Word games.
It would be just as accurate to say that the FCC is proposing rules to allow an ISP to throttle content.
Unthrottled content = Fast lane…
Throttled Content = Base Service.
Just silly lawyer speak going on at the FCC.
1 Like
Although… I’ve got to ask this question:
I would guess that water and electric companies offer discounted bulk rates to their biggest industrial customers. I’m sure a new small business pays more per gallon and watt than a huge, established business in the same market. Right?
2 Likes
Correct.
I’m going to hold off on being outraged. This thirdhand information sounds like it could be formalizing the Netflix / Comcast paid peering deal (which was NOT about network neutrality). I’d rather hear details about what’s happening and why, with some expert analysis on the subject, before I go writing congresscritters.
1 Like
I don’t see how voting for nobody is going to help here …
Yes that’s a good analogy, but big interweb consumers already pay less per megabyte that residential customers.
Here’s my mail to the Commissioners:
Commissioners,
The internet is how I make my living. My company relies on fair and equitable access to its customers and our customers rely on access to our services to be successful. The internet is how I pay my bills, do my banking, educate my children, watch movies, play games, share life with my friends. It is an essential service to my success as a parent and worker, and to the success of the United States.
The proposed rules allowing ISPs to charge for access to content providers is antithetical to how successful asynchronous networks operate. Your proposed rules allow an ISP to reduce or limit access to all content except those willing to pay an access fee to gain access to their customers. America already has some of the slowest speeds/price for Internet access.
These proposed rules will further endanger our competitiveness. I urge you to reconsider.
5 Likes
Alternate Title:
How American corporate greed and corrupt politicians broke the internet in the USA and pushed all big tech companies overseas destroying the last strong sector in the US economy.
A real shame too because this internet innovation is about the last thing we produce these days. I see this as the nail in the coffin of the US economy. America has already fallen behind quite a few other countries Internet connection speed, bandwidth caps, and price per mb. 
But this, this is the worst…and pushes us to the bottom of the list.
All internet bandwidth is paid for twice already. The company with the hosting/servers pays for all the bandwidth they use. The consumer pays their ISP for all the bandwidth they use. People are paying at both ends of the pipe. A portion of both the money the host pays and the consumer pays goes towards the middle companies in peering agreements, so the middle of the pipe is paid twice for all data transferred as well. Much of the infrastructure the internet runs on was subsidized by US taxpayers, and most the major players have posted record profits, they aren’t losing money. Letting them squeeze companies to further pad their bottom line at the expense of the american public or they will degradate the throughput of consumers using their services is both sleazy and corrupt, and goes against everything that the internet was built upon. It will stifle the openness and innovation that is the very basis of the internet. It is shortsighted and will drive many of the internet companies overseas.
If I’m paying $65 a month to comcast or whomever for my broadband internet, I sure as hell want to be able to use the bandwidth I purchased however I want. I’m paying, I choose. Them deciding to downgrade the connection on anything I’m trying to do because the company on the other end didn’t cough up extra money to line their coffers is unacceptable. Why would I pay the same price for what will now be a crippled service, and which sources are crippled are out of my, the consumers, control. Absolutely ridiculous. Way to kick the internet back to the dark ages ignorant bribe-able government codpieces. You are selling out the American people to line your own pockets.
5 Likes
My representative, and most of the others, are for net neutrality … but I’m living in the EU.
HAHA /Nelson
If there make exclusive content for websites, it would probably not be worth it, and if it is, there could probably be workarounds to get it, like proxies or something like that.
Hi. Real quick, are you saying Ron (D-OR) is D or R…because then you say, “…my other Republican senator as we need to sway him.” Merkley is D…is he just acting too R for you? I quick-searched and found Jeff on par with Ron (pretty good for DC).
Just clarifying.
I hate this doomer stit shorm we exist in, sometimes, re: FCC.
Since there is no longer a bright-line differentiation between access providers and content providers, how much are big ISPs going to charge themselves for priority fastlane access for their own content? Hmm.
You are correct, Merkly is a Dem, my wording/meaning was incorrect. I wrote to Merkley because, unlike Wyden, it doesn’t seem to be a prominent issue for him. (I.E., I know Wyden is a champion of net neutrality already.)
This is thankfully exploding on reddit right now. The rage is palpable and growing.
Oh, and the r/technology mods aren’t daring to censor it. (evil grin)
3 Likes
Tom Wheeler, head of the US Federal Communication Commission.
Tom Wheeler, Steaming pile of shit.
Yeah, as a web developer living and working in Germany, it makes me stop looking to the USA for trends. Granted, we here in the EU have our own battle for net neutrality, but this gives us another argument that we can use to those drafting the EU directives: net neutrality will protect local businesses from predatory American conglomerates squeezing them out of the high speed connections.
2 Likes
Yes. Exactly.
If he had a long twirly moustache, he could be Snidely Whiplash.
Guess they forgot to pay for transit.
The FCC can kiss my hairy ass. And not in a good way.
