
F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane - tysone
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/technology/fcc-new-net-neutrality-rules.html
======
kevando
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/](http://avc.com/2014/01/vc-pitches-in-a-year-or-two/)

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

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

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

------
dandrews
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](http://www.nnsquad.org/archives/nnsquad/msg04177.html)

~~~
Zigurd
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.

~~~
jessaustin
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.

~~~
avar
This situation partially exists on the backbone in the form of paid peering.

~~~
jessaustin
"Paid peering" is an oxymoron.

------
transfire
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?

~~~
kevando
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?

------
sytelus
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.

~~~
r00fus
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?

------
sroerick
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.

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

~~~
pjlegato
Tivo's annual revenue is 406m, and the company is worth 1.45bn.
([https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3ATIVO](https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3ATIVO))
Respectable? Sure. But not even close to Netflix.

Netflix's annual revenue is 4.3 BN (i.e. over 10x higher), and the company is
worth 21bn.
([https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3ANFLX](https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3ANFLX))

Why? Sure, a relatively few people will use Tivo, but many more won't.
Empirically, the convenience / lack of planning necessary to watch streaming
video is worth approximately 10x more.

This illustrates the importance of using data rather than anecdotes to draw
conclusions. As a HN poster, our personal experience tends to be heavily
biased towards our self-selected associations with more technically oriented
people rather than "normal," average people.

~~~
digikata
Netflix could easily deploy on a DVR machine which could pre-buffer watch list
or recommended video. There's nothing wrong with DVR technology. I suspect
limitations really stem from the legal licensing distinctions between
distributing video streaming vs buffer & watch-later.

------
mikeyouse
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...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/technology/appeals-court-
rejects-fcc-rules-on-internet-service-providers.html)

2\. [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/20/business/fcc-to-propose-
ne...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/20/business/fcc-to-propose-new-rules-on-
open-internet.html)

~~~
higherpurpose
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.

~~~
pdonis
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.)

------
rsobers
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](https://twitter.com/fmanjoo/status/459154485793656832)

~~~
RyanMcGreal
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.

~~~
dragonwriter
> 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...](http://www.fcc.gov/blog/setting-record-straight-fcc-s-open-
internet-rules)

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.

------
oneandoneis2
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.

------
mmanfrin
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.

------
pushedx
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.

------
noobermin
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...](http://gigaom.com/2014/04/03/european-parliament-passes-strong-net-
neutrality-law-along-with-major-roaming-reforms/)

------
smokinjoe
> 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.

------
xedeon
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
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?

~~~
xedeon
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.

------
Touche
Game over. The internet was fun while it lasted.

Anyone want to start a mesh network startup?

~~~
chris_mahan
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.

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

------
jkelsey
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.

------
gnoway
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"

~~~
dragonwriter
> 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_.

~~~
gnoway
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...](http://www.fcc.gov/document/statement-fcc-chairman-tom-wheeler-fccs-
open-internet-rules)

Unfortunately it doesn't actually say much.

~~~
dang
> I don't really get the downvotes either

A user went haywire and downvoted a whole bunch of comments. We've corrected
the damage, although users had already corrected much of it.

All: when you notice substantive, 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 a good
comment back to par, so every user can make a significant difference.

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

~~~
pjlegato
Yes. It'll be like looking back on the long
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defunct_automobile_man...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defunct_automobile_manufacturers_of_the_United_States)
\-- 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.

~~~
api
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.

~~~
pjlegato
We're already seeing that effect in chips, somewhat. The market has gotten to
the point where relatively cheap chips are good enough for most people's
purposes -- looking at webpages and viewing streaming video on a mobile
device. You don't need a top of the line Intel chip to do that; a cheap ARM
clone is fine.

There is still a higher end driver in the server space, though, as
virtualization progresses... How many virtual machines can you fit into one
box?

------
ihuman
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?

~~~
dragonwriter
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...](http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702304518704579519963416350296-lMyQjAxMTA0MDIwMzEyNDMyWj)

[2] [http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/23/us-usa-fcc-
interne...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/23/us-usa-fcc-internet-
idUSBREA3M1H020140423)

~~~
quaunaut
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.

~~~
dragonwriter
> 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.

I'm just saying it will be more effective to react to the actual proposal when
it is actually proposed and we know what it actually is. We have at least
three conflicting news stories from anonymous sources supposedly close to the
process, which suggests that at least two are mistaken (if not outright lies).

Something actually will be posted with concrete terms for public comment, and
that's the time to respond to the specific content -- now, its probably better
to talk about what _should_ be in any new Open Internet order, rather than
flying off the handle at rumors of what _will_ be in the next Open Internet
order.

Especially since one of the reasons extreme versions often get leaked ahead of
actual proposals is to get activists to blow their top about something _worse_
than the actual proposal, so that they aren't taken seriously when the actual
proposal (bad in many of the same ways, but substantively different from what
the activists have spent some period of time complaining about on the basis
that it _was_ the forthcoming proposal) is released.

------
baconner
I read this as FCC plans to allow slow lanes.

~~~
ipsin
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.

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

Not a bribe; just coincidence.

~~~
raverbashing
Google, Apple and Netflix just have to bribe harder

~~~
kevando
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..

~~~
lucb1e
> Google is very aware that 100% of their userbase (and revenue) are one click
> away from using another search engine.

Actually, google outperforms all other search engines. It seems some people
prefer duckduckgo (as search engine i mean, not just for the other features),
but most i heard people couldn't get the same results (including myself).

Secondly, Google is much more than search nowadays. 100% of their income isn't
gone just like that.

And they have the means to make a stance against paying extra by informing the
public. Not to mention Google Fiber.

~~~
kevando
You're right, Google is by far the best. I tried using bing,duck,yahoo and
none of them even come close, but that doesn't mean everyone else who uses
Google values the same features that I do. Pretty soon people might want to
search based on what their friends like, and suddenly Facebook becomes the new
discovery engine. It's not too far fetched.

And yeah, not 100% of revenue, but it's like 95%

------
dragonwriter
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.)

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

~~~
HillRat
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.

------
omgitstom
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](https://twitter.com/TomWheelerFCC)

------
dredmorbius
_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](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.

------
rasz_pl
Fast Lane? more like 'not slowed down lane'

------
markbao
Honestly—who does this benefit, apart from ISPs?

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

~~~
xcntktn
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.

------
lucb1e
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
That's, huh, way too much social engineering.

------
rayiner
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?

~~~
sd8f9iu
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.

------
Taniwha
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

------
darrenkopp
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
You have a choice.

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

~~~
anigbrowl
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.

~~~
betterunix
Nobody is talking about taking away HBO's right to sell entertainment in ways
that make them money. They can and should out-compete BitTorrent.

~~~
anigbrowl
Bit Torrent doesn't produce anything, it's just a distribution channel. I fail
to see why HBO should spend anything on accommodating people who have no
inclination to pay for the product they produce.

~~~
betterunix
Maybe HBO should embrace an innovative distribution model, instead of clinging
to the obsolete premium-cable-channel model. HBO itself would have been
impossible if the media establishment had been success at killing cable; why
should I feel an iota of sympathy for HBO's unwillingness to embrace newer,
better technologies? Why shouldn't I use better technology to access
entertainment, regardless of whether or not HBO has bothered to try monetizing
those technologies?

~~~
anigbrowl
Because you don't have an automatic right to be entertained. I might want to
watch _Game of Thrones_ , but since I haven't seen fit to buy a HBO
subscription I do without, and HBO is under no obligation to give it to me.

A lot of people seem to assume that HBO and similar publishers either have no
interest in or no understanding of new technology, but the fact is that
they're as eager to exploit it as anyone else, hence the availability of HBO
Go to Amazon customers later this year. That won't have the latest and
greatest shows on it, though; not because HBO is trying to make your life
worse, but because they have signed multi-year contracs to provide their
product exclusively to cable companies for a minimum period. Cable companies
want to be able to offer their customers something that they can't get
anywhere else in order to retain them as subscribers. Exclusivity or first-
refusal deals are the norm in the publishing world, because it's hard to run a
business without them.

Again, why do you assume you have the right to be served entertainment through
the channel of your choice? You wouldn't call up your local pizzeria and
demand they deliver a Big Mac and fries, would you?

~~~
saint_fiasco
_why do you assume you have the right to be served entertainment through the
channel of your choice? You wouldn 't call up your local pizzeria and demand
they deliver a Big Mac and fries, would you?_

Because the marginal cost of a Big Mac and fries is huge compared to the
marginal cost of one more person watching Game of Thrones.

Not saying that's a good reason, but that's probably the reason for that
assumption. People often fail to consider fixed costs when deciding how high
should a "fair" price be.

~~~
anigbrowl
I think a more appropriate comparison would the marginal cost of adding
another distribution channel, which was the basis of my analogy. I'm not
talking about getting a Big Mac for free, but about the unfounded expectation
of having one delivered to you.

~~~
betterunix
It's more like asking your neighbor to fetch two burgers, and then give you
one of them. Except that your neighbor has a burger-multiplying-machine that
can keep giving you burgers once your neighbor gets their first one.

There is no reason we should sit around worrying about HBO. HBO pays people
lots of money to figure out how to monetize their entertainment. Let them
figure out how to monetize BitTorrent and similar P2P systems. If they choose
instead to ignore those technologies, well, they can suffer the consequences
when someone else figures it out. The rest of us should not have to worry --
we do not worry when we turn on the radio or use a VCR, so why should we be so
concerned here?

------
Afforess
Fuck you, Tom Wheeler.

That is all.

------
ademarre
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.

~~~
marshray
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.

~~~
ademarre
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?

~~~
marshray
Packet loss _is_ the way that TCP/IP transmissions are throttled by the
network. It's beautiful in its simplicity that way.

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

~~~
dang
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_P
Thank you, I will remember that.

------
toasted
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?

------
cheetahtech
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.

------
hemancuso
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.

~~~
Tossrock
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
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.

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

~~~
webXL
It _does_ know how to _enlarge_ itself.

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

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

~~~
nfoz
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??

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

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

~~~
webXL
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.

~~~
massappeal
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.

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

------
azinman2
And... there goes the internet.

~~~
noobermin
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.

------
andyl
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?

~~~
kinofcain
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.

------
robbiet480
Ugh.

------
grandalf
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.

~~~
sytelus
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.

~~~
grandalf
> 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.

