Tougher Internet rules to hit cable, telecoms companies

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Alina Selyukh


http://i.imgur.com/5Nbt5hM.jpg

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. regulators are poised to impose the toughest rules yet on Internet service providers, aiming to ensure fair treatment of all web traffic through their networks.

The Federal Communications Commission is expected Thursday to approve Chairman Tom Wheeler's proposed "net neutrality" rules, regulating broadband providers more heavily than in the past and restricting their power to control download speeds on the web, for instance by potentially giving preference to companies that can afford to pay more.

The vote, expected along party lines with Democrats in favor, comes after a year of jostling between cable and telecom companies and net neutrality advocates, which included web startups. It culminated in the FCC receiving a record 4 million comments and a call from President Barack Obama to adopt the strongest rules possible.

The vote also starts a countdown to lawsuits expected from the industry, which contends regulations will burden their investments and stifle innovation, potentially hurting consumers.

The FCC sought new net neutrality rules after a federal court rejected their previous version in January 2014. The ruling confirmed the agency's authority over broadband but said it had improperly regulated Internet providers as if they were similar to a public utility. That contradicted their official classification as "information services" providers, which are meant to be more lightly regulated.

The agency's new policy would reclassify broadband as more heavily regulated "telecommunications services," more like traditional telephone service.

The shift gives the FCC more authority to police various types of deals between providers such as Comcast Corp and content companies such as Netflix Inc to ensure they are just and reasonable for consumers and competitors.

Internet providers will be banned from blocking or slowing any traffic and from striking deals with content companies, known as paid prioritization, for smoother delivery of traffic to consumers.

The FCC is also expected to expand its authority over so-called interconnection deals, in which content companies such as Netflix Inc pay broadband providers to connect with their networks. The FCC would review complaints on a case-by-case basis.

Wheeler's original proposal pursued a legal path suggested by the court. It stopped short of reclassifying broadband and so had to allow paid prioritization, prompting a public outcry and later Obama's message.

With the latest draft, Wheeler sought to address some Internet providers' concerns, proposing no price regulations, tariffs or requirements to give competitors access to their networks.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

http://i.imgur.com/Y2HPRFj.png

[FBD]

this is bullshit, providers should be able to have contingency planning should they have a single client who damn near overtakes their network.

[deebakes]

:sad2:

[DemonGeminiX]

this is bullshit, providers should be able to have contingency planning should they have a single client who damn near overtakes their network.

And then web companies like Netflix and Hulu will have to jack up their rates to accommodate. Social networking sites will have to start charging. Both may have to increase advertising to bring in a revenue stream to cover the increased costs, but it may not be enough. Then people will stop using those services, because it'll be too damn expensive to keep up with the costs, and terribly annoying and inconvenient with all the ads. Then those web companies will go bankrupt and disappear.

[FBD]

the limits of physical reality's are a bitch aint they.....no way do I ever support the law mandating the fucking of some so that others can enjoy things far below par.

sorry welfare queens, no welfare for you.


corporate welfare, that is.

[DemonGeminiX]

I guess we should all get used to not being on forums since the costs associated with hosting forums will rise to levels that no one will want to pay.

[FBD]

too bad the correlation doesnt hold since forums dont generate problem levels of traffic :lol: hosting is cheaper than its ever been.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

this is bullshit, providers should be able to have contingency planning should they have a single client who damn near overtakes their network.

Bullshit, both ends are paying for bandwidth, the provider shouldn't interfere. That being said, that is hardly what this is about, this is about the government taking over the Internet and making it shitty for everyone. There will be more fees, they will have more spying capability and users will have to register with the government to open websites.

Thats if they dont just ship control over to the UN :roll:

[FBD]

sorry porky but when you have data that shows a single service is taking up a preponderance of the network's traffic, that is an issue and it ultimately affects the providers ability to deliver good service to its end users. of course the provider shouldnt interfere, up to the point at which the % network traffic from a given service hits a problem threshold, and at that point, the provider should have a way to deal with it aside from....oh, sorry, the government said we as the provider simply must eat all these costs? :lol: get that bullshit outta here! it was like at the grage when we used to share the net line from the house and the damned plants I mean kids would bitch about US being on the internet....because it was slowing down their gaming, which ate up almost all the bandwidth to begin with! eventually it got to the point where it was screw you guys, you get yours and we'll get ours and its all good, we each pay for our own shit and everyone's happy, albeit a tad lighter in the pocket for it.


but yes, the secondary point is the bigger issue, because you know damned well that is the idea, the simply have the international crime syndicate have the keys and control over every single lever in the world

[PorkChopSandwiches]

sorry porky but when you have data that shows a single service is taking up a preponderance of the network's traffic, that is an issue and it ultimately affects the providers ability to deliver good service to its end users. of course the provider shouldnt interfere, up to the point at which the % network traffic from a given service hits a problem threshold, and at that point, the provider should have a way to deal with it aside from....oh, sorry, the government said we as the provider simply must eat all these costs? :lol: get that bullshit outta here! it was like at the grage when we used to share the net line from the house and the damned plants I mean kids would bitch about US being on the internet....because it was slowing down their gaming, which ate up almost all the bandwidth to begin with! eventually it got to the point where it was screw you guys, you get yours and we'll get ours and its all good, we each pay for our own shit and everyone's happy, albeit a tad lighter in the pocket for it.


but yes, the secondary point is the bigger issue, because you know damned well that is the idea, the simply have the international crime syndicate have the keys and control over every single lever in the world

Your argument is you have too many people on your house eating up your bandwidth, so the solution you get more bandwidth.
Netflix all ready pays for a HUGE pipe, I have a 50 mb connect, yet my videos keep buffering. Bullshit, everyone paid for the bandwidth on both ends, Netflix wasnt maxing their connection and neither was I. The "middle man" was flexing their muscle. If you think for one minute this is because they are over capacity, I would say you are wrong, and the reality is these cable companies are losing money hand over fist because everyone is tired of paying the huge fees for shit they dont even want, so now they are trying to make the losses up somewhere else, which is Netflix and youtube. Thats where all the new consumers consume, not on cable tv

[FBD]

I havent taken a look at the exact #s usage, but I stand by the premise. If however the data does not support the premise, then that of course changes the outcome ;)

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Aaron Pressman - Yahoo! News


http://i.imgur.com/MKeKOJL.jpg

Federal regulators moved forward on Thursday with a net neutrality plan to protect openness on the Internet by treating the online world more like heavily regulated telecommunications markets.

New rules from the Federal Communications Commission adopted on a 3-2 vote will prohibit Internet service providers like Comcast (CMCSA) and Verizon Communications (VZ) from discriminating against any web site or online service. That means sites like Netflix (NFLX) or Google’s (GOOGL) YouTube won’t have to pay extra fees or face sluggish connections with their users. And new sites and services will be able to reach everyone on the Internet on the same terms as the big players.

Courts have struck down earlier net neutrality efforts, saying the FCC lacked authority to impose such rules. So this time around, the FCC chose to categorize high-speed Internet service as a telecommunications service. Consumers have long been guaranteed the right to call any phone they number they desire and phone companies have to treat all calls equally.

The agency heard from Chad Dickerson, CEO of the crafts sales web site Etsy, before the vote.

“Without strong rules to prevent discrimination online, the innovation economy would suffer,” Dickerson said. “We charge only 20 cents to list an item on Etsy, and take only 3.5% of every transaction. We couldn't afford to pay for priority access to consumers, yet we know delays of milliseconds have a direct and long term impact on revenue.”

Cable and telecom companies say congestion is due to the Internet companies sending more data. Higher fees are needed to cover the cost of building more capacity, they say.

Many companies that do business online had feared that Internet service providers would be able to squeeze them for increasingly higher fees to reach consumers. Netflix last year agreed to pay Comcast for faster access after its subscribers experienced slow downs. The problem arises because consumers can’t easily switch Internet service providers – most have only one choice – if they become dissatisfied.

The new rules, which will apply to both wired and wireless Internet connections, include several major restrictions on Internet service providers. They may not slow down or block access to legal content, applications or services. They also may not create "fast lanes," speeding up some traffic in return for additional fees.

"We are here to ensure that there is only one Internet, where applications, new products, ideas and points of view have an equal chance of being seen and heard," Commissioner Mignon Clyburn said. "We are here because we want to enable those with deep pockets as well as those with empty pockets the same opportunities to succeed."

The FCC would not regulate the price of Internet services under the new rules and would not impose any new taxes or government-mandated fees. Nonetheless, opponents said they feared price regulations and new taxes would come eventually, further discouraging investment.

Two Republican commissioners, along with cable and telephone companies, blasted the new rules, warning that they might curb their investment in expanding Internet service and lead to higher prices for consumers. Internet service shouldn’t be regulated under 1930s era telephone rules, they argued.

"The Internet has become a powerful force for freedom, here and around the world," Ajit Pai, one of the two dissenters, said. "So it is sad to witness this morning the FCC’s unprecedented attempts to replace that freedom with government control. It shouldn't be this way."

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler had been pursuing a more modest net neutrality plan last year until President Obama came out in favor of the broader, telephone-based approach. Millions of consumers buffeted the FCC with comments in favor of strong net neutrality rules after comedian John Oliver offered a lengthy rant explaining the issue on his HBO television show.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

I havent taken a look at the exact #s usage, but I stand by the premise. If however the data does not support the premise, then that of course changes the outcome ;)



If Netflix was limited by there bandwidth, they would purchase more bandwidth, thats exactly how it should and has always worked. Now these corksoakers want them to pay extra to reach their customers who are with a different provider then Netflix uses


Netflix recently struck deals to pay Comcast and Verizon to connect its servers directly with the Internet providers' networks to improve steaming speeds. Netflix has said it signed the deals reluctantly.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/06/13/fcc-probes-netflix-isp-fight/10439635/

[Hal-9000]

Your argument is you have too many people on your house eating up your bandwidth, so the solution you get more bandwidth.
Netflix all ready pays for a HUGE pipe, I have a 50 mb connect, yet my videos keep buffering. Bullshit, everyone paid for the bandwidth on both ends, Netflix wasnt maxing their connection and neither was I. The "middle man" was flexing their muscle. If you think for one minute this is because they are over capacity, I would say you are wrong, and the reality is these cable companies are losing money hand over fist because everyone is tired of paying the huge fees for shit they dont even want, so now they are trying to make the losses up somewhere else, which is Netflix and youtube. Thats where all the new consumers consume, not on cable tv


that's horrible....I have about 10-15mb down and .5 up...I don't watch enough streaming stuff to notice buffering and I typically use an 'offsite' (not Netflix etc) that hosts tons of shows and seasons..


and we pay some of the highest prices/least amount of service when compared worldwide...as in South Korea has cheaper and faster internet than Canada :|

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Its not a problem now tat Netflix caved to Verizon, but before that it was

[Hal-9000]

who knew that streaming would become so prevalent as in, paid for and accepted method of watching TV and movies. They stream some pretty high quality stuff nowadays.. I'm still in the mindset of downloading a high quality mkv to watch MOVIES..


I remember the dark side of 1999-ish...watching some porn movie the size of a postage stamp that was stuttering so bad it was a slideshow...and all of us commenting on the quality :lol:

[FBD]

storage, bandwidth, processing speeds took care of all that.

like big yed said, humans mastered the reproduction of audio long ago - and they are still making very rapid advances in video tech - the internet has been doing the same thing, 15 years ago pretty much everyone I knew was still on dial up saying, its not going to be faster enough to be worth it, screw that :lol: