If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   FCC incompetence may result in an extra $4.99/month Netflix fee on your Internet bill   (arstechnica.com) divider line 24
    More: Sad, Federal Communications Commission, Netflix, D.C. Circuit, rulemaking process, Public Knowledge, open Internet, justifications  
•       •       •

5488 clicks; posted to Geek » on 10 Sep 2013 at 10:28 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



24 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-10 08:07:03 PM
Network neutrality died a long time ago. The court throwing out those rules is a formality.
 
2013-09-10 08:23:34 PM

themindiswatching: Network neutrality died a long time ago. The court throwing out those rules is a formality.


Yes, that's why Verizon is going through all the expense of a court fight, because they already won....
 
2013-09-10 08:35:54 PM

Dinki: themindiswatching: Network neutrality died a long time ago. The court throwing out those rules is a formality.

Yes, that's why Verizon is going through all the expense of a court fight, because they already won....


Do you really think the FCC was all that serious about net neutrality? It's run by former Verizon/AT&T people. This whole thing is pretty clever of them, actually, because now they'll have something in case law that precludes any future administration from ever instituting net neutrality.

/Congress could fix it, but have you seen them lately?
 
2013-09-10 09:25:59 PM

themindiswatching: Dinki: themindiswatching: Network neutrality died a long time ago. The court throwing out those rules is a formality.

Yes, that's why Verizon is going through all the expense of a court fight, because they already won....

Do you really think the FCC was all that serious about net neutrality? It's run by former Verizon/AT&T people. This whole thing is pretty clever of them, actually, because now they'll have something in case law that precludes any future administration from ever instituting net neutrality.

/Congress could fix it, but have you seen them lately?


I think you're right, and I believe Ars misses the point.
i.imgur.com
The fight was lost over a decade ago.
 
2013-09-10 10:38:17 PM
I suggest that google and wiki and others of similar use stop responding to .gov queries.
 
2013-09-10 10:45:43 PM

mrlewish: I suggest that google and wiki and others of similar use stop responding to .gov queries.


You mean the same Google that's flip flopped on net neutrality more often than a politician on the take from both sides of an issue?
 
2013-09-10 11:06:01 PM
I read this stuff, and can't help but think it's a ton of wasted man hours. This is a really simple issue: You don't double-dip, you don't fark with the mail, and why can't it be both an information service and a communication service at the same time? If not, most of the clicks in a browser have to do with communicating - be it facebook, email, or asking a company for services. Even the information domains have comments sections or direct links to post them on your Facebook/Twitter/whatever. How have they managed to make it so infinitely complex?
 
2013-09-10 11:22:14 PM
Legal battles aren't the only way to win this war.  Folks like Google and Wikipedia could just block ISPs that demand money to show their websites.  Then  EVERYBODY would know what NN is and ask why the frak it hasn't been implemented yet.

The response needs to be quick and swift for it to be effective, though.

Oh, and donate to the EFF.
 
2013-09-10 11:52:19 PM
Damn that FCC for forcing Comcast to add yet another bogus "fee".
 
2013-09-10 11:59:08 PM

themindiswatching: /Congress could fix it, but have you seen them lately?


Congress is obsessed with longreads, but the public wants listicles. This is why the bill of rights has a higher Alexa ranking than Obamacare, for example.

I guess what I'm saying is that I want congress to produce a set of internet user's legal rights, and I want it in the form of animated cat gifs.
 
2013-09-11 12:29:23 AM

MrEricSir: themindiswatching: I guess what I'm saying is that I want congress to produce a set of internet user's legal rights, and I want it in the form of animated cat gifs.


I smell a photoshop theme. And ... what is that? God, that dog is nasty.
 
2013-09-11 01:29:53 AM

themindiswatching: Do you really think the FCC was all that serious about net neutrality? It's run by former Verizon/AT&T people


This sort of thing is a problem with most any government regulatory institution.  The revolving door.  It often swings the other way as well - with companies offering paid do nothing "consulting" jobs to those who have completely neglected their regulation duties been "fair" to them.

We need laws that prohibit people (and their immediate family) from moving from the regulators/regulated to the other.  It is a very real and extreme conflict of interest to allow otherwise.  Why we EVER allowed this is beyond reason as it is nothing but a breeding ground for corruption and otherwise bad government.

I also would see regulators paid very well, lessening the temptation in the first place.  Plus you need a stringent ban on "gifts" given to regulators and their immediate family where as the penalty is a hefty prison sentence for all involved parties - no plea deals, reduced sentences, or parole.

It might not be so bad an idea to put the same restrictions on politicians.
 
2013-09-11 02:23:19 AM

JPSimonetti: I read this stuff, and can't help but think it's a ton of wasted man hours. This is a really simple issue: You don't double-dip, you don't fark with the mail, and why can't it be both an information service and a communication service at the same time? If not, most of the clicks in a browser have to do with communicating - be it facebook, email, or asking a company for services. Even the information domains have comments sections or direct links to post them on your Facebook/Twitter/whatever. How have they managed to make it so infinitely complex?


The problem here is that the politicians have to sponsor and vote on laws written by their corporate masters on both sides of the issue. So they have no choice but to create a sort of elaborate compromise in order to avoid disobeying any of them.
 
2013-09-11 02:56:39 AM
Welcome to FIOS!

Wait!  You thought we were going to let you have a way to utilize that bandwidth.  Ha ha ha.  Nope!  Pay extra!

Netflix.  That's a fee.

Youtube. That's a fee.

iTunes. That's a fee.

They might as well just come right out and charge per megabyte.

If they do come out with a fee for this, make sure to hook up a gigabit router and stream the hell out of EVERYTHING!  You won't make a dent in their profits, but if you are lucky, they might try to throttle you which, if it happens to enough people, will allow for a nice class action lawsuit.
 
2013-09-11 02:58:15 AM

K3rmy: Welcome to FIOS!

Wait!  You thought we were going to let you have a way to utilize that bandwidth.  Ha ha ha.  Nope!  Pay extra!

Netflix.  That's a fee.

Youtube. That's a fee.

iTunes. That's a fee.

They might as well just come right out and charge per megabyte.

If they do come out with a fee for this, make sure to hook up a gigabit router and stream the hell out of EVERYTHING!  You won't make a dent in their profits, but if you are lucky, they might try to throttle you which, if it happens to enough people, will allow for a nice class action lawsuit.


I forgot about Cloud Storage and automated backups.  F*ck your files. Fee please.
 
2013-09-11 03:35:20 AM

K3rmy: They might as well just come right out and charge per megabyte.


Charging per GB is still sketchy for anything not wireless, but it's at least more honest.

/as long as they charge per GB for all traffic and not just for anything that competes with their own service
 
2013-09-11 05:16:27 AM

K3rmy: Welcome to FIOS!Wait!  You thought we were going to let you have a way to utilize that bandwidth.  Ha ha ha.  Nope!  Pay extra!Netflix.  That's a fee.Youtube. That's a fee.iTunes. That's a fee.


That is exactly what the issue has been all along. Do you remember this one doing the rounds a few years ago?

www.ohgizmo.com
 
2013-09-11 05:19:56 AM

K3rmy: Welcome to FIOS!

Wait!  You thought we were going to let you have a way to utilize that bandwidth.  Ha ha ha.  Nope!  Pay extra!

Netflix.  That's a fee.

Youtube. That's a fee.

iTunes. That's a fee.

They might as well just come right out and charge per megabyte.

If they do come out with a fee for this, make sure to hook up a gigabit router and stream the hell out of EVERYTHING!  You won't make a dent in their profits, but if you are lucky, they might try to throttle you which, if it happens to enough people, will allow for a nice class action lawsuit.


Of course in reality what the end of net neutrality would look like is not the consumer paying more fees, but the consumer would pay less (directly) - because the ISPs are competing on price to the consumer (at least initially). They would make up the money by "legal blackmail" to the big websites, basically playing off their subscriber base and saying you will be slow and people will switch to a competing service that does pay us. This leads to them being more competitive than smaller ISPs that don't have the market pressure to get anything out of these websites, so price competition will tend to reduce the number of ISPs to just a very few extremely large providers. Once all the smaller competition is gone then prices to the consumer would probably go back up again.

It will similarly lead to less competition and larger players in each website domain - new competitors will tend to be frozen out due to the extra costs imposed by these charges, while larger websites will have enough pressure of consumer loyalty that ISPs don't have all the power in the relationship, whereas smaller competitors can be charged top dollar by the ISPs because even if they refuse to pay up, the ISPs won't get enough complaints from the website being slow/disappearing to concern them.
 
2013-09-11 08:32:24 AM
These articles always reek of oversimplifying a complex problem.  I admit, I don't understand the full intricacies of how peering arrangements work, and I emplore the great experts of Fark to help me out on this one.

Consider Netflix's OpenConnect CDN:
ISPs can directly connect their networks to Open Connect for free. ISPs can do this either by free peering with us at common Internet exchanges, or can save even more transit costs by putting our free storage appliances in or near their network.

Basically, Netflix wants to give ISPs a box that they can run locally that handles all Netflix streaming, thereby preventing the need to send all that traffic over the Internet at large.  End users are happy because they get faster Netflix.  ISPs, they claim, save money by not paying for that traffic.  Netflix gets to deliver a better user experience and doesn't pay as much for the traffic either.  Win/win for everybody right?

Well, there's still the cost of installing and maintaining Netflix's presence in Verizon's network.  Who pays for that?  Netflix is asking Verizon to.  Sure, they're providing the hardware and software, but Verizon takes on the operational costs of keeping that hardware running within their network.
If you were Verizon, you'd want to push that cost onto Netflix, or to the Netflix users who demanded you install that custom hardware, right?  Is that what's at stake here?
I can kind of see an argument in Verizon's favor in that case.
Users are demanding Verizon take action and spend money to provide a faster Netflix experience.  Would it be wrong to offload that cost to the users who asked for it?
Netflix is asking the same thing of Verizon, so maybe Verizon could ask them not only to provide free hardware, but to cover operational costs as well?

Don't just think of this as Verizon vs. Netflix here.
One side is Netflix and hundreds of smaller video sites, which is why the ISPs wouldn't want to take on the added operational costs.  Netflix might be worth the expense, but is Joe's Video Shack?  Ok, so now the ISP decides it's worth it to provide their users with a faster Netflix experience, but not worth it to provide a better Joe's Video Shack experience.  That's not very neutral of them, is it?
Similarly, Netflix doesn't want to pay operational costs at thousands of ISPs.  So, they just stick with Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner, who are now able to provide a better Netflix experience than their mom n' pop competitors, driving those competitors out of business.

I'm just saying, I don't see a "good" solution here that magically provides the services users want without anybody paying for it.
 
2013-09-11 09:17:07 AM

serial_crusher: These articles always reek of oversimplifying a complex problem.  I admit, I don't understand the full intricacies of how peering arrangements work, and I emplore the great experts of Fark to help me out on this one.

Consider Netflix's OpenConnect CDN:
ISPs can directly connect their networks to Open Connect for free. ISPs can do this either by free peering with us at common Internet exchanges, or can save even more transit costs by putting our free storage appliances in or near their network.

Basically, Netflix wants to give ISPs a box that they can run locally that handles all Netflix streaming, thereby preventing the need to send all that traffic over the Internet at large.  End users are happy because they get faster Netflix.  ISPs, they claim, save money by not paying for that traffic.  Netflix gets to deliver a better user experience and doesn't pay as much for the traffic either.  Win/win for everybody right?

Well, there's still the cost of installing and maintaining Netflix's presence in Verizon's network.  Who pays for that?  Netflix is asking Verizon to.  Sure, they're providing the hardware and software, but Verizon takes on the operational costs of keeping that hardware running within their network.
If you were Verizon, you'd want to push that cost onto Netflix, or to the Netflix users who demanded you install that custom hardware, right?  Is that what's at stake here?
I can kind of see an argument in Verizon's favor in that case.
Users are demanding Verizon take action and spend money to provide a faster Netflix experience.  Would it be wrong to offload that cost to the users who asked for it?
Netflix is asking the same thing of Verizon, so maybe Verizon could ask them not only to provide free hardware, but to cover operational costs as well?

Don't just think of this as Verizon vs. Netflix here.
One side is Netflix and hundreds of smaller video sites, which is why the ISPs wouldn't want to take on the added operational costs.  Netflix might be worth ...


Verizon doesn't have to do squat. Its all about competition. If users leave Verizon for someone else because Verizon didn't install cache servers, that's Verizon's problem. Of course Verizon can charge users extra for running a exclusive cache if they want to, what they can't do is charge Netflix.
 
2013-09-11 10:25:08 AM

MindStalker: Of course Verizon can charge users extra for running a exclusive cache if they want to, what they can't do is charge Netflix.


So, subby's point about the $4.99 Netflix fee would be ok, even under today's rules?
 
2013-09-11 10:34:11 AM

JPSimonetti: I read this stuff, and can't help but think it's a ton of wasted man hours. This is a really simple issue: You don't double-dip, you don't fark with the mail, and why can't it be both an information service and a communication service at the same time? If not, most of the clicks in a browser have to do with communicating - be it facebook, email, or asking a company for services. Even the information domains have comments sections or direct links to post them on your Facebook/Twitter/whatever. How have they managed to make it so infinitely complex?


Lawyers. Bean-counters. Greed.
 
2013-09-11 10:37:26 AM

xria: Of course in reality what the end of net neutrality would look like is not the consumer paying more fees, but the consumer would pay less


Are you unaware of how Comcast works?

/ Or do you work there?
 
2013-09-12 12:19:48 AM

K3rmy: if it happens to enough people, will allow for a nice class action lawsuit.


There is already a fix for that... It is called binding arbitration. SCOUS already ruled that if a vendor (like VZ or AT&T) puts language in their service contract with you that you must go to binding arbitration and that you cannot use a lawsuit or class action.
 
Displayed 24 of 24 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report