is a fucking conflict of interest.

Morons like yourself should be dragged out into the street and executed via tack hammer.

Re:From Wikipedia: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46991259)

I don't think you know what a conflict of interest is. A fucking conflict of interest isn't "I used to work for a telephone company, now I work for the FCC!" That's what's known as EXPERIENCE, you fucking imbecile. A conflict of interest is "I STILL work for a telephone company, AND I RUN THE FCC!" Now THAT is a fucking conflict of interest.

Morons like yourself should be dragged out into the street and executed via tack hammer.

Don't hold back. Tell us how you *really* feel.

Re:From Wikipedia: (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46992257)

A conflict of interest is "I used to work for a telephone company, now I head for the FCC, and will work for the industry AGAIN when I no longer run the FCC"

Re:From Wikipedia: (1)

whistlingtony (691548) | about 4 months ago | (#46993161)

Is "I'm buddies with all the cable lobbyists, I'm in charge of setting regulations on the internet, and when I quit the FCC I'll get a fat job as a lobbyist again as long as I keep them happy" considered a conflict of interest?

It really seems like it to me. And you got so MAD ....

Further, it seems that the only experience being a cable lobbyist gives you is deregulating your industry.

Face it, you're wrong on this one. Wheeler has conflict of interest coming out of his ass. And I'm not afraid to say it as myself either, AC. :/

Re:From Wikipedia: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46991339)

On what basis was he hired?

Re:From Wikipedia: (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 4 months ago | (#46991351)

No, that was just to get him experience in the field so he can make the right decisions now that he is the head of the FCC. At least that sounds like what he said at his confirmation hearing.

Re:From Wikipedia: (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 4 months ago | (#46991581)

A conflict of interest if I ever saw one.

That's a suspected conflict of interest, not an outright one. He may still have a financial interest in a company or have a secret deal. If working in the industry meant you couldn't ever move into government to regulate the industry you'd never get anyone competent to work for the feds. Would you want the FDA to never hire anyone with a medical degree?

Re:From Wikipedia: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46991799)

... Stating my opinion, 100% covered by 1st Ammendment - Mr. Wheeler has NO legal recourse from these statements ...

No, it's a conflict of interest, because the money received during those positions came with strings attached for future postings.

When he leaves (or gets fired from) said position, he'll expect even more payola to flow his way because of how he performed for his puppet-masters.

Re:From Wikipedia: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46992095)

Sigh. For the billionth time: the 1st Amendment has NOTHING to do with a website forum (unless, of course, it is run by the US government).

Re:From Wikipedia: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46993207)

The FCC Board is too important to appoint politicians and lobbyists. That should be made up of those really qualified—senior FCC staffers who've been there 20 years and don't plan on going into the industry. And then make the terms more like the Fed, 14 years, so the board is subject to less Executive influence. Working in the industry does NOT make one competent for regulating it. However, I do realize this won't happen.

Reading over the board members' bios, I only see one member who might possibly not be an industry hack. I heard a different one speak the other day. He was totally ridiculous.

Re:From Wikipedia: (1)

javelinco (652113) | about 4 months ago | (#46991511)

...It is the cornerstone of President Obama's campaign theme about limiting the influence of special interests. During the campaign, Obama said many times that lobbyists would not run his White House, and the campaign delighted in tweaking rival John McCain for the former lobbyists who worked on McCain's campaign. Obama's ethics proposals specifically spelled out that former lobbyists would not be allowed to "work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years." On his first full day in office, Obama signed an executive order to that effect. But the order has a loophole — a "waiver" clause that allows former lobbyists to serve. That waiver clause has been used at least three times, and in some cases, the administration allows former lobbyists to serve without a waiver. After examining the administration's actions for the past two months, we have concluded that Obama has broken this promise. See Promise No. 240 for the full details.

http://www.politifact.com/trut... [politifact.com]

Re:From Wikipedia: (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 4 months ago | (#46991635)

In addition to this, he also promised to defend Net Neutrality once elected, only to do the exact opposite. Kind of like he has done on so many other issues.

I don't know what it is going to take from the Liberals to realize that Obama is GWB's third and fourth terms. It is as if the (D) behind his name creates a Reality Distortion Field beyond even what Jobs was able to generate.

Re:From Wikipedia: (2)

whistlingtony (691548) | about 4 months ago | (#46993249)

We're far more pissed about Obama than you are. Take your little reality distortion field back to FOX News.

Why are liberals pissed? Drone strikes on innocents. Drone strikes on Americans without trials. Didn't close Gitmo. Didn't push for universal healthcare. Didn't push for marriage equality. Keeps nominating conservatives to important posts. Defends warrantless wiretapping. Defends secret courts. Doesn't kick congresses ass. "enhanced interogation". Keeps trying to make deals with Republcans who so obviously are sabatoging everything they can get their hands on to make him look bad. I could go on. Generally, he lied his ass off to us.

If conservatives would look up from their hate, they'd see that Liberals hate Obama almost as much as they do. But, you know, for REAL reasons. :D He's done more to move the country right, just be being a centrist and being LABELED a lefty (which he's not). Now any actual Lefty can be pointed at and "OMG, she's to the LEFT of OBAMA!"

He's another corporatist shill. Bought and Paid for. We know it. If only y'all hadn't tried Palin... god.... McCain really wasn't THAT bad, and he actually opposed torture outright.

Re:From Wikipedia: (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 4 months ago | (#46993381)

Yet, every liberal I know would vote for him again. So, you're not that pissed.

Re:From Wikipedia: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46993297)

The difference I see is that there haven't been as many idiotic moves. I'm not convinced that having smarter wrong decisions is necessarily better.

Re:From Wikipedia: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46991663)

How is this informative? /. already mentioned this very topic with Wheeler when he was about to be appointed. Every decent news outlet reported Wheelers lobbying powers and no one saw a problem with it!

These are exactly the type of person/s that shouldn't be allowed in these positions, the only other alternative would be to force these types of positions to be voted on by the tax payer, but seeing how they keep fu***g up by voted for the same goons Im not really in favor of that.

Probably would make sense to hire people from the EFF, and other businesses that are being bullied out of the market. Professors, ect...

Re:From Wikipedia: (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | about 4 months ago | (#46991665)

Looks like someone trying to fill their pockets before they move on.

Anyone that states, "Trickle Down works", is a liar.

Tears of a clown (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 4 months ago | (#46990543)

I have no problem giving awesome speed to their own subsidiary content providers.

I have a problem with deliberately hindering particular providers when their contract with home users says they will provide certain rates of speed that the home user pays for. That is fraud.

Re:Tears of a clown (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 4 months ago | (#46990679)

No problem. Their ads will declare (small print)up to(/small print) (large print) OUTRAGEOUS 1000MBPS SPEEDS (/large print). Then, the contract will contain - on page 48 of the fine print that nobody reads - that the ISP can't be held liable for slow downs for any reason even if they purposefully slow down some sites in an effort to get money from those sites.

Would that be fine?

Re:Tears of a clown (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46991475)

Let's just say that you do read the agreement and disagree.

Please tell me the next step in the process for what needs to be done to:

A) File a complaint to get the legalese changed.
or
B) Work with another company in the area who will is more neutral.

Re:Tears of a clown (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46991833)

Nope - new FCC ruling - You CANNOT change the meaning of words in advertisement. You can only advertise minimum data-rates when advertising connection speeds. Whatever the absolute lowest transfer rate might be, that's what you have to advertise. Anything else will be cause to force the provider to pay another provider for that users internet connection for life at minimum 1GBs/Full Duplex connection.

If I ever make it to the head of the FCC, those would be my ground rules.

If more people were to sign up for "Sam Knows", they'd get better service than they pay for. My ISP bumped my 20MB/s to 24MB/s to keep my average above 20MB/s. Kind of funny.

Re:Tears of a clown (0)

Austrian Anarchy (3010653) | about 4 months ago | (#46990723)

I have no problem giving awesome speed to their own subsidiary content providers.

I have a problem with deliberately hindering particular providers when their contract with home users says they will provide certain rates of speed that the home user pays for. That is fraud.

If I am reading you right, you disagree with fraud and false advertising, but I repeat myself (and you). I disagree with them too.

The notion that there are not already "internet fast lanes" is puzzling (not directed at you), because there have been ever since the first rate plan gave the consumer a speed or volume choice.

Additionally, the network owner should be the final arbiter on what crosses their network, even if they make decisions we find stupid. Someone else will come along and compete with them. Typically the place where that competition is hindered is by the folks many here are begging to intervene. Governments with police power at all levels.

Good old Leo Laporte points out all the time that localities treat ISPs as utilities and give them monopolies on the last mile. He never advocates to eliminate the government enforced monopoly status, his "solution" is the same as when ITT and other telegraph companies was forced to take phone traffic across their lines, i.e., government mandated trespass across their networks. He never suggests banning the practice of government granted monopoly.

Re:Tears of a clown (0)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#46990811)

It's not puzzling. It's just that you don't understand what they are talking about.

You could literally replace your entire post with the sentence:
"I don't know what I'm talking about." and it would have the same meaning.

Re:Tears of a clown (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46990877)

It's not puzzling. It's just that you don't understand what they are talking about.

You could literally replace your entire post with the sentence: "I don't know what I'm talking about." and it would have the same meaning.

Looks like he knows exactly what he is talking about, but refuses to parrot your party line.

Re:Tears of a clown (2)

whistlingtony (691548) | about 4 months ago | (#46993311)

No. He doesn't know what he's talking about. :D He's parroting "government bad" and saying that the government is strangling the last mile. in SOME instances he's right. But his view is not balanced, nor is it nuanced enough to accurately reflect what people are saying about net neutrality and what should be done.

The FCC reclassifying the internet as title 2, putting common carrier rules back in place, would fix this issue. Everyone who knows what the !@#$ they're talking about agrees. Then there's you people....

The invisible hand of the free market is invisible for a reason. It doesn't exist. It's a myth. A simplistic model to explain armchair economics. Look to first world countries that HAVE competition in broadband. Basically, everyone but the U.S. Know what they all have in common beyond kick ass speeds at low prices? Regulation that forces the big companies to play nice with the little companies. They have government that isn't completely bought.

Re:Tears of a clown (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46991209)

It's not puzzling. It's just that you don't understand what they are talking about.

You could literally replace your entire post with the sentence:
"I don't know what I'm talking about." and it would have the same meaning.

Everybody does not heart Nazis as much as you. NTTIAWWT.

Re:Tears of a clown (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about 4 months ago | (#46990921)

The notion that there are not already "internet fast lanes" is puzzling (not directed at you), because there have been ever since the first rate plan gave the consumer a speed or volume choice.

You've got it backwards. They want to limit how fast you can consume NetFlix no matter what tier of service you have contracted with your ISP for. If I paid for 50Mb down and Netflix can support that much TO me then my ISP damned well better support 50Mb down for me* at all of their connection points to the internet. *however they handle scaling is up to them, but if they give me certain speeds to their own content, they should have to provide me the same speeds to everything.

Re:Tears of a clown (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46991301)

The notion that there are not already "internet fast lanes" is puzzling (not directed at you), because there have been ever since the first rate plan gave the consumer a speed or volume choice.

You've got it backwards. They want to limit how fast you can consume NetFlix no matter what tier of service you have contracted with your ISP for. If I paid for 50Mb down and Netflix can support that much TO me then my ISP damned well better support 50Mb down for me* at all of their connection points to the internet. *however they handle scaling is up to them, but if they give me certain speeds to their own content, they should have to provide me the same speeds to everything.

Doesn't sound backwards. Comcast ISP wants to limit the flow of certain traffic, a point on which You ISP New Kid on the Block might want to compete on and advertise to potential customers. "Hey, you know those Comcast clods? They are the reason you don't get Netflix faster than dialup! Come one over here for unthrottled naked data!"

Sticking point from the chap you are responding to is some people have no choice in who their ISP is, save for voting out the city council and opening up their neighborhood to competitors.

Re:Tears of a clown (2)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about 4 months ago | (#46991497)

Yes he has it backwards. He's claiming that different service tiers are akin to 'fast lanes'. They aren't. They are just how fast he's allowed to 'consume' any content he requests. Netflix's connection speed is irrelevant to his connection tier.

If I'm getting data significantly faster from my ISP's streaming service than from Netflix or Youtube, then something is configured to provide different service levels...and that's the problem.

Re:Tears of a clown (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 4 months ago | (#46992791)

If I'm getting data significantly faster from my ISP's streaming service than from Netflix or Youtube, then something is configured to provide different service levels...

No, that's not necessarily true. If the Netflix data has to pass through a choke point to another network provider and is slowed down because of all the other traffic also passing that point, and the ISP's streaming service is contained entirely on the ISP's net, then it isn't a configuration issue, it's an amount of bandwidth available issue.

And since many people confuse the On Demand kind of streaming service from Comcast with the purely internet based services, then you need to remember that On Demand doesn't use the Internet, it uses cable bandwidth.

Re:Tears of a clown (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about 4 months ago | (#46993241)

The case you describe would be plausible but relatively intermittent. You could of course say that well maybe it was just too much traffic at the choke point continually.

Except that people have actually [mattvukas.com] confirmed [mattvukas.com] ComCast was deliberately degrading Netflix. Hell, Level 3 squarely pointed the finger at Comcast [bgr.com] . Comcast has been just selectively letting it's peer connections languish to 'punish' certain peers. Level 3 specifically since it's part of Netflix's CDN...

Re:Tears of a clown (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46993075)

The notion that there are not already "internet fast lanes" is puzzling (not directed at you), because there have been ever since the first rate plan gave the consumer a speed or volume choice.

Doesn't sound backwards. Comcast ISP wants to limit the flow of certain traffic, a point on which You ISP New Kid on the Block might want to compete on and advertise to potential customers.

It's backwards because Comcast is selling their customers a set bandwidth, then intentionally not delivering that bandwidth based on criteria that are never disclosed to their customer. They offer tiers of service to their customers that they have no intention of delivering, unless some third party (netflix) also agrees to a payment plan.

And yes, this problem is made extra bad by the fact that no two cable companies ever compete for the same household.

Re:Tears of a clown (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | about 4 months ago | (#46991441)

Someone else will come along and compete with them.

How do folks like you manage to so completely ignore observational evidence? It is a natural talent or a learned skill?

He never advocates to eliminate the government enforced monopoly status

High speed telecommunications needs wires, cables, or waveguides. That means access to land. Access to land means permission of governments: it is governments that turn land into "property".

The telecom infrastructure is a public good like roads, rails, the water and sewer system, and the electric grid. Ideas of competition simply do not apply. If you don't find the sort of pants you want in the market, you can go start making your own and compete; if you don't like the railways, you can't start laying down tracks next to Amtrak's and Conrail's. We can recognize that and do things sensibly, with public ownership or a heavily regulated monopoly; or we can have the sort of corrupt and counterproductive bullshit that marked the start of the railroad age and which currently infects telecomm in the U.S.

Re:Tears of a clown (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 4 months ago | (#46992813)

That means access to land. Access to land means permission of governments: it is governments that turn land into "property".

And it is the same governments that take that property and turn it into rights of way. One hand giveth, the other taketh away.

if you don't like the railways, you can't start laying down tracks next to Amtrak's and Conrail's.

However, you can lay in another fiber.

Re:Tears of a clown (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 4 months ago | (#46990815)

I have no problem giving awesome speed to their own subsidiary content providers.

You should. The effects are insidious and would eventually undermine the whole idea of free (as in speech) communication.

Nothing short of Title II Common Carrier status for ISPs is acceptable. That's the way it should have been from the beginning.

Re:Tears of a clown (2)

alen (225700) | about 4 months ago | (#46990941)

being that the internet is dozens if not hundreds of companies,
how do you guarantee the same speed when the packets might have to pass through multiple backbone providers and the server hosting the content might not actually be able to serve everyone at those speeds
or the content owners may not have brought enough bandwidth to serve everyone at their top internet speed

Re:Tears of a clown (1)

Travis Mansbridge (830557) | about 4 months ago | (#46993055)

Perhaps you can't. But you certainly don't allow the ISPs to pick and choose what they want to let through and for what price.

ALL ISPs should be treated as "common carriers". (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46990547)

And force a separation of the contend side of their business from the communication side.

Re:ALL ISPs should be treated as "common carriers" (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#46990703)

No, that would be censorship. Anybody and everybody that wants to should be able to produce "content". We just have to stop protecting the monopolies.

Re:ALL ISPs should be treated as "common carriers" (1)

Travis Mansbridge (830557) | about 4 months ago | (#46993071)

Cartels are the new monopolies. They've figured out how to split it into 2/3 major corps that never lose control, never compete and constantly raise prices.

Re:ALL ISPs should be treated as "common carriers" (1)

alen (225700) | about 4 months ago | (#46990813)

the TV and Internet services are two different services and there is no need to separate them

my netflix watch on demand is completely different from my MLB/NBA or my wife's reality show sit your ass down at the right time to watch the show

Victory..? (3, Interesting)

barlevg (2111272) | about 4 months ago | (#46990565)

We're getting some common carrier stuff, ISPs can't prioritize the traffic from their parent/subsidiary companies... and it sounds like high priority non-controversial "fast lanes" (I don't mind my internet running a little slower so someone can get their MRI transmitted faster) are the only ones getting the green light. So did we win? Or am I missing something?

Re:Victory..? (4, Insightful)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 4 months ago | (#46990609)

Its a slippery step in the right direction, but not enough for me. The devil is always in the details.

Re:Victory..? (1)

CaptainLard (1902452) | about 4 months ago | (#46991395)

Nahh this is just how loophole hell starts. The FCC can just say "No prioritization or throttling allowed by ISPs" and be done with it and everyone will be fine 99.999% of the time unless the shit has already hit the fan and the internet can't help anyway. Or they can say "There will mostly be no prioritization or throttling except for these 200 edge use cases. The procedure for adding edge use cases is as follows". Before you know it, the Net Neutrality law is 6000 pages long instead of a single sentence and nobody knows whats going on except Netflix who just went bankrupt.

Re: Victory..? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46991479)

Fast lanes work in favor of Netflix, not against them. They can payoff the mafia. You hoping to startup a new company can't.

Re: Victory..? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46992191)

Except for all of what you said. Fastlanes favor only the ISPs looking to extort money.

Each ISP (and whoever else that has any control over routing things over the internet) will all demand ridiculous amounts of money from Netflix. You think that won't add up quickly? You must be joking. That will dig into their profits to the point where there's nothing left.

Startups, on the other hand, aren't going to be even noticed by the ISPs until they pick up speed. They stay profitable until they become big enough to actually provide a decent service. At that point, then they, too, get hit and crippled, allowed yet another fledgling to take over.

Do the consumers benefit from this? No. They end up paying more for the access to the content from the company serving it, and I'm sure probably will also have to pay their ISP more for access to the "fast lanes" as well, since they are already double-dipping anyways. Not only do you end up paying more, but since the actual content provider is being crippled, there is a pretty good chance they won't be offering much variety in shows, or will start hitting advertising hard, making it no better than watching TV. Hmm, gee, I wonder why that is...

Re: Victory..? (1)

Travis Mansbridge (830557) | about 4 months ago | (#46993157)

I think he meant that it would also benefit wealthy content-providers like Netflix who could afford to pay the extortional costs, where a new startup wouldn't. So while they could stick around, new entrants would be nearly impossible, and soon we're back to 100-channels-with-nothing-on.

Re:Victory..? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46991681)

It's a shame, because DMCA exceptions are damned near impossible.

Re:Victory..? (4, Insightful)

DeadDecoy (877617) | about 4 months ago | (#46990673)

I have mixed feelings about that. While I do feel that having 'fast lanes' would be appropriate for certain civil services, those considerations would be used as a trojan horse for corporations to shove legal policy through the system. The need for sufficiently fast internet should actually strengthen the argument for net neutrality. The internet has become such a critical part of the societal infrastructure, that it should be maintained like one. If all traffic is equal, and we're worried about some critical health service needing bandwidth, then we should upgrade the hardware instead of creating an artificially scarce resource.

Re:Victory..? (2)

LiquidAvatar (772805) | about 4 months ago | (#46992585)

To play devil's advocate, when we find that our city streets are congested and fire trucks and ambulances are having trouble getting to their destinations, do we increase the width of the streets or do we implement a policy stating that normal traffic must give way to the emergency services? Admittedly, it's much harder to increase bandwidth in a city street scenario than in a network scenario, but our society has already established that traffic shaping is a good idea in at least one situation.

Running with that comparison, we don't allow Pizza Hut to pay a premium so that they can get red and blue spinners for their delivery fleet though.

Re:Victory..? (2)

Somebody Is Using My (985418) | about 4 months ago | (#46993021)

The comparison doesn't work if the majority of the "roads" are unpaved and single-lane to begin with. Yes, you could argue that certain services should get priority, but the better solution in this case is just to improve the infrastructure. This is difficult to do with real roads, because so much of the surrounding land is already owned, but this sort of restriction does not hold true for the Internet; there is room to expand but no motivation to do so because it might cut into profits.

Once everybody has gigabit to the home, then maybe they can start to discuss prioritization. Until then, it is just a way for the telecoms to duck out of their responsibilities.

Re:Victory..? (2)

Presto Vivace (882157) | about 4 months ago | (#46990717)

we have not won, but we can if we keep up the pressure on the FCC [prestovivace.biz] .

Re: Victory..? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46991651)

For how long? They can afford to pay lobbyists for decades if necessary.

Re:Victory..? (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 4 months ago | (#46990763)

Ironically, hospital connections tend to already be better than residential connections anyway. The clinics I used to help support all had business fiber installed and could max out at 60 mbps down, 30 mbps up. Now, if an ISP was offering that kind of node connection without the back end infrastructure pipes to support it (entirely possible) then they ought to be smacked for fraud.

Re:Victory..? (1, Interesting)

alen (225700) | about 4 months ago | (#46990783)

i have no problem with ISP's charging netflix for peering or level 3/cogent to make them pay for more ports to deliver netflix traffic,

only if they charge the prevailing transit rates

i'm all for open internet, but the SENDER of the content has had to always be the one to pay for their delivery costs to deliver data to the user. that's the way its' been for the last 20 some years.

i use netflix, but i don't want my ISP bill going up to pay for the minority of people who binge watch shows all day and are nothing more than couch potatoes, except the do it on IP TV

Re:Victory..? (2)

ewieling (90662) | about 4 months ago | (#46991233)

"SENDER of the content has had to always be the one to pay for their delivery costs to deliver data to the user. that's the way its' been for the last 20 some years."

This is blatantly untrue. For the past 20 years ISPs have used the "Bill and Keep" model. The ISP or provider on each end bills their own customers and keep the money. Netflix pays their ISP, the end user pays their ISP, everyone is happy. That is until the end user's ISP decides they want to hide the cost of updating their infrastructure to meet changing customer usage patterns and tries to extort money from other providers instead of raising their prices like every other company does when their costs change..

I don't recall ISPs trying to charge web sites extra money to deliver images when customer usage patterns changed from textual "browsing" to "graphic intensive browsing". ISPs simply upgraded their infrastructure.

They can either raise prices to cover the needed infrastructure or block Netflix with a message telling users they must upgrade to a higher tier in to be able to watch streaming video.

Re:Victory..? (-1, Flamebait)

alen (225700) | about 4 months ago | (#46991289)

who charged netflix anything extra?
netflix never had an ISP, they connected directly to the backbone and third party peering services
now they are peering directly with comcast/verizon and not sending the traffic to the backbone

only thing changing is who they pay. in effect comcast/verizon are now netflix's ISP's

Re:Victory..? (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#46990821)

For things like MRI, people can use leased lines; which is a different ball of wax.

Re:Victory..? (2)

Bob9113 (14996) | about 4 months ago | (#46991449)

So did we win? Or am I missing something?

You're missing something. He didn't say anything about limiting fast lane sales to Apple, Netflix, &c, and the line about cardio results is hogwash -- cardio results are a few bytes per second, they don't need a fast lane, they need high availability, which fast lanes do not provide (see HA versus HP clusters, for a similar case). He's trying to manipulate you.

Re:Victory..? (1)

Shatrat (855151) | about 4 months ago | (#46992421)

Nobody is sending an MRI to a residential cable customer. That's what this discussion is about, limiting customers abilities to access products that compete with the ISPs own, like video. Hospitals already buy dedicated private networks for their information systems, and I suspect that's driven more by billing than MRI images.

Re:Victory..? (1)

whistlingtony (691548) | about 4 months ago | (#46993395)

We did not win. These stupid little rules of his are completely unenforceable. They've tried this before and it went to court. The judges said "Hey FCC, YOU'RE the one that gave up the ability to regulate these companies under common carrier rules. All you have to do to get it back is reclassify."

Any rule he proposes is just that. A Proposal, with zero teeth. None. Zilch. The FCC gave up the right to regulate broadband in 2005, and the FCC chairman of the time went on to become a lobbyist for cable companies.

Someone needs to wheel Wheeler out the front door! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46990579)

This guy is a goon, leave the net alone douche nozzle and create laws that foster ISP competition along with greater security (read: sans-NSA)...

Enlightened self-interest (2)

kheldan (1460303) | about 4 months ago | (#46990581)

Sounds to me like someone is interested in preserving their job at the FCC rather than anything as altruistic or abstract as 'protecting the public's interests'.

Re:Enlightened self-interest (1)

i_ate_god (899684) | about 4 months ago | (#46990693)

Sounds to me like someone is interested in preserving their job at the FCC rather than anything as altruistic or abstract as 'protecting the public's interests'.

does this detail really matter? Greed and survival instincts are no different than any other exploitable human attribute.

OH YOUR MAD?! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46990601)

well I'll just wait until you lose interest then push beta through like wheeler is doing with fast lanes.

Fast lane is a bad term for it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46990647)

It's unlikely that they figured out how to make light go faster. Whats different is that everyone who doesn't pay up is now in the slow lane.

Gad! It isn't physics (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46990667)

in the US the ISPs should operated just like the baby Bells did after the breakup of AT&T: All traffic, voice, modem, fax, teletype, ISDN, ALL Of It, was treated the same. You pays your fees you gets your line.

Anything else means the politicians and/or bureaucrats have been bought and paid for.

some "common carrier" rules...? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#46990669)

Not good enough. But I'm not expecting anything better until we stop reelecting the crooks that got us here.

Once there's a "fast lane", you know what happens. (1)

jthill (303417) | about 4 months ago | (#46990683)

What's going to happen is, they're going to provision their networks with two separate kinds of routers, "fast lane" routers and "slow lane" routers, and if simply never upgrading the "slow lane" routers isn't enough to get them what they want they'll sabotage them or just disconnect them entirely.

Yellow Light (1)

Presto Vivace (882157) | about 4 months ago | (#46990689)

Animal Farm net neutrality [hbr.org]

Early indications are that it will be an Animal Farm sort of net neutrality, with some nets more neutral than others. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler promised recently that his agency “will not allow some companies to force Internet users into a slow lane so that others with special privileges can have superior service.” But the rule seems likely to allow ISPs to cut deals with content companies to ensure that their packets get delivered smoothly — as Netflix reluctantly agreed to with Comcast in February and Verizon last week. Which by definition means they’re in a faster lane than others, doesn’t it?

Keep the pressure up, we can still win this thing.

yeah, he dont want to look too fascist (2)

FudRucker (866063) | about 4 months ago | (#46990707)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com] Big Cable Executives now work for the FCC (sounds fascist to me)

just like ex Monsanto exec works for the FDA (sounds fascist to me)

it happens with big defense contractors that have a revolving door with the government (the US Govt would make Mussolini proud)

Two steps backwards, One Step forward (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 4 months ago | (#46990743)

So we took two steps backwards when Wheeler opened the gates for ISPs to make a "fast lane" and now we're taking one step forward as Wheeler says that the fast lane will only be used in some cases. This isn't a victory - this is the ISPs "compromising" so they get some of what they want now and waiting to get the rest later. Eventually, if this is enacted, the "fast lane" cases will get more items added to them bit by bit until we're in full blown ISP-wet-dream-fast-lane mode.

NOT. GOOD. ENOUGH. (5, Informative)

fightinfilipino (1449273) | about 4 months ago | (#46990747)

Tom Wheeler needs to STEP DOWN.

the Obama Administration needs to be held to its promise of ACTUAL Net Neutrality. [wh.gov]

this is not over yet, not by a long shot.

Re:NOT. GOOD. ENOUGH. (1)

dclozier (1002772) | about 4 months ago | (#46990839)

Wish I had some mod points left - more signatures are needed. I just added mine.

Tom Wheeler will never have the public's interest in mind. Once a lobbyist for cable and wireless companies always their shill.

Re:NOT. GOOD. ENOUGH. (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#46990945)

First off, that petition is stupid. you don't put 3 things in one petition. No one will pay attention

Secondly, Tom WHeeler is the best person to get to those goals.

" headed by Chairman and former cable lobbyist Tom Wheeler"
logical fallacy.

"announced rules that will completely destroy Net Neutrality"
speculation

"Mr. Wheeler's proposed rules "
ask your self, who they are proposed to. Those are the people you need to contact. Wheeler can not to more or less then congress wants. Going after him just makes it easier for the people actually at the heart of this decision to deflect blame. You are creating a scape goat for the very people who make this decision.

"The Obama Administration promised a free and open Internet. "
You should read this:
http://www.politifact.com/trut... [politifact.com]

stop blaming a president for what congress does.

Re:NOT. GOOD. ENOUGH. (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | about 4 months ago | (#46991627)

Wheeler can not to more or less then congress wants.

Congress long ago shifted its regulatory authority to executive branch agencies like the FCC. They're too busy accepting cash from lobbyists to waste time making policy!

Re:NOT. GOOD. ENOUGH. (2)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about 4 months ago | (#46991895)

stop blaming a president for what congress does.

Congress did nothing but authorize the FCC, and delegate authority for regulating interstate communications to the executive.

That would be Obama. He can have the FCC re-classify broadband as a common carrier at any time, but won't do it. He's doing what he's told, and pretending that it's somebody else's fault. It's a classic trait of everyone that suffers from NP disorder.

Watch your language (4, Insightful)

n0ano (148272) | about 4 months ago | (#46990769)

including prioritization given by ISPs to their subsidiaries that make and stream content

Sigh. Comcast won't prioritize its subsidiary's traffic, it will de-prioritize its competitors traffic.

Please, just classify ISPs as a common carrier (like you should have done years ago) and be done with it.

his proposed rules mean shit all (1, Informative)

whistlingtony (691548) | about 4 months ago | (#46990773)

They FCC used to classify the internet as a common carrier. They changed that in 2005 to an "information service", which they don't have rules to regulate. They already tried making up net neutrality rules, and a judge already smacked them down and told them they GAVE UP the ability to regulate broadband and that they'd need to reclassify to get it back. They can do this at any time.

Given that a court has already told them that their little rules don't apply, all these new proposals mean shit all. Any company can get around them by going to court, precident has been set. They should know this. They do.

The only reason they don't reclassify is because then they wouldn't get cushy lobbyist jobs when their time is up at the FCC.

By the way, you can email the FCC commisioners directly. Be polite! https://www.fcc.gov/contact-us [fcc.gov]

Also by the way, you should call your reps and bitch to them too. Keep up the pressure! http://whoismyrepresentative.c... [whoismyrep...tative.com]

I found my reps and put them into my phone. It's amazing how much more you call when they're right there.

Re:his proposed rules mean shit all (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#46990975)

"They FCC used to classify the internet as a common carrier. "
No they didn't.

Re:his proposed rules mean shit all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46991731)

You're correct in that it would be very, very easy for proponents of true net neutrality to sue over this and be almost guaranteed a win. The Supreme Court has already said it's all or nothing - either reclassify ISPs as Title II Common Carriers, which are recognized by statute as something the FCC can regulate, or do not regulate them at all. This half-baked "Okay they're SORT OF common carriers but not really we still want them to be an 'information service' because we're either from the telecom industry or planning to work there when we retire" crap won't fly with the American people, and it won't fly with the Supreme Court.

They're either common carriers, or they're not. Reclassifying as common carriers makes the most sense and would do the most good for the health of the internet. As soon as they open this proposal up for public comment on Thursday, people need to make their voices heard.

Dupe (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 4 months ago | (#46990905)

Update: 05/13 16:37 GMT by T : Oops -- I missed this earlier, substantially similar story.

You don't say...

Give an Inch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46990927)

Part of the concern with any offering is that by giving an inch, corporate lawyers and and other administrators will find loopholes to exploit and take the mile. As long as they follow the letter of the law (or sue to get it thrown out), they don't have to follow the intention.

Additionally, businesses can already more easily purchase fast lanes by purchasing dedicated circuits and guaranteed QoS. If a business's circuit to the Internet is 90% congested they can consider upgrading of determining why there is so much traffic. They can also more likely change providers. If a hospital wants to ensure MRIs transit quickly with a lab or another business, it can do so.
As a consumer, there is generally no choice among providers and am sold a service that offers one thing, but then has no QoS guarantees to back it up. If the ISP decides they don't want to increase peering arrangements with a transit provider whose circuit is 90% congested in the evening, there isn't much I can do.

Unwinnable battles (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46990935)

The only way to solve this problem is forced breakup of large ISPs, content companies and disaggregation of last mile connectivity from the ISP.

Not good enough. (1)

Payden K. Pringle (3483599) | about 4 months ago | (#46990943)

No fast lanes. Period.

You get what you pay for. That's it. Anything less and the FCC can screw off.

give elected officials a chance! (1)

micahraleigh (2600457) | about 4 months ago | (#46990981)

Why not let the legislature do the legislating?

I didn't vote for anyone in the FCC.

The problem is..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46991053)

......if this is stopped, the lobbyists wait 3 months and try again. Once that is shot down, they wait again 3 months and try again with as slightly differently worded proposal. They keep trying over and over and over, until finally it makes it through because people eventually get sick of hearing about it or fighting for it.

I have no issue with the idea that a private company should be allowed to prioritize traffic on it's own privately owned network however it pleases them. The issue is often times these private companies hold a monopoly over a region, or at best a quasi monopoly.

What do you do when the only player in town does this? How do you vote with your dollar? How do you prove collusion when suddenly the 2 options in your area start throttling at approximately the same time, when the majority of their clients would instantly switch to a competitor that did not do this........Free markets my ass....

Not enough. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46991261)

Yellow lights aren't enough.
We need red lights.

Stop Parroting Cardiography (3, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | about 4 months ago | (#46991403)

some public-interest cases like a healthcare company sending electrocardiography results

This is a patently deceptive meme. It is intended to tug at your heart strings to sell the case, but it is not a good application of a fast lane. Cardio results do not need high performance lines, because they produce a tiny trickle of data. They need high availability, which a fast lane does not help. If Mr. Wheeler is really suggesting that paid prioiritization will render the standard lane so unusably clogged that a few bytes of cardio data won't fit over the pipe in a split second, then he is hoisting himself by his own petard.

Re:Stop Parroting Cardiography (1)

Shatrat (855151) | about 4 months ago | (#46992443)

Also, most health care providers are already paying vast sums for VPN services, this stuff doesn't hit the public internet.

Re:Stop Parroting Cardiography (1)

Michael Casavant (2876793) | about 4 months ago | (#46993033)

EXACTLY

And to top it off, there is already a service for high priority traffic. It's called: Guaranteed bandwidth and QoS.
So long as both ends agree on which packets get delivered first, this is already a widely deployed (and acceptable) practice. An internet "fast lane" is not a solution to the heart monitor "problem".

Just a foot in the door (2)

jcopper (3651969) | about 4 months ago | (#46991437)

To me this seems like the "foot in the door" technique leading to things that are far worse. I think we can all agree that an MRI is a good thing to be sent and received expeditiously. How do we make sure that only an MRI is getting this treatment or do we just say, anything at a hospital gets priority? I seriously doubt any hospital is going to spend money implementing a fast lane for just a few things. They will just dump it all in the fast lane. Then the finance industry sees this and will demand that their transactions deserve priority as well. (and they will be get it because they are the most powerful lobby in the US) Then any other entity that has money to lobby for fast lane priority will get it as well. Then this will lead us right back to the original issue. Notice how every single comment on here is okay with giving a fast lane to MRIs, that is the "foot in door". You cannot budge on this, you let one through, you're going to let all them through. The politicians are far to manipulative, the very fact that everyone thinks this issue is about creating a "fast lane" shows that this is a losing battle. They are not creating a fast lane, they are creating a slow lane.

Re:Just a foot in the door (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46993029)

there shouldn't even be a worry about a fast lane for a hospital. They buy their 60/60 Symmetrical line, and budget accordingly. a dedicated line to the branch trunk is peanuts for a hospital. The line for an entire continent is about two feet in diameter. Its alot easier to double capacity for a fiber optic line then it is a road. we shouldn't ever have to do this BS about priority traffic.

Oops -- I missed this earlier story (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about 4 months ago | (#46991469)

>> Oops -- I missed this earlier, substantially similar story

At SlashDot, that's called "par for the course."

A Neglected Side To This Issue (3, Insightful)

NotSanguine (1917456) | about 4 months ago | (#46991863)

It seems to me that one of the biggest problems with the consolidation of ISPs with content providers is that they have a vested interest in keeping upload speeds low, so that their customers can't compete with them. I would go farther than some of those commenting on this and suggest that content providers should not be allowed to own/operate ISPs or own the "last mile."

Those who own "the last mile," as well as ISPs (they should be different entities as well) should all be classified as "common carriers." Further, "last mile" owners should be required to provide (at reasonable cost) access to any/all ISPs that want to provide service to end-users.

Again, upload speeds should not be throttled. Obviously, those who want higher upload (or download) speeds can certainly pay for that service. Service bundles (TV/Phone/Internet) provide little benefit to end-users and often give incumbent monopolies customer lock-in. Give us Glass-Steagall for the Internet (I'd like it back in the financial industry too, but that's a whole other level of rip-off).

Have no fear (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46992319)

Have no fear. Governments will always be bought out in the end. The ISPs have lots of money to buy them with.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>