

Feds OK Fee for Priority Web Traffic - iotal
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090601262.html

======
jkush
It's extortion.

From a consumer point of view, net neutrality is what we're paying for. Let's
say I pay $50 a month for a certain connection speed. I expect to be able to
surf on the internet at that speed.

Unless I'm incorrect about how it would work, I'd be pretty pissed if certain
types of sites or content were throttled by my ISP simply because they didn't
pay up. I mean, I already paid money to reach that content. I don't see why an
ISP should make money off of the content providers too.

------
imgabe
This title is a little misleading...not your fault, since it's the same
headline the article has. The Justice department told the FCC they're against
net neutrality. The decision rests with the FCC and from what the article says
it doesn't look like they've decided anything yet.

------
indie01
I've been following this "net neutrality" debate for a long time, and both
sides have made some decent points. I used to be a hardcore in the camp of pro
net-neutrality, but the more I think about it, the more it seems that there
are some things that regulation does not solve efficiently. I guess the most
frustrating thing is that _lack_ of regulation is not going to solve anything
either.

One thing that lack of regulation on this issue does is make it substantially
more difficult for small innovators to reap the benefits of their efficiency.
Those tiny, seemingly insignificant increases in efficiency go practically
unnoticed by the large monolithic telecos, but the people who are in the
position to innovate further upon those marginal efficiencies (increasing rate
of return on efficiency, if that makes sense) cannot do so when the ISPs
themselves are taking more than a reasonable share from the people who are
doing the innovating (whether the innovators are customers or competitors is
important to the ISPs in that I imagine most ISPs would rather have innovative
customers than innovative competitors). And that is essentially why I think
that a Laissez-faire approach cannot be good news for the tiny, tech-oriented
startup whose lifeblood depends upon an Internet connection.

------
youngnh
This all goes away with bigger pipes. If there's enough room to provide all of
the content customers demand, then this whole debate won't matter. But if the
FCC stays out and the netops are allowed to decide how they want to manage the
tiny pipes they currently have, they can stave off upgrading them for a lot
longer.

Sounds like an opportunity.

------
mpfefferle
Two questions:

1\. Why exactly do they care? Isn't their job to enforce policy rather than
create it?

2\. Other than being a dominant opinion in the department, how does this
actually affect net neutrality?

------
jamiequint
its not something you just dump something onto, its not a big truck, its its a
series of tubes!!

------
Tichy
Why do companies need permissions to charge for web traffic?

~~~
dpapathanasiou
Networks want the right to decide which packets they send and which they don't
(right now, all packets are "neutral", sent at the same speed and priority).

If granted, it would allow networks to extort, essentially, payment from any
web site, to make sure their service is accessible by its users.

This article is a good summary of what's at stake:
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2006/06...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702108.html)

~~~
Tichy
I think competition would take care of that problem?

~~~
imgabe
Except there's little to no competition in the ISP industry right now. In my
area at least, you either have Comcast or Verizon, there's no other options.

------
edu
:(

