F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/technology/fcc-new-net-neutrality-rules.html

by tysone • 12 years ago

434 275 12 years ago

azinman2• 12 years ago

And... there goes the internet.

noobermin4• 12 years ago

Color me surprised. I'm actually a buckeye where Mr. Wheeler hails from. This fact and after watching his speech a couple of months ago, perhaps that is why I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I guess I was wrong about him.

robbiet480• 12 years ago

Ugh.

ihuman• 12 years ago

I don't have the best knowledge about the FCC's plan for Net Neutrality, but doesn't this go against everything that the plan stood for?

dragonwriter9• 12 years ago

If it was as the NY Times piece (which seems to be fairly heavy on editorializing and weak on facts for a straight news piece) describes -- "will allow a company like Comcast or Verizon to negotiate separately with each content company [...] and charge different companies different amounts for priority service." However, the other reports on this have not described it that way -- e.g., the WSJ report [1] (which also hit HN today) says that the new rules to be proposed "would allow broadband providers to give some traffic preferential treatment, so long as such arrangements are available on 'commercially reasonable' terms for all interested content companies."

Then again, this Reuters piece [2] says it won't address these types of agreements at all: "However, the rules are not expected to address the issue of interconnection, or agreements in which content companies pay network providers for faster access to their sites or services."

Maybe we should wait until the rules are actually released for public comment before freaking out over the specific details (about which there are many conflicting stories.)

[1] http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702304...

[2] http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/23/us-usa-fcc-interne...

quaunaut• 12 years ago

Honestly, hell no, we need to raise hell now. If they're even thinking about this as a realistic possibility, the entire notion needs to be burned from their minds. Purged.

Edit: Normally, I'm an arbiter of the 'wait and see' variety, but this is such a horrible, unethical, undemocratic, un-American idea that it cannot possibly for a moment be considered.

kevando4• 12 years ago

Fred Wilson wrote some thoughts on this and I fear very much that he is accurate.. http://avc.com/2014/01/vc-pitches-in-a-year-or-two/

markbao• 12 years ago

Honestly—who does this benefit, apart from ISPs?

redthrowaway• 12 years ago

Entrenched services that can pay the premium. It's their "don't worry about upstart competitors" tax.

xcntktn• 12 years ago

Yep. There will never be another video or audio streaming startup after today. Doors closed, ladder pulled up behind them, that's it, finished. The ones that exist today are all there will ever be. Sound crazy? Exaggerated? Check back in 10 years and see.

dragonwriter9• 12 years ago

Its not clear to me that this is a "turnaround", since it is not clear to me that pay-for-quality offered under the terms that the leaks about this have suggested (commercially reasonable terms open to all content providers equally) would have been prohibited by the previous order (had it not been struck down.)

parfe• 12 years ago

In six months FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler will be a VP at NBC Universal/Comcast.

Not a bribe; just coincidence.

jebblue• 12 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler_(FCC)

"Tom Wheeler is the current Chairman of the FCC.[1] Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry."

Wow. This looks especially bad for consumers.

lvs2• 12 years ago

Who could possibly have foreseen this?

higherpurpose3• 12 years ago

There should be laws against this sort of stuff. Like you can't work for a company in a related domain for 5 years before and after taking the government job. As it is, it just leads to too much corruption.

tzs• 12 years ago

By "prior", they mean 30 years ago, at a time when the cable industry was the underdog fighting against the powerful broadcasters, and cable lobbyist [1] was a pro-consumer job.

Looking at what he's been involved in since then [2], it's all over the place. There's stuff in cable, stuff in wireless, stuff in phone, co-founder of a company that repairs aerospace components, PBS director, and a bunch of other things. I'm kind of at a loss to comprehend how someone can have held so many positions.

[1] It's not all clear that lobbyist is even accurate. He was the head of the largest cable industry trade association. Lobbying was one of the things they did. Calling their executives "lobbyists" would be kind of like calling the head of the American Medical Association a lobbyist.

[2] http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/pe...

emehrkay• 12 years ago

Chris Dodd spent ~30+ years in congress and now he is the chairman/chief lobbyist for the MPAA. Funny (sad) how that works

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Dodd

raverbashing• 12 years ago

Google, Apple and Netflix just have to bribe harder

devnill2• 12 years ago

Why? If the ISP's push the issue too hard, the public will be up in arms for net neutrality. If they just push hard enough to keep small companies from competing it will be a win/win for everybody since the ISP's make even more money, and the internet companies get to avoid new players.

curun1r• 12 years ago

Why? Fastlane charges are just another barrier to entry for potential upstart competitors. The companies you've listed are big enough to negotiate separate contracts for a lower rate or create solutions like OpenConnect to lower their costs. What better way to ensure that they have little-to-no competition than to have a crippling fee that smaller competitors would have to pay just to compete with them?

kevando4• 12 years ago

I'm not sure. Google is very aware that 100% of their userbase (and revenue) are one click away from using another search engine. If this decision makes it more difficult for a start up to create a better way for people to search the internet, you can see why Google might not put up a fight..

bratsche• 12 years ago

This is all good news for Netflix because the barrier to creating a competitor will be getting much higher now.

briantakita2• 12 years ago

What would it take to get someone who cares about the greater good (not an industry crony) appointed to these key roles?

AndrewBissell• 12 years ago

Stop electing the politicians who appoint cronies?

dsr_• 12 years ago

Money.

There are 100 senators. 34 or so come up for election every two years. Each election is won, 75 - 90% of the time, by the candidate who spends the most. The most expensive campaigns spend about $20M; the tenth most expensive campaign spends about $5M. The margin between D and R in the Senate is 8. Form a SuperPAC and fund it with about $75M.

Ensure the election of a crop of senators who know what the key issues are for their big contributors... and that if they step out of line, they won't be getting those contributions next year.

stuaxo• 12 years ago

The system should work like jury duty - much like in ancient greece where they had a system of lots (based on black + white balls) - you get chosen then have to do your best for your alloted time.

mayneack• 12 years ago

http://www.wolf-pac.com/

tootie2• 12 years ago

You can't really blame Wheeler. The courts tied his hands.

beauzero• 12 years ago

bs. The courts tied his hands on a surprisingly weak argument. All he had to do was resurrect direct Net Neutrality language and everything would have been fine. He didn't...this administration hasn't raised its regulatory voice, anything. I don't understand how anyone can defend their record. They just killed small internet business.

sroerick13• 12 years ago

It's so frustrating to me that this is all based around the stupid legal assumption that we have to stream everything.

God forbid your user should download something to watch later, to prevent having to redownload every time you watch it.

And then during peak Netflix hours, I just can't use the internet reliably.

If anyone knows any source for Libre video works, that I can download and watch with complete freedom, please let me know. I'd pay for it.

admax88q• 12 years ago

What's worse, is that if the ISP had implemented multicast for real, then we could save enormous amounts of bandwidth.

Think of the wasted traffic has thousands of people watch a live stream in unison. Or the millions watching viral youtube videos only a few seconds apart.

higherpurpose3• 12 years ago

If you had a 100 Mbps connection, like many other countries do, streaming Netflix in HD would not be a problem. So this is first and foremost a lazy monopolist problem, less so a congestion problem.

Selfcommit• 12 years ago

I have a 100mbps connection.. I live in NJ. It costs me $80 a month (Which is robbery IMO).

But still, I have it.

b3b0p• 12 years ago

I have a 100 mbps connection. Speed Test even shows it about 25% faster than that every time I test it out.

I have Cox in Tulsa, OK. It's $99.99 / month.

dingaling2• 12 years ago

If you had a 100 Mbps connection, like many other countries do, streaming Netflix in HD would not be a problem.

A 100 mbps connection to the ISP isn't much help if the ISP only has 1000 Mbps upstream to share amongst 20,000 subscribers.

sroerick13• 12 years ago

But look at the arguments being held up by both companies.

Comcast is arguing that Netflix is trying to get Comcast to build its infrastructure. Netflix is arguing that Comcast is extorting them for their infrastructure.

Both arguments assume that everything must be streamed, and the only reason for that is the DMCA and our copyright culture.

noobermin4• 12 years ago

Well, this is not quite equivalent, but consider mobile platforms. Streaming makes much more sense there given the tighter storage constraints.

davmre• 12 years ago

Shouldn't it be exactly the opposite? Mobile is hugely bandwidth-limited, but you can get a 128GB SD card for ~$75 these days.

The real reason for streaming is that most people don't know in advance what they want to watch, and with TV/movies, generally only watch something once.

lotu• 12 years ago

Honestly the assumption that we want to stream everything is a really good assumption. People are lazy and setting up a proper storage is tricky and costs money. This means 99.9% of people don't want to do it. Yes being in the .1% it would be nice if we were catered to but that's life.

pessimizer• 12 years ago

In my experience people seem to be able to use TiVos just fine.

unclebucknasty6• 12 years ago

Honestly the assumption that we want to stream everything is a really good assumption.

It's really more for the providers and cintent owners: keeps customers tethered and paying for the privilege of suckling from server teats whenever they consume content.

Because, really, storage could be made just as easy for consumers as streaming if providers had the will.

Instead, it's "put everything in the cloud, then pay us over and over again to access it".

betterunix5• 12 years ago

That is why distributed storage would be so much better. You know, if 10 people download a movie, I should be able to download it from any of those 10 people. Or all of them could send me part of the file, improving throughput.

Oh, wait, we already have that technology. Too bad we have people who have worked for twenty years to kill it.

sroerick13• 12 years ago

How about smart caching? Why can't netflix automatically preload 3 episodes ahead in a show that you're watching?

Consumers might not want to have to deal with HDD storage, but I would bet you dollars to donuts that they want 4K without buffering issues.

EDIT: Also, I just wanted to mention that maybe our companies should be inventing new ways of storing things (like TiVo did with remarkable success), instead of spending all of their resources aquiring the rights to hit movies and extorting each other.

sroerick13• 12 years ago

That's fine. Make a tiny download link at the bottom of the page. It would require little to no infrastructure changes. Let the 99% stream.

gfodor2• 12 years ago

People don't like waiting for downloads, news at 11

mfisher872• 12 years ago

Streaming is downloading. Your computer couldn't play it if it wasn't on your computer. The argument worth making here is that content on Netflix is generally watched once, or rarely. It would be trivial to not delete streamed data if that was a good solution to a problem.

ChrisLTD• 12 years ago

Another wrinkle: The popular devices for viewing online video, Rokus, Apple TVs, gaming consoles, tablets, and phones have little to no storage space for meaningful amounts of HD video.

AnthonyMouse3• 12 years ago

The answer to this is to have a DVR attached to the network which takes care of the storage and then stream to all the other devices anywhere in the building.

sroerick13• 12 years ago

If the above assumption I mentioned wasn't true, I would imagine all these devices would have USB ports.

mempko• 12 years ago

Internet archive has a shit ton of movies and videos that are public domain. You can also always Torrent.....

knodi123• 12 years ago

Sure, you can torrent, for now. Until it costs extra to buy the torrenting package from your ISP, and it would be cheaper to just pay for the content.

sroerick13• 12 years ago

Internet Archive is great.

I'd like access to current creative commons works,though, not just public domain items. I'm trying to fight the copyright regieme, which prevents me from accessing the culture around me.

Going back in time to the 40s doesn't exactly do that for me. Don't get me wrong, IA is amazing, and I use it all the time. But I'd like something like Netflix that was exclusively for CC works. vodo seems like a good contender.

AlexLord2• 12 years ago

Streaming is seen, by many content creators, as a way to fight piracy.

falsecelaona• 12 years ago

Steam streaming games is seen, by many content creators, as a way to fight piracy.

Streaming (as a means of protection) is as useless as DRM except they're too stupid to not do that dance for their legal departments. It hurts legal consumers and doesn't punish non-legit consumers. It prevents you from using content you've paid for & used previously when your internet goes down. Not to mention the enormous waste of electricity/bandwidth/environment/people's lifespan. It costs us all.

sroerick13• 12 years ago

I know. I'm just frustrated by that. We're imposing random and artificial limits on technology because of an outdated business model.

Imagine if the RIAA made a law that CDs could only be played sequentially, and you had to turn the disc over to get to the second half.

webmaven3• 12 years ago

Here you go:

http://vodo.net

https://archive.org/details/movies

http://www.publicdomaintorrents.info

sroerick13• 12 years ago

Oh, man. Thank you so much.

sroerick13• 12 years ago

Hey do you know any more about Vodo? I can't quite figure out what their bundles are. Are the movies and music and games in the bundle CC? I see the Free Movies page but I'm unsure what the licensing terms for the bundle are.

mikeyouse3• 12 years ago

This is largely due to the US Federal Courts' recent rulings that invalidated the FCC's previous attempts to guarantee Net Neutrality.

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/technology/appeals-court-r...

2. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/20/business/fcc-to-propose-ne...

cnordholm• 12 years ago

The FCC can regulate the internet under title II. They are simply refusing to.

mikeyouse3• 12 years ago

In 2002, Colin Powell's son, Michael, was the Chairman of the FCC. He determined that broadband services weren't covered by Title II, and that they could be regulated 'better' under different statutes. That is the genesis for all of these problems.

Today, Michael Powell is the President of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.[1]

Of course, today's FCC could walk that Title II ruling back, and reclassify ISPs from Title I to Title II, but that would be met with lawsuits for years.

1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Powell_(politician)

higherpurpose3• 12 years ago

Even so, there are two other solutions:

1) immediately remove all regulations that might block new competition from coming into the market, and competing locally with the big local monopolies

2) call them common carriers, and then they'd be able to regulate them however they want, and that's what the judge basically said, too.

I'd prefer 1) over 2), but at this point either one would be better. But right now FCC/US gov is doing neither of them and that should scare the hell out of everyone. This needs to be protested big time.

yuhong3• 12 years ago

Yea, I hope YC for example can talk with them on solutions. sama, what do you think?

pdonis• 12 years ago

In a perfect world I would prefer 1) as well, but realistically I think 2) is the only option. I don't understand why it's taking the FCC so long to take the hint; IIRC the number of judges that have basically told them "make them common carriers and you can regulate them however you want" is now three.

(Actually, my cynical side does understand; but I have been hoping against hope that for once reasonableness would win out over cynicism.)

quotemstr• 12 years ago

Decisions like this lend a certain credence to recent studies showing that only the desires of the economic and political elite actually affect policy.

ama729• 12 years ago

Study cited (I think): http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2014/04/is...

tokenizer• 12 years ago

What a fancy way of saying we don't live in a functioning republic.

freshhawk• 12 years ago

It's also an evidence backed way of saying it. Which is quite useful.

rhubarbquid• 12 years ago

That was exactly the conclusion of the paper. The US is effectively an oligarchy.

smokinjoe• 12 years ago

The Federal Communications Commission will propose new rules that allow Internet service providers to offer a faster lane through which to send video and other content to consumers, as long as a content company is willing to pay for it, according to people briefed on the proposals.

Willing? I'm fairly sure it's going to end up being a "mandatory" fee in order to compete with similar online services.

wnevets• 12 years ago

now this is the death of internet as we know it.

noobermin4• 12 years ago

I have a question for those more knowledgeable about this than me: compare this to recent EU [1] votes on net neutrality. What do you think, will this give European internet companies an advantage over ones here (specifically startups that don't have the big bucks to shell out to the large internet providers)?

[1] http://gigaom.com/2014/04/03/european-parliament-passes-stro...

lucb1e2• 12 years ago

As I was reading, I thought this was just a move by the FCC to get the people to understand that the internet without net neutrality is a nightmare. As I'm reading the HN comments, I'm not so sure anymore...

frandroid• 12 years ago

That's, huh, way too much social engineering.

gnoway3• 12 years ago

Well it is a little premature to cry doom before these guidelines are even adopted.

But if they are, it will be kind of funny to read in a few years the comments from ISPs re: anti-neutrality policies stifling 'new' streaming services:

"Our research shows there is weak to no consumer demand for alternative services"

dragonwriter9• 12 years ago

Well it is a little premature to cry doom before these guidelines are even adopted.

It might not be before they are adopted, but it is before they are proposed and, particularly, before the news stories based on inside leaks are even consistent about what the rules are in the area of concern.

EDIT: Not sure why the downvotes, but as I point out in another comment on the thread (with links to sourcs), there are at least three conflicting characterizations of what the new rules that the FCC chair is about to begin circulating and that the FCC might then propose with a public comment period will do on the point in question:

1. (NY Times): Allow ISPs to (apparently, with no signficant restrictions) negotiate per-content-provider rates for enhanced access to the ISPs users.

2. (WS Journal): Allow ISPs to offer enhanced access if the terms are commercially reasonable and open to all content providers.

3. (Reuters): Not address ISP-to-content-provider agreements at all.

My point is that its premature to react to the details of the rules when there isn't any consistent picture of what those details are likely to be.

gnoway3• 12 years ago

I don't really get the downvotes either, although it took me two readings of your comment to understand what you were saying.

FWIW, here's what the FCC has actually published so far:

http://www.fcc.gov/document/statement-fcc-chairman-tom-wheel...

Unfortunately it doesn't actually say much.

dandrews• 12 years ago

Legislating "net neutrality" is a crude hack. The real problem is telco hegemony in the ISP space, as pointed out in John Gilmore's 2010 essay at http://www.nnsquad.org/archives/nnsquad/msg04177.html

Zigurd• 12 years ago

That isn't really true. Let's say we get structural separation and retail competition (which is a fantasy in our current situation). The backbone providers could still become rent-seekers by putting the arm on whatever service lacks technical alternatives to large amounts of bandwidth (which the retail customers already pay for). The retailers have more negotiating power than consumers do, but there is still a place for regulation to prevent a pricing policy from strangling innovation.

jessaustin3• 12 years ago

What would stop backbone operators from doing that? I'd guess the same thing that's stopping them from doing it now: actual competition. The monopolists are only a problem at the edge.

Brakenshire2• 12 years ago

The UK has a structural separation between retail and wholesale, and the major ISPs are still desperate to be allowed to do deals with content providers. Consumer interests are not set up to directly disincentivize ISPs from trying to charge content providers for access to them. Consumers will not police that principle.

jthomp• 12 years ago

Looks like I wasted my time writing Mr. Wheeler an email on this very subject a few weeks ago.

HillRat• 12 years ago

Yeah, good luck with that; regulatory capture has effectively killed any attempt at citizen influence of state and federal agencies. And, in addition to the revolving door at the FCC -- which is uniquely shameless even by iron triangle standards -- Big Cable is excellent at targeting its political donations. They're increasing cable prices faster than inflation, and using the proceeds to hire key FCC officials and donate wads of cash to any politician -- federal, state and even local -- that might be involved in oversight. Your silly little attempt at exercising your rights as an informed citizen doesn't even register.

I would argue that the cable industry is pretty much the perfect example of an industry that should be held at arms' length by its regulators; the entire industry has a history of significant and intentional corruption of the political process, particularly at the local level. It's instructive, if you have the time, to check out the story of Cablevision's efforts to get the cable franchise in Queens in the early 1980s: it's essentially a blueprint for how the industry acts across the board.

baconner• 12 years ago

I read this as FCC plans to allow slow lanes.

ipsin• 12 years ago

I agreed, that was my first reading as well. I mean, the only reason you would want to pay money, as a content provider, is if your service is rate-limited to a degree that affects your customer.

It's not as if that "fast lane" will be gigabit speed. It'll be the same "up to" speed the customer was paying for in the first place.

hemancuso• 12 years ago

To strike a contrarian tone, how much is this going to matter a handful of years from now as the internet at large and bandwidth to the home continues to increase? In a decade is it unreasonable to expect that "really fast" home internet is 1 gigbit? At that point even your pokey 50mbit connection already has 10x-20x the bandwidth Netflix sees for a "good" connection (their metric). Does this make it harder for Netflix and future video streaming companies to send us 4k video, sure, but I struggle to come up with too many other ways that this will hurt.

swang• 12 years ago

Do you live in America? I find it laughable that our internet will get that good unless Google gets Fiber into large enough areas forcing competition.

Even then, ComcastWarnerXfinity will find ways to jack up prices.

Tossrock• 12 years ago

It's going to matter a lot, because consumer internet consumption is shifting inexorably toward mobile, which tends to have data caps. You could blow through the standard 2 GB monthly allotment in a single HD movie streamed to your phone. If suddenly Youtube videos no longer count toward your data allotment, you're much more likely to use Youtube, and not any other competitor which are metered.

cdash• 12 years ago

It is not just mobile that has data caps either. Sure the caps are a lot higher than mobile caps of a few gigs but even 150-300 GB caps are pretty small.

At the highest bit rate, 1 hour of Netflix video is about 3.1 GB. Now add in the fact that there is only one internet connection per household so you will have multiple people watching Netflix video and doing everything else on the internet they do and it is just terrible. A digitally downloaded game, which is not just done on PC anymore but also will be huge on the new consoles can be around 30 GB or larger.

Bud• 12 years ago

"Continue to increase"? As has been amply documented in various HN threads, it hasn't increased at all in the last 15 years or so, really. Certainly not to the degree one would have expected. DSL speeds are basically exactly the same (slower in many cases) as they were in the late 1990s. If you are lucky and in the right urban area, you might have fiber or cable internet with faster speeds, but otherwise? It's still the late 1990s. And the prices, if anything, are higher today for the same service.

betterunix5• 12 years ago

"To strike a contrarian tone, how much is this going to matter a handful of years from now as the internet at large and bandwidth to the home continues to increase?"

Who will enjoy the benefits of the increase? If you are only getting 9.6kbaud unless you pay millions of dollars in fees to every ISP between you and your peers, then all that bandwidth is useless to you.

"In a decade is it unreasonable to expect that "really fast" home internet is 1 gigbit?"

One gigabit to Youtube, unless you are on a Comcast connection in which case it is 1 megabit for Youtube and a gigabit to NBC's streaming service, and 256 kilobits for anything else.

"Does this make it harder for Netflix"

Oh you wanted to have access to Netflix? Well that will be $300/per gigabyte for a business line that has real Internet access. For a mere $20/month, you can have unlimited access to the best of Comcast, now partnered with Microsoft!!!

darrenkopp2• 12 years ago

Signed up for yesterday, had to pay $5 comcast tax for HBO go (HBO = $15, them "letting" me use HBO go - $5).

This system is bull shit.

kefka• 12 years ago

You have a choice.

You can always NOT pay the HBO "tax" and pirate it like the rest of us.

anigbrowl5• 12 years ago

Or not pay the HBO tax and either buy the shows on disc or go without watching them. I refuse to sign on to this entitlement mentality that says I have an automatic right to watch popular shows by hook or by crook.

This isn't an endorsement of the status quo for consumers, but I do think that publishers such as HBO have the right to sell their content in whatever way makes them the most money - they're running a business after all.

darrenkopp2• 12 years ago

So, for HBO including their Go product with their subscription to everyone, I should stick it to HBO by for renting everything because Comcast is tacking on an additional fee (forcing me to upgrade my internet to higher tier)?

sergiotapia• 12 years ago

I'm moving back to the states in a couple of months, what the actual fuck. Is this true or are you exaggerating for effect?

Are they really double dipping with their customers? Which ISP does _not_ do this? I'm moving to Boston. I want to pay an ISP $X and download at X speed - they shouldn't care what I use it for.

guelo• 12 years ago

In the coming decades our current golden age of internet innovation will be looked back in wonder.

pjlegato3• 12 years ago

Yes. It'll be like looking back on the long https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defunct_automobile_man... -- the early 20th century was a hotbed of innovation and technical progress, being carried out by hundreds of independent groups on a small scale. Then, the industry consolidated around a few gigantic players, and technical innovation ground to a halt for decades.

api2• 12 years ago

This is one of my principal reasons for being a singularity-skeptic. While runaway technological innovation might be possible, I think it's likely that economics and politics will stop it.

Physics won't stop Moore's law. Industry consolidation, slowing innovation, and a lack of demand will. I would not be terribly surprised if we never see computers more than 2X as fast/powerful as today's, since without corresponding software and networking innovation to drive demand why would they be built? That's a tad shy if what would be required for strong AI, "mind uploading," or any of that stuff.

rasz_pl• 12 years ago

Fast Lane? more like 'not slowed down lane'

kin• 12 years ago

we can trust Google Fiber to be net neutral... right?

webmaven3• 12 years ago

I certainly hope so, I'm getting their service in June.

nfoz3• 12 years ago

Why? It's exactly the classic problem: the distribution channel owned by a single content producer. Also, an advertisement company that gets to know literally everything you do on the Internet. What more do you need to know??

Touche• 12 years ago

Game over. The internet was fun while it lasted.

Anyone want to start a mesh network startup?

chris_mahan• 12 years ago

We need a raspberrypi-like device with wifi built-in, that can be fully off-grid (with battery, solar panel) and have about 100GB of storage, for about $100, and we can make this work.

Corrado• 12 years ago

I was thinking something similar while reading the article. The old adage is that "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it" and in this case I think we can regard this ruling as censorship. So we should route around it.

Actually, this idea of an "alternate" network is a fairly old one but it just never materialized. I think thats because the "normal" network worked fine and wasn't too damaged for most of the people. However, this new ruling may be enough to get people (i.e. us, the technorati) to act.

chris_mahan has proposed one solution in a sibling thread. Are there others? I had a thought to use a cell phone as the mesh connector. Its something we all have in our pockets anyway and wouldn't require any new hardware. What about a company that provides the hardware for free but charges for the service? This is very similar to how the cable companies started out and it seems to have worked for them. :)

rayiner• 12 years ago

People say: this could hurt startups. Which makes me think: so? Isn't it inherent to startups that they have a competitive disadvantage in areas where expensive infrastructure is required? Isn't it an inherent advantage big businesses have over startups?

Let's take the history of telco monopolies off the table for a minute. Let's say these are purely privately funded networks with no government sanctioned subsidies. Is net neutrality still a good idea? Does't artificially take away an advantage big companies inherently have?

tomwrenn2• 12 years ago

This would be pay for play(speed) though. Not efficiency for play(speed). Efficiency should rightfully be encouraged, but pay for speed effectively means the first entrant is the winner for the rest of time no matter their improvements in efficiency (obviously depending on the nature and implementation of these rumoured policies).

sd8f9iu• 12 years ago

The balance between advantages to existing firms and advantages to startups is very much set by political and regulatory choices (like this). Given how much other legislation and regulation there already is affecting the balance, this is only one variable in the mix, and I'm hesitant to believe it shifts the balance in the right direction (where "right" is what's best for society).

Furthermore, ISPs seem to me to be a far cry from the "free market" (I have very few options for my ISP), so I don't believe simply reducing regulation will lead to the best outcome.

gnoway3• 12 years ago

This is a strange position to take (net neutrality == affirmative action for startups?) but to answer your question: yes, it's still a good idea and yes, it artificially takes away an inherent advantage (or: 'regulates').

In this scenario I think regulation would be unfair and wrong, but it would be still be a good idea considering the public benefit. Although, were this to be the reality then I suspect we wouldn't have an Internet at all.

jrjr• 12 years ago

the pigs are creating a slow lane, not a fast lane.

ademarre2• 12 years ago

Are there to be any regulations to prevent ISPs from artificially degrading delivery of low-priority content providers? Prioritizing content is one thing, but artificially withholding or delaying delivery of content is quite another.

marshray3• 12 years ago

There's no difference.

TCP/IP works by gradually increasing transmit speed until packets are lost. Making traffic 'faster' for one set of connections is accomplished by dropping packets on others.

ademarre2• 12 years ago

Fair enough, but what about periods where there is little or no competition between connections of different priorities? Could low-priority transmissions be throttled well before they begin to experience packet loss?

kator• 12 years ago

Can we get the FCC to rule that Bit Torrent is a form of carpool lane and we should get faster access?

AngrySkillzz• 12 years ago

Where's Genachowski when you need him... Oh, he's stuck in the revolving door.

Afforess• 12 years ago

Fuck you, Tom Wheeler.

That is all.

NAFV_P2• 12 years ago

As of 23:52 BST this article has 63 comments, 18 of which have been downvoted.

dang2• 12 years ago

A user went haywire and downvoted a whole bunch of comments. We'll correct the damage.

All: when you notice substantive and civil comments that are unfairly faded out, please give them a corrective upvote. This is a longstanding community practice. It usually only takes one or two corrective votes to get back to par, so every user can make a significant difference.

NAFV_P2• 12 years ago

Thank you, I will remember that.

mmanfrin• 12 years ago

This makes my blood boil. The FCC is perhaps the one agency that could do something to step the dominance of the internet in the US by Comcast/Verizon, as nothing seems like it will happen legislatively. I have a feeling things will get a lot worse before they begin to get better.

grandalf4• 12 years ago

I realize this view is controversial, but net neutrality is about as logical as arguing that all residential bandwidth should be dedicated symmetrical up/down.

As content + routes become mainstream (the top 1-2% of bandwidth), the price of hosting them approaches the dedicated bandwidth price. This is because the usage pattern variability is arbitraged upstream of the ISP.

Preferential QoS based on content source is a predictable consequence of this, since the ISP begins to have no opportunity for bandwidth arbitrage and must rely on some other revenue stream to avoid having to charge dedicated bandwidth prices.

sytelus3• 12 years ago

I'm not sure if you are applying this "logic" correctly. Bandwidth must be treated as utility, just like electricity and water. Like any other utilities, there should be a fixed charge for fair level of use and prorated charge beyond that to consumers of the utility. Here instead the proposal is to charge content providers and that too selectively. That means only big guys favored by cable companies can become content providers. Even worse, existing content providers can buddy up with cable companies to raise the entry point so new content providers have little or no chance. This is a complete utter disaster and clearly driven by cable industry lobby to tighten up their monopoly.

grandalf4• 12 years ago

Bandwidth must be treated as utility, just like electricity and water.

While this sounds good, it is fairly arbitrary. Why should my connection be asymmetric 20/1 with mediocre latency? What if I prefer 10/10 with less latency? The status quo QoS benefits some types of content providers and harms others.

randomfool• 12 years ago

Disagree that it's comparable to symmetrical up/down- the bandwidth my ISP charges me is irregardless of the direction. Your argument would be valid if I were only paying for data that I send, but I'm not.

Why can't I tell my provider that I want to minimize the latency when playing a first-person shooter, and I'm willing to pay for it?

grandalf4• 12 years ago

Why can't I tell my provider that I want to minimize the latency when playing a first-person shooter, and I'm willing to pay for it?

You certainly can. Why can't Disney tell your provider it wants to maximize bandwidth for Disney content, and offer to pay for it on your behalf?

Brakenshire2• 12 years ago

As content + routes become mainstream (the top 1-2% of bandwidth), the price of hosting them approaches the dedicated bandwidth price. This is because the usage pattern variability is arbitraged upstream of the ISP.

I'd appreciate a simpler explanation of your point, for mere mortals like myself!

grandalf4• 12 years ago

I think I did a better job of articulating it here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7288864

webXL4• 12 years ago

It's also as logical as arguing that a brand new market with unmet demand won't lead to increased competition, investment and innovation. The fast lane can always be made faster and sold for less, pretty much just like every other piece of technology in existence.

Not controversial in my book. Commence the down votes!!!

sytelus3• 12 years ago

This law is the worst thing that could possibly happen to Internet. We need to as zealously fight against this as we did against SOPA. All the tech millionaires and billionaires out there: THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO SAVE INTERNET BY WIELDING YOUR CONNECTIONS. I'm not even sure how a cable lobbyist dick like Tom Wheeler got in FCC in first place and I continue to wonder how people like him would never hesitate to kill something as beautiful as the system that connects entire human being for their personal profits.

r00fus2• 12 years ago

I'm pretty sure the major tech elite is on board with this - their companies can pay for it, and they won't get upended by some upstart competitor.

Consumers lose, big time. The cable-ization of the internet just hit an inflection curve.

Now where are all those fools who were complaining about Julius "Caesar" Genachowski?

gergles• 12 years ago

It's not a law. It's an "administrative regulation" and there's nothing anybody other than the FCC commissioners can do to stop it.

jkelsey• 12 years ago

When the Democrats come around here soon during the next two elections, with their hand out towards the tech community -- remember this. They only promise openness when they're trying to get elected, not governing.

transfire• 12 years ago

Here comes the proverbial "Consumer Choice": Which primary Internet package would you like: Google Plus, Microsoft Office with XBox Live, Facebook, or Yahoo? Do you need any specialty cloud services: Amazon, Dropbox, Spotify? Would you like full access to uncertified internet sites for an additional $15/mo?

dethstar• 12 years ago

That's what going on with the changes on Mexican laws, it let ISPs charge for 'premium' or content.

api2• 12 years ago

Computer operating systems are increasingly closed to "uncertified" apps, so how long before "uncertified" internet sites are also closed?

kevando4• 12 years ago

You know what really scares me about this? I think a lot of Americans would be fine with this kind of internet. Why should their Facebook and Yahoo! news be slower just because transfire and kevando want access to every single possible thing on the internet?

omgitstom• 12 years ago

Between this and the comcast / twc merger, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the government cannot act on behalf of the consumer.

Please feel free to reach out to Tom Wheeler on twitter https://twitter.com/TomWheelerFCC

andyl• 12 years ago

I want to drop my Comcast home internet (Palo Alto CA) and switch to a net-neutrality friendly ISP. What other service should I consider?

joeybaker• 12 years ago

https://www.goubiquiti.com/

kinofcain• 12 years ago

Sonic, had them in PA for a few years, best ISP I've had. They'll crank a single DSL line up to whatever it will carry ($40/mo for around 15-20mbits) and bond two of them together for $80-ish IIRC.

Taniwha• 12 years ago

Don't for get to call your ISP and demand your cut of the money they're now earning for pimping you out to the content providers

knodi• 12 years ago

WTF!!! I'm so pissed of at our fucking government, it can't get one god damn thing right.

webXL4• 12 years ago

It does know how to enlarge itself.

pushedx• 12 years ago

I'm the lead developer at a video startup. This policy may make our concept economically infeasible. I'm so angry that I can't even think straight right now. I thought we won this battle. I thought it was over. I want to take to the streets. We need to do something. We can't let this happen.

massappeal2• 12 years ago

if these rules are actually implemented, Silicon Valley will cease to be Silicon Valley.

webXL4• 12 years ago

Not sure how that's possible exactly, but some might argue that's not such a bad thing, WRT to leveling the playing field a bit and avoiding investment bubbles.

People argued that Detroit would cease to exist if the government did x, y or z, but I think technology and competition had more to do with its downfall.

massappeal2• 12 years ago

And arguably Detroit did cease to exist. The auto industry that was based there is much more dispersed. The same thing would happen to Silicon Valley. Capital will be focused in markets where new companies can reach consumers fairly, leaving the US bereft of an innovative digital economy.

toasted• 12 years ago

Can americans explain to me why cable companies seem to have a monopoly on internet in the USA when presumably most houses still have copper phone lines capable of running VDSL connections capable of 52mbps?

dredmorbius• 12 years ago

The Edge in one of its recent "Question" issues ran a piece by Charles Seife on capture, in response to the question "what should we be worried about".

It's a tremendous problem, and not just of government (principle-agent problems in management and business are also rampant). Recommended reading:

http://edge.org/response-detail/23674

And the answer isn't "don't regulate". It's "regulate appropriately and effectively". Just realize that this is an eternal challenge.

NB: Sadly the formatting of the questions and responses is horrible. In particular, navigating the full list by title is all but impossible. I've highlighted the specific essay in question.

rsobers• 12 years ago

Apparently the reports are incorrect and the FCC will issue a statement shortly refuting the claims by the NYT:

https://twitter.com/fmanjoo/status/459154485793656832

zymhan• 12 years ago

I'm crossing all of my fingers and toes. Who sent the email that he took a screenshot of, though? On second thought, I suppose that would give away his source.

RyanMcGreal• 12 years ago

That response is quoted in the NYT article: “The same rules will apply to all Internet content. As with the original open Internet rules, and consistent with the court’s decision, behavior that harms consumers or competition will not be permitted.”

Hilarious. In Wheeler's view, consistency means every large, wealthy corporation has an equal opportunity to pay extra for faster access to customers.

dragonwriter9• 12 years ago

That response is quoted in the NYT article:

A response is quoted in the NYT article, but not the published refutation that was discussed upthread, which is now available: http://www.fcc.gov/blog/setting-record-straight-fcc-s-open-i...

It sounds like the intent is to hew closely to the original order but to adapt it exactly and only as much as necessary to conform to what the FCC perceives to be the parameters of the D.C. Circuit decision.

cheetahtech• 12 years ago

This all from a president the YC is hosting for a fundraiser. I bet he's saying, how do you like me know! Sorry my cynical behavior, but this is horrible.

oneandoneis2• 12 years ago

America in a nutshell: bunch of smart guys make an amazing system that changes the world; bunch of politicians cheerfully destroy it in return for a quick profit.

If Snowden's revelations weren't enough to ensure the rest of the world got busy on routing traffic around America, legislation like this will.

This move isn't just going to screw American consumers & startups. It's going to remove America from its status as the hub of the Internet.

And all thanks to a few profit-obsessed monopolists.

Yay capitalism.

xedeon2• 12 years ago

Let's all contact the F.C.C. and let them know how we us consumers are against this! I can't believe not a single HN user suggested this on this thread yet!

Federal Communications Commission

445 12th Street, SW

Washington, DC 20554

To Contact the Commissioners via E-mail

Chairman Tom Wheeler: Tom.Wheeler@fcc.gov <<<<<<<<<

Commissioner Mignon Clyburn: Mignon.Clyburn@fcc.gov

Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel:

Jessica.Rosenworcel@fcc.gov

Commissioner Ajit Pai: Ajit.Pai@fcc.gov

Commissioner Michael O’Rielly: Mike.O'Rielly@fcc.gov

Complaints: File a Complaint

Freedom of Information Act requests: FOIA@fcc.gov

Elections & political candidate matters: campaignlaw@fcc.gov

1-866-418-0232 FAX: toll-free

1-202-418-1440 Elections & political candidate matters

pyvpx• 12 years ago

I'm sorry; I think you meant to suggest we pool our pocket change and hire a lobbying firm. A fax and email campaign is going to do what? waste toner and mailstore space?

xedeon2• 12 years ago

Such a cynical reply, it's worth try and cost virtually nothing... Maybe individuals like yourself deserves a gutted internet that restricts information, and stifles innovation.

dragonwriter9• 12 years ago

Let's all contact the F.C.C. and let them know how we us consumers are against this!

The FCC Chair has already stated [1] that he is against the kind of rule that the NY Times story described:

[1] http://www.fcc.gov/blog/setting-record-straight-fcc-s-open-i...

F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

Related Stories