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

[elleng]

Source: nyt

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.

The proposed rules are a complete turnaround for the F.C.C. on the subject of so-called net neutrality, the principle that Internet users should have equal ability to see any content they choose, and that no content providers should be discriminated against in providing their offerings to consumers.

The F.C.C.'s previous rules governing net neutrality were thrown out by a federal appeals court this year. The court said those rules had essentially treated Internet service providers as public utilities, which violated a previous F.C.C. ruling that Internet links were not to be governed by the same strict regulation as telephone or electric service.

The new rules, according to the people briefed on them, will allow a company like Comcast or Verizon to negotiate separately with each content company – like Netflix, Amazon, Disney or Google – and charge different companies different amounts for priority service.

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

[octoberlib]

1. This is really bad news for consumers. nt

[elleng]

2. The article says, further:

That, of course, could increase costs for content companies, which would then have an incentive to pass on those costs to consumers as part of their subscription prices.

Proponents of net neutrality have feared that such a framework would empower large, wealthy companies and prevent small start-ups, which might otherwise be the next Twitter or Facebook, for example, from gaining any traction in the market.

The new proposals, drafted by the F.C.C.'s chairman, Tom Wheeler, and his staff, will be circulated to the other four commissioners beginning Thursday, an F.C.C. spokeswoman said. The details can be amended by consensus in order to attract support from a majority of the commissioners. The commission will then vote on a final proposal at its May 15 meeting.

[Supersedeas]

105. do they really need an incentive?

when a pretext will do

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. As if DU wasn't already slow to load most of the time.

It's 'welcome to bumtown' for most small websites who can't afford to pay extra.

[fredamae]

4. So, what do we do?

Disconnect for awhile to get their attention?

[msanthrope]

8. We push for municipal broadband. nt

[elleng]

13. YES!

[msanthrope]

17. That's how you kill those fucking companies...you close the digital gap and make it a public utility

for all to use.

[elleng]

19. Yes indeed.

I worked for feds, regulating railroads, and its clear we need to get back to Teddy Roosevelt and actual anti-trust thinking. TRAGIC what we've lost it.

[octoberlib]

23. I love this idea! nt

[Doctor_J]

46. like we pushed for single payer health care

you think anyone in the government works for the people? Every fucking one of them is on Comcast's payroll.

[merrily]

88. Yeah, that pushing thing always works.

About as well as signing an internet petition or passing on an email chain letter.

I look back on myself when I was new to the internet, and the seriousness with which I complied with every request of that kind, as if I were doing anything but throwing away my time. What a naive soul I was.

[adirondacker]

91. +1000! nt

[RKP5637]

5. They want to get to tiered bundled pricing so they can screw everyone like on cable TV, it's

the same old shit warmed over. And if we had a real F.C.C. for the people, it would be stopped. ... but the F.C.C. is just another facet of Big Money and "we the people" can go to hell. Some people think the gov. is for them, what a cruel joke on delusional Americans.

[burfman]

67. Captured my thoughts exactly....time to bend over and cough for Comcast & Verizon

Seems like we are going to be at the mercy of the Comcast / Verizon monopolies - like forever..... I think the solution for starters is to split the transport of the data away from content creation. I guess I gotta wonder too why Verizon's FIOS which I have needs even more money as it has enough bandwidth to support all the existing traffic at the moment without any trouble for the $60 or so (it's bundled with some other stuff) that I pay.

[Beartracks]

78. While I agree with your sentiment, the bending over is....

.... a separate action/examination from the coughing. In an actual medical setting, that is. Bend over for the back exam, cough for the frontal exam.



================================

[burfman]

100. my mistake...

Sorry Beartracks for the mistake on the rear vs front exam. I admit there is alot going on in the world that is way way more important but somehow this FCC thing which appears to be giving the house away while with a straight face claiming that they are maintaining net neutrality just pisses me off.....thanks for setting me straight .... I'll try to pay more attention next time I have to drop my pants for the doc......

[Beartracks]

104. No problem. But this FCC thing worries me, too.

Seems like another poison pill being sugar-coated with "It's good for you!"

=================

[KeepItReal]

6. Fargin sneaky bastages

Netflix should have never capitulated to Comcast. That was the beginning of the end.

Way to look out for consumers, FCC.

[msanthrope]

7. The FCC lost their court case....

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf

[KeepItReal]

10. The FCC still has the ability to reclassify broadband and issue new rules

They chose to give the Comcasts of the word the power to demand money from content providers.

"Michael Copps, an FCC commissioner from 2001 to 2011 (and acting chairman for several months in 2009), is proof that not every former FCC member becomes a lobbyist for the industries the commission regulates. The only commission member to vote against allowing the Comcast/NBC Universal merger, Copps is now a self-described public interest advocate who leads the Media and Democracy Reform Initiative at Common Cause.
FURTHER READING

On Wednesday, Copps wrote a blog post titled, "The Buck Stops At The FCC," calling upon the commission to "reclassify broadband as 'telecommunications' under Title II of the Communications Act." The effect of that move would be to designate Internet service providers as "common carriers," making them subject to increased FCC regulation.

Such a move would bring fierce opposition from telecommunications companies and their friends in Congress. But the FCC's previous failure to reclassify broadband blew up in its face when a court ruled that that the agency couldn't impose anti-blocking and anti-discrimination regulations on ISPs because they aren't classified as common carriers.

"The good news is that the solution is pretty simple," Copps wrote. "It doesn’t require a new telecommunications statute replete with time-consuming years of legislative horse-trading and special interest lobbying. All it requires is an FCC big enough to own up to its previous mistakes and courageous enough to put our communications future back on track.""

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/01/drop-regulatory-hammer-on-internet-providers-says-former-fcc-commish/

[msanthrope]

14. That a great idea, but no one has been able to explain the legal justification the FCC would use to

change its own 10 year old ruling on the matter. It's not enough to reclassify--you actually have to have a reason to do so that will pass a court.

Further, that will impact the one thing that has the possibility to kill Verizon/Comcast/Warner/AT&T....municipal broadband. The development of municipal broadband is affected if you bring it under Title II, and that would give the companies the edge in killing off municipal competition.

[snot]

26. Do you have a source for your suggestion

that the FCC would need to state a reason to reclassify, or that it couldn't come up with one that would pass muster in court?

Could you also pls explain further what Title II is, and how that would affect municipal broadband?

[msanthrope]

28. A source? We live in a representative democracy. The government must actually provide a reason,

i.e. constitutional authority for what it does. In this case, Title IV of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 covers rule making, and therefore, classification.

If you've got an argument for reclassification that you think would win in the DC Circuit court, let's hear it.

[Doctor_J]

47. you're kidding, right?

We live in a representative democracy

Stop it, you're killing me

[villager]

52. That's a pretty hilarious delusion, all right

But then again, a lot of people think we have actual organic "choices" at election time, too

[Lasher]

49. Just such an argument is easy to find.

Since the net neutrality case was decided on the basis of classification by the FCC, this could be fixed by re-classifying internet providers as common carriers. The DC Circuit Court left room for them to create more specific rules to preserve neutrality.

But that's not going to happen because FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler (appointed by Obama on November 14th last year) has stated in the past that he is not opposed to prioritization of traffic by service providers. Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry. We had a discussion about it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=717803

We have Tom Wheeler and his enabler Barack Obama to blame for this.

[msanthrope]

50. Okay--explain the legal basis for that. Yeah, I get that you want reclassification, but since the

FCC went to the trouble of classifying differently 10 years ago, what would you say is the legal basis for doing so?

[Lasher]

57. The court left the door open by affirming the FCC can regulate the Internet.

The FCC made a mistake in 2002 when they classified internet providers as ISPs. They are clearly utilities and should always have been classified as such. All Wheeler needs is the votes of two other commissioners to correct that mistake and net neutrality would be preserved. But all we're going to get from him is some pie-in-the-sky alternative that will take a very long time to never materialize - as planned.

[msanthrope]

58. But put that "mistake" in legal terms...in a legal argument that would survive a court challenge.

I'm not saying I disagree with you. I'm saying I don't see how you make that change to an entire industry quickly and neatly, and in time to preserve anything.

[Lasher]

63. I don't see a need to further justify such an act of regulation by the FCC.

That is to say, unless there is a specific statute that enjoins them from carrying it out and I know of none. And remember, reclassification would do more to prevent change than to bring it about. The FCC has been trying to regulate internet providers as utilities ever since the big mistake of 2002. They have been somewhat successful until things started falling apart lately with Netflix, et al.

[merrily]

89. That seems to be the exact problem. They have been regulating ISPs as utilities, BUT without

classifying them as such.

Either the statute of Congress empowering the FCC to regulate utilities is constitutional or not. If constitutional, exactly which part of that statute prevents reclassification? The rest sounds to me like smoke and mirrors.

[Lasher]

90. The DC Circuit Court decision codifies the FCC's authority to regulate, does it not?

In the absence of a compelling argument to the contrary, then shouldn't we wonder why it is that they choose not to regulate as they are supposed to do? And shouldn't we wonder why the FCC didn't appeal the Circuit Court decision? Please help me understand why they did not.

Have you never once suspected that Barack Obama just might be a Ronald Reagan economic neoliberal?

[JDPriestly]

101. Merrily explains it very well here. Hope you will read it, misanthrope.

[msanthrope]

102. Her refusal to answer the simplest questions... to the point where she was called out

by another poster for refusing to answer the simple questions, reflects the underlying logical flaw in the arguments that were made..... it's all fine well and good to argue for reclassification, but unless you've got a legal strategy that actually addresses recent pro business SCOTUS rulings, all you have is an ideal that is poorly defended.

That said, I take the refusal to answer my questions as a sign of concession.

[JDPriestly]

103. The Supreme Court is a huge problem, but the FCC should at least make an effort.

It is the task of the FCC to right this problem. I have no fear that it will be righted.

A few months of discriminatory internet service and not being able to get that one website you like will start a huge movement for internet neutrality. Some entrepreneur will come in with money and fund broadband that is really powerful for less cost.

I remember what happened with cell phones. Technological developments and competition have brought prices down. In addition, with cell phones, people have dropped their land-lines in order to have better cell phone service.

The outcome will be that someone will offer no discrimination internet access, and people will drop cable subscriptions to put their money into wide-ranging, non-discriminatory broadband for their computers.

That is what we have already done.

[NorthCarolina]

42. If it would give them an edge in killing off competition, they'd

be all over it like white on rice demanding reclassification. Since they're pushing in the opposite direction, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that defeating net neutrality is the real prize to be had. Wheeler was appointed for the sole purpose of making it happen. He can take the public scorn, and skip happily back to his lucrative career lobbying Congress. He'll be a hero in his circles. He might even garner free lifetime access to Roadrunner Ultra-Super-Mega-Fast Service.

[msanthrope]

43. They already defeated net neutrality, in January, with the decision I cited. If anyone on this

board has a work around of that decision, I'd like to read it.

[TheKentuckian]

97. The reason is Internet service providers are not information services

but rather transporters of data, it is the content providers who are information services.

What feeble amount of information services they provide should be required to split off and divest.

They should be designated as common carriers because that is exactly what they are. Further making such designations is tthe duty of the FCC.

[elleng]

16. Thanks for this, Real.

[GoneFishin]

37. I guess those forking iceholes at the FCC are planning for their retirement. nt

[KeepItReal]

59. You know it!

[onenote]

80. Wheeler is 68. This is almost certainly his last job.

And he's indpendently wealthy. When he finishes his tenure at the FCC, he's almost certainly to go back to writing history books, which is his real passion.

And as someone who doesn't want to see net neutrality concepts gutted, I'm still willing to wait until there is actually something specific on the table as a proposal before freaking out. Wheeler himself put out the following statement. We'll see at the end of the month whether its spin or not. http://www.fcc.gov/blog/setting-record-straight-fcc-s-open-internet-rules

[blackspade]

9. Are they trying to kill the Internet?

Someone got paid at the FCC....

[snappyturtle]

11. When will people get angry? Enough is enough. Prices for food and gasoline, well

just about everything is up....now this? I'll disconnect from the internet and go to the library. A home library for my entertainment is sounding a lot better. For what I pay for internet $67.+/mo. I can buy books and be happy in my retirement. Screw 'em.

[msanthrope]

15. Municipal broadband...we need to push our municipalities to provide us with broadband. nt

[japple]

32. And what if you live in no man's land. I don't live in a municipality. I live 10 miles outside the

county seat and 4.5 miles from a small incorporated village of around 1200 voters. I am fortunate to be able to afford wi-fi, which is the only reliable service available to me. The only alternative is dial up.

[msanthrope]

33. How do you get other utilities, like electricity? nt

[japple]

81. My electric (I have total electric) is from a membership co-op.

n/t

[merrily]

73. Why broadband and not basic TV too?

In my area, you cannot get any channel, not a major commercial network, not PBS, not the local government station--nothing--unless you have a cable company. Your option is Comcast or a screen full of the visual equivalent of static. I am pretty sure that is how the cable companies arranged it, although, supposedly, it's just living in a city. Either way, I think cable companies should be required to provide at least those few channels to everyone.

It would not be for me, but I think a very basic selection should be available to everyone.

And, of course, our elected representatives should be representing us, not only big business. It's not a matter of what we demand--assuming they give a rat's ass what we demand. The sooner we admit that to ourselves, the better. Be it feds or municipal, they know perfectly what the majority of Americans want when it comes to internet.

[japple]

82. Comcast and ATT would not provide service to my house because I live 600 feet from the nearest

hook on. They would charge me $5.00 per foot to bring the cables/lines to my home.

[japple]

83. I actually have a land line phone connection to my house but ATT said that they

could not provide me with DSL. I had Hughes Net for a few long, terrible years. Now that wifi is available, I converted my land lline and internet to verizon two years ago. Just getting wifi was a huge improvement in internet service for me. I shudder to think what I would do without it. It costs me nearly $175.00 per month for internet, one land line, and one cell phone.

[merrily]

84. Gas and electric companies pull that too.

Meanwhile, if they did extend the line, they'd have your business for years. You'd think they'd at least offer to split it with you, but they should really pay it.

These companies used to get monopolies, courtesy of the cities and states and, of course their customers. Many of them still retain monopolies for all practical purposes. It is annoying that things like access were not required.

[japple]

85. The $175.00 per month is for 14 GB of shared (between internet, phones--

I don't use texting or instant messaging service and only have a voice mail on my land line.) Verizon says that I receive a discount of 22% because I work for a hospital, but I can't guarantee it. I think this is a ripoff. I don't have TV--cable or satellite, and I don't stream. I would love to just have access to public broadcasting and local channels, nothing else. I do have a 30 ft. antenna that my Dad installed 40 years ago.

[merrily]

86. Thank goodness for Dad.

It does sound as though you are overpaying.

I pay almost as much, but I do have TV--no premium channels, though. I don't stream either. I prefer to have the computer and TV going at the same time.

I wish I had a solution.

[airplaneman]

96. Hey I'm with you.

The way prices are going up I am looking at other options and thinking it might be best to just disconnect. I pay about $200 per month for TV, internet, and telephone with Comcast. If this is going to go up and I am going to be prevented from doing what I want to do it is looking like I need a new hobby. I have not completely made up my mind but Comcast is not going to be my only source of this stuff at these prices.
-Airplane

[snappyturtle]

98. One of these days the providers are going to realize, regardless of all their

bundling, that they can't get blood from a turnip.

Welcome to DU!

[rurallib]

12. I am surprised businesses, particularly those that started

as start-up companies, are not up in arms.
This will effectively drive the computer whizzes to other countries and make the US internet dry up like a prune.

Jesus-effing-christ these people are killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

[bvar22]

76. That is the part that worries me.

The fact that they have stopped even pretending to Feed the Goose
makes me believe that the Captains are ready to Abandon the Ship,
filling their pockets with all the loot they can carry,
and don't care if we are left to drown in the sinking wreck.

The only fun part I can foresee if that when they line up for their final lifeboats,
all their Water Carriers and Lapdogs (even some here on DU) will expect
to have a seat.
The look on their faces when they are rudely thrown back on the sinking boat with the Peasant Class
may be worth the trip.

[bvar22]

18. Surprised?

Obama appoints industry insider to head the FCC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024521140


...the Republicans made him do that.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not their promises or excuses.

[msanthrope]

29. Indeed--and when Franken, Warren, and Sanders voted for him, I suppose it was, why? nt

[GoneFishin]

38. Obviously a complex strategy that is too advanced for you to comprehend.

Just in case.

[OnyxCollie]

60. During Obama's 2012 campaign,

the 10th and 18th top contributers were Time Warner ($442,271), and Comcast ($337,628), respectively.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00009638

[blkmusclmachine]

75. "Obama appoints industry insider to head the FCC" - Gotta keep that corruption/graft in THE FAMILY

Bullsh!t you can believe in!

[mindwalker_i]

20. So the obvious question is

who is about to leave the FCC to get a multi-million per year lobbying job?

[merrily]

87. Genachowski already left.

[onehandle]

21. That's it folks. We are now the United States of Comcast. nt

[durablend]

94. That's "Comcast States of America", buddy

Get it straight or off to the FEMA camp with you!

[WillyT]

22. K & R !!!

[Earth_First]

24. Thanks, Obama! nt

[snot]

25. K&R'd!!! This is shocking and tragic.

Actually, sadly, I can't say I'm shocked.

[snot]

27. This means everything else will slow down, including D.U., unless we pay more.

[MannyGoldstein]

30. Too bad the House of Representatives controls this!

It would be great if our elected Democrats were able to influence this.

[msanthrope]

31. How, precisely, should our elected representatives control the DC Circuit court?

I would love to hear your separation of powers argument, Manny....

You know, the one that takes this ruling in January....and explains just how an Executive Agency is supposed to ignore the federal courts....

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf

[MannyGoldstein]

34. How'd the appeal work out? nt

[msanthrope]

35. Kindly provide the basis for your appeal, Manny. I would suggest reading the decision, first. nt

[TiberiusB]

92. There doesn't need to be an appeal.

As I understand it, the FCC just needs to get 3 chairmen to vote to re-classify ISPs as common carriers. That's all. It isn't complicated, and if Verizon or Comcast want to sue, good luck with that, as they will have to argue an entirely different case than the one they put forth previously, namely that the FCC was trying to enforce Title II regulations on a Title I service. This time around, they would have to make the case that they deserve that Title I classification, and that the FCC doesn't have the authority to re-classify them. It's galling that Wheeler isn't even game to try. It would be nice if Obama would speak out on this and take a stand, as right now, this is set to get hung around his neck. It seems like another case of Obama the social liberal letting his economic neoliberal rule the day.

[Dustlawyer]

36. Surprise, surprise, surprise!!!

[zonkers]

39. I hope the afterlife is not a two tiered system. Earth sure is.

[HomerRamone]

56. I hope it is

if you catch my drift ~(_8^(I)

[NorthCarolina]

40. Why did President Obama appoint Tom Wheeler to head the FCC?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024521140

from February

[villager]

53. Exactly. "Good" Cop, Bad Cop -- both parties are "cops" on behalf of their true owners, however

And those "true owners" ain't "the people."

[octoberlib]

41. Reaffirming the White House's Commitment to Net Neutrality

By Gene Sperling and Todd Park

Thank you to everyone who has signed on to this petition in support of a free and open Internet. Since his days as a United States Senator, President Obama has embraced the principle of net neutrality. As the President recently noted, his campaign for the White House was empowered by an open Internet; it allowed millions of supporters to interact with the President and each other in unprecedented fashion. That experience helped give rise to the creation of this very platform -- the We The People website -- where Americans can express their opinions on any topic and receive a response from the White House. Rights of free speech, and the free flow of information, are central to our society and economy -- and the principle of net neutrality gives every American an equal and meaningful opportunity to participate in both. Indeed, an open Internet is an engine for freedom around the world.

Preserving an open Internet is vital not to just to the free flow of information, but also to promoting innovation and economic productivity. Because of its openness, the Internet has allowed entrepreneurs -- with just a small amount of seed money or a modest grant -- to take their innovative ideas from the garage or the dorm room to every corner of the Earth, building companies, creating jobs, improving vital services, and fostering even more innovation along the way.

Absent net neutrality, the Internet could turn into a high-priced private toll road that would be inaccessible to the next generation of visionaries. The resulting decline in the development of advanced online apps and services would dampen demand for broadband and ultimately discourage investment in broadband infrastructure. An open Internet removes barriers to investment worldwide.

A wide spectrum of stakeholders and policymakers recognize the importance of these principles. In the wake of last month's court decision, it was encouraging to hear major broadband providers assert their commitment to an open Internet.

It was also encouraging to see Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler, whom the President appointed to that post last year, reaffirm his commitment to a free and open Internet and pledge to use the authority granted by Congress to maintain a free and open Internet. The White House strongly supports the FCC and Chairman Wheeler in this effort.

The petition asked that the President direct the FCC to reclassify Internet service providers as "common carriers" which, if upheld, would give the FCC a distinct set of regulatory tools to promote net neutrality. The FCC is an independent agency. Chairman Wheeler has publicly pledged to use the full authority granted by Congress to maintain a robust, free and open Internet -- a principle that this White House vigorously supports.

Gene Sperling is Director of the National Economic Council and Assistant to the President for Economic Policy. Todd Park is the United States Chief Technology Officer and Assistant to the President.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/reaffirming-white-houses-commitment-net-neutrality

[KoKo]

68. This FCC Turnaround is the exact opposite of what the White House Replied to the Petitioners..

Why would they do this so blatantly? What about the over 100,000 petitioners? How are they and the rest of us supposed to feel about this turn around?

Does the White House feel that people don't remember his promises? Or, he just doesn't give a damn, anymore, what the Democrats who voted for him think.

[octoberlib]

69. Good question. There's an article in the New Yorker today by one of Obama's ex-advisers to

the Federal Trade Commission.

In 2007, at a public forum at Coe College, in Iowa, Presidential candidate Barack Obama was asked about net neutrality. Specifically, “Would you make it a priority in your first year of office to reinstate net neutrality as the law of the land? And would you pledge to only appoint F.C.C. commissioners that support open Internet principles like net neutrality?”

“The answer is yes,” Obama replied. “I am a strong supporter of net neutrality.” Explaining, he said, “What you’ve been seeing is some lobbying that says that the servers and the various portals through which you’re getting information over the Internet should be able to be gatekeepers and to charge different rates to different Web sites…. And that I think destroys one of the best things about the Internet—which is that there is this incredible equality there.”

In 2007, Obama understood all of this. Without net neutrality, the result would be “much better quality from the Fox News site and you’d be getting rotten service from the mom and pop sites.” That year, he swore to me personally that he was committed to defending net neutrality. Unfortunately, his F.C.C. chairman is in the process of violating a core promise to innovators, to the technology sector, and, really, to all of us who use the Internet.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2014/04/the-end-of-net-neutrality.html?mobify=0


I don't know how much control Obama has over this(besides appointing Wheeler). I tend to think Obama was sincere because net neutrality is vital to grass roots organizing and he knows it. Did Obama get assurances from Wheeler that he'd uphold net neutrality? The issue is that the internet needs to be reclassified as a telecommunications service because of a ruling by the DC Circuit Court. I think Wheeler could try a little harder to come up with a solution to this. It still has to go before the other members of the FCC for their input ( 2 R's , 2 D's)

[McCamy Taylor]

44. Faster porn!

Admit it! that's what it will be used for.

[Newsjock]

45. Since this classic image hasn't been posted yet in this thread, allow me:

[Doctor_J]

48. I bet those 70 million who voted (D) in 2008 are really happy at how our party served them since

Change you can believe in

[villager]

54. Hope! Hope! There's still hope!

isn't there?

[OnyxCollie]

62. Fired up for 2014!

[Enthusiast]

64. That's the objective.

To make you enthusiastic to vote. You know, like they did leading up to the 2010 election by extending the Bush tax cuts.

[Eric J in MN]

51. Meaning websites whose owners refuse to double-pay will be in the Slow Lane (NT)

NT

[GoneFishin]

70. I'm really concerned that it will a lot more than double. Double would just be disappointing to me.

I am concerned that it will be more to the extreme such that only entrenched corporations can touch it, and internet entrepreneurship will die.

[Eric J in MN]

93. True. Website owners will have to pay each of the big ISPs

...to be in their Fast Lane.

[davekriss]

55. F*ck them!

[OnyxCollie]

61. If I were cynical,

I would think that the broadband companies would call the regular speed "fast" and make everything else slower.

[bvar22]

65. They already do.

It is called "Bandwidth Throttling",
and we were unhappy victims of this before we switched to a Sat Provider.

[octoberlib]

66. Meanwhile, the EU is protecting their citizens and doing just the opposite.

They also got rid of cellphone roaming charges. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/04/business/international/eu-lawmakers-approve-tough-net-neutrality-rules.html

[snooper2]

71. So I'm still treating all Internet traffic as Best Effort coming into our netowrk

I can see how they can engineer this if Netflix and the end users are on the same network, but obviously that is not the case with the Intertubes LOL..

We carry a bunch of traffic for Vonage for example, which in turns gets handed off to any number of carriers.

I guess they can do it at the edge but that is usually done by specific protocols (Treat RTP traffic as EF, Treat TCP as AF31) Now they will have to have servers or something that actually look at source information in the packet headers?

Not sure but it's not as cut and dry as people here might think it is (fast lane/slow lane)

All I can say is if Comcast is sending us peering traffic (which they do today) I'm going to retag every single fucking packet as Best Effort before it hits our core backbone

[Clint0n]

95. implementation problems

It seems like every server on the internet would have to be updated to allow the 'fast lane'. and checking every packet for this bit of information would effectively slow down the whole internet. I can imagine that some hubs would refuse to cooperate (.edu for example, private ones anyway), or ignore this bit(assuming backwards compatibility), or perhaps alternate/*pirate dns servers could create a route avoiding servers capable of creating the 'slow lane'.

I just think its easily hackable. Where would your data get on the 'fast lane'? At the point of origin, along the way, or will it be slowed down at your providers server? (fiber=speed of light, hard to slow down) Would it be a crime to modify all my packets so they look like they belong in the fast lane?

I can imagine that there will be some freeware like a hacked protocol that can get you onto the 'fast lane'.

Implementation of this will be a bitch, not to mention the backlash from people that are familiar with DDOS(distributed deprivation of service) attacks, as this will surely happen and will probably be made more easier.

good luck haters,
sincerely,
the free world

[airplaneman]

99. I would guess

The fast lane is the best the ISP has or literally no change.
The slow lane would just be a throttle back on those they choose to be in this class.
All this in done on the ISP servers only before delivery to you.
No need for packets or ID.
Only three major ISP's.
This is a free ticked for them to do whatever they want.
Heard Comcast was considering redirecting you from Pirate Bat to iTunes so it wont be a choice.
I have already been throttled back and knocked off Bit Torrent by Comcast.
-Airplane

[Sunlei]

72. can someone wealthy please put up a satellite and give us free internet and phone service.

I wish we could by-pass all this 'internet service provider' crap.

[blkmusclmachine]

74. Terrible news. But absolutely expected. Yay, "democracy" (IF you can AFFORD it...)

[warrprayer]

77. ...

she's singing