Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    I don't know barbaro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    on pacific ocean, south america
    Posts
    21,406

    Internet "paid priority" ?

    Is this a start of something bad?

    FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet
    BY CECILIA KANG
    May 15

    The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted in favor of advancing a proposal that could dramatically reshape the way consumers experience the Internet, opening the possibility of Internet service providers charging Web sites for higher-quality delivery of their content to American consumers.

    The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, could unleash a new economy on the Web where an Internet service provider such as Verizon would charge a Web site such as Netflix for faster video streaming. The proposal would, though, prohibit telecom firms from outright blocking Web sites.

    The plan is not a final rule, but the vote on Thursday is a significant step forward on a controversial idea that has invited fierce opposition from consumer advocates, Silicon Valley heavyweights, and Democratic lawmakers. The FCC will now open the proposal to a total 120 days of public comment. Final rules, aimed for the end of the year, could be rewritten after the agency reviews the public comments.
    Critics of the plan, as it stands now, worry that it would mark the end of net neutrality, the principle that says that all content online should be treated equally by Internet service providers.

    After weeks of public outcry over the proposal, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said the agency would not allow for unfair, or "commercially unreasonable," business practices.
    He wouldn't accept, for instance, practices that leave a consumer with slower downloads of some Web sites than what the consumer paid for from their Internet service provider.

    Wheeler moved forward with a proposal that could allow new business arrangements between Internet service providers--such as AT&T, Verizon and Time Warner Cable--and Web content providers, such as Facebook, Google and online startups for preferential treatment online. But he also asked whether such deals should be banned outright.

    "There is one Internet. It must be fast, it must be robust, and it must be open,"
    Wheeler said. "The prospect of a gatekeeper choosing winners and losers on the Internet is unacceptable."

    The prospect of telecom companies cutting deals with content providers has drawn fierce criticism from investors, startups and big Silicon Valley firms. They say smaller companies that can’t afford to pay for faster delivery would likely face additional obstacles against bigger rivals. And consumers could see a trickle-down effect of higher prices as Web sites try to pass along new costs of doing business with Internet service providers.
    Link: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

  2. #2
    Member
    Bettyboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Online
    Today @ 10:50 AM
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    34,272
    When you empower the gatekeeper then all sorts of politics come into play, profit and greed will win out over product or consumer rights and business transparency/fairness.

    A very bad idea.

    You have the same situation, for example, on Sky's broadcast network, where they are the gatekeeper, and they are very corrupt, are a big content provider themselves, stop other content owners, and force their business plan and politics onto the entire platform (all justified at their board level by their company politics/profit sheets...). The same would happen to the internet if the ISPs were allowed the controls detailed in the OP.
    Cycling should be banned!!!

  3. #3
    Philippine Expat
    Davis Knowlton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    18,204
    Article is a bit confusing. Will this only impact America? If so, who cares? They voted for the sorry mess of a government they have, so tough shit.

  4. #4
    Suspended from News & Speakers Corner

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Online
    16-05-2022 @ 02:00 AM
    Posts
    2,043
    Quote Originally Posted by barbaro View Post
    Is this a start of something bad?

    FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet
    BY CECILIA KANG
    May 15

    The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted in favor of advancing a proposal that could dramatically reshape the way consumers experience the Internet, opening the possibility of Internet service providers charging Web sites for higher-quality delivery of their content to American consumers.

    The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, could unleash a new economy on the Web where an Internet service provider such as Verizon would charge a Web site such as Netflix for faster video streaming. The proposal would, though, prohibit telecom firms from outright blocking Web sites.

    The plan is not a final rule, but the vote on Thursday is a significant step forward on a controversial idea that has invited fierce opposition from consumer advocates, Silicon Valley heavyweights, and Democratic lawmakers. The FCC will now open the proposal to a total 120 days of public comment. Final rules, aimed for the end of the year, could be rewritten after the agency reviews the public comments.
    Critics of the plan, as it stands now, worry that it would mark the end of net neutrality, the principle that says that all content online should be treated equally by Internet service providers.

    After weeks of public outcry over the proposal, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said the agency would not allow for unfair, or "commercially unreasonable," business practices.
    He wouldn't accept, for instance, practices that leave a consumer with slower downloads of some Web sites than what the consumer paid for from their Internet service provider.

    Wheeler moved forward with a proposal that could allow new business arrangements between Internet service providers--such as AT&T, Verizon and Time Warner Cable--and Web content providers, such as Facebook, Google and online startups for preferential treatment online. But he also asked whether such deals should be banned outright.

    "There is one Internet. It must be fast, it must be robust, and it must be open,"
    Wheeler said. "The prospect of a gatekeeper choosing winners and losers on the Internet is unacceptable."

    The prospect of telecom companies cutting deals with content providers has drawn fierce criticism from investors, startups and big Silicon Valley firms. They say smaller companies that can’t afford to pay for faster delivery would likely face additional obstacles against bigger rivals. And consumers could see a trickle-down effect of higher prices as Web sites try to pass along new costs of doing business with Internet service providers.
    Link: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet
    Short answer yes, but given that band width is limited it was only a matter of time before they'd find a way to exploit it for higher profits.

  5. #5
    I don't know barbaro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    on pacific ocean, south america
    Posts
    21,406
    Quote Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton View Post
    Article is a bit confusing. Will this only impact America? If so, who cares? They voted for the sorry mess of a government they have, so tough shit.
    Yes, the article is not clear.

  6. #6
    Banned

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Online
    03-06-2014 @ 09:01 PM
    Posts
    27,545
    Quote Originally Posted by Bettyboo View Post
    When you empower the gatekeeper then all sorts of politics come into play, profit and greed will win out over product or consumer rights and business transparency/fairness.

    A very bad idea.

    You have the same situation, for example, on Sky's broadcast network, where they are the gatekeeper, and they are very corrupt, are a big content provider themselves, stop other content owners, and force their business plan and politics onto the entire platform (all justified at their board level by their company politics/profit sheets...). The same would happen to the internet if the ISPs were allowed the controls detailed in the OP.
    Should've seen this coming eventually....
    Control, suppression, and big profitable gains by the bed fellows - government and corporations.

  7. #7
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Online
    12-05-2022 @ 08:33 AM
    Location
    Elsewhere
    Posts
    1,702
    A post about this this morning on Consumer Trap:

    Zerobama promised his suckers constituents net neutrality. They are getting the exact usual. Per The Wall Street Journal:

    "The Federal Communications Commission advanced new Internet rules that would ban broadband providers from blocking or slowing down websites, but allow them to strike deals with content companies for preferential treatment."

    So, those who own the roads can’t slow somebody down, but can sell access to faster routes? Only in America, folks, does such blatant DoubleThink get reported straight out, without the slightest snicker or blush.

  8. #8
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Last Online
    14-09-2014 @ 04:20 PM
    Location
    Bangkok, the City of Angels!
    Posts
    3,071
    The fight is on to save Net Neutrality!!

    Despite receiving 150,000 signatures petitioning for net neutrality, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler (former lobbyist for his industry cronies) isn't listening--yet. His proposal granting big telecom and cable the right to charge different rates and put users who won't pay up in the SLOWLANE advanced out of his committee yesterday. But there's still time to act.

    Let's flood his email inbox with angry missives. Write to him with the subject line: WE DEMAND NET NEUTRALITY

    His email is here: Tom.Wheeler@fcc.gov

    Make sure you send a copy to openinternet@fcc.gov which is a special inbox set up for public commentary about the proposed rules.

    Tell Wheeler we'll also demand his resignation as FCC Chairman if he doesn't listen. This fellow used to be on the payroll for the very companies that stand to benefit. It's cronyism at its worst. Let him know what you think about that, and about his efforts to choke and strangle the Internet.


  9. #9
    Suspended from News & Speakers Corner

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Online
    16-05-2022 @ 02:00 AM
    Posts
    2,043
    I would use the terms exploit rather than choke and strangle. He doesn't want to choke it off he wants to provide it to the highest bidder for his own eventual gains, he won't be with the FCC forever.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •