The GovernNET

[WWW]

Apparently the FCC is pushing for internet regulations that would compromise net neutrality. "The FCC's plan would restructure the rules that govern online traffic by granting internet service providers the ability to give some websites 'preferential treatment' - i.e. faster traffic - in exchange for money." What implications would this have on FDR if these regulations were to be implemented?

 

 

http://youtu.be/3YRI5qk6KZY

 

 

[cobra2411]

Net neutrality isn't new and at it's core isn't a end user issue. It's about the big players on the net. For the most part, the large providers that make up the backbone peer together because they get mutual benefit. Then you have someone like Netflix come along that uses all that infrastructure to serve huge amounts of data while reaping all the profit. When it's service providers, ISP A benefits from the peering arrangement with ISP B and ISP B benefits by peering with ISP A. ISP A or B doesn't get any benefit from peering with Netflix.

 

So, as has been done many times before where there is inequality in the benefit, terms are offered to make that agreement more beneficial. Netflix was given a few choices. Run circuits to peering locations closer geographically to your customers, co-locate distribution servers in our facilities or pay us to transport that data across our network. It costs money to expand networks for greater capacity. Since they get no benefit from Netflix why should they have to pay so Netflix gets better service. Netflix is unique due to the extreme amount of data it takes to stream video. 

 

This is not "pay more or we'll bury your site". That's just what it's being called because if Netflix was to pay for capacity to run it's service and drop into peering points across the country they would be bankrupt at their current rates. Why should Netflix be allowed to drop all their data off in California and have other ISP's relay it back to me in Pennsylvania. The argument against net neutrality is that they should have to pay to transfer their data across all the different ISP's in the middle or drop a circuit off in Pennsauken NJ to deliver it to the last mile. That's all I pay for as a customer - the last mile. Everything in the middle is for the mutual benefit of all the "last mile" clients out there. 

[dsayers]

"The FCC's plan would restructure the rules that govern online traffic by granting internet service providers the ability to give some websites 'preferential treatment'

 

As I understand it, this is a gross misrepresentation. Again, as I understand it, the FCC had previously OBSTRUCTED efforts to give some websites "preferential treatment." What has changes is that the Supreme Court has ruled that the FCC has no jurisdiction over such things. So what is described as the FCC planning something is in fact the FCC being removed from the equation. Very different things indeed.

[WWW]

cobra2411,

 

Ok, so you are basically suggesting that Netflix should be responsible for the capacity expansion of the ISP networks, because of the unusual amount of data Netflix users are generating. Sounds reasonable as long as the FCC is out of the equation.

dsayers,

 

If the Supreme court has ruled that the FCC has no jurisdiction or control over such free market activities than we shouldn't have anything to worry about as far net neutrality goes. The guy in the video responded to the issue as if it was the end of the internet as we know it. It must've been alternative media fear mongering for views if what he claimed the FCC was panning was legally illegitimate based on a previous ruling of the Supreme Court.

[dsayers]

If the Supreme court has ruled that the FCC has no jurisdiction or control over such free market activities than we shouldn't have anything to worry about as far net neutrality goes.

 

Not so fast. Communications companies enjoy massive state protections. As a result, in most places, there is little to no competition in regards to internet access. Since they don't actually have to answer to their customers and there is no longer a bully to keep them in check, we may end up seeing the type of gouging that Statists attribute to the free market in the first place. It's a difficult situation because coercion isn't the answer, but in the current paradigm, there's no alternative.

[WWW]

Right, so again the only legitimate solution to this dilemma would be to abolish the State in its entirety. The internet in general is a tool that is crucial to the spreading of information as efficiently as possible by means of net neutrality. Any tampering or harmful altercations with this tool would significantly slow our collective progression towards objective truth (which includes the abolishment of the State). It would be a shame to lose such an invaluable enlightening implement (IEI for short ).~ The most effective way to represent the whole, is to set free the individual.

[Jagsfan82]

I read that this loosening of nu neutrality would in turn grant the FCC much more regulation power over the internet.

 

I'm much more worried about that than ISPs charging for use of their infrastructure...