FCC Moves To Kill Net Neutrality — Now What?

HEADRAT · 1 Dec 2017 at 12:47

This is going to really suck

ci_newman said:
but that doesn't mean that the smaller operators will.

Depends on how the "smaller operator" get's that traffic, unless they get it "directly" chances are it will go via a network that might have "deprioritize" that traffic.

MissChief · 1 Dec 2017 at 12:48

HEADRAT said:
Streaming Media companies must be very concerned, Netflix could find themselves in the “slow lane” pretty quick, the only options I can see is

1. Netflix Have to pay ISPs do deliver their traffic unmolested

2. Consumer has to pay more to their ISP to deliver their traffic unmolested

Ugly!

I can see this. An extra $10 to your ISP and an extra $5 a month to Netflix as they're charged by the ISP's. Why anyone with any ounce of common sense votes republican in America in this day and age is beyond me.

MissChief · 1 Dec 2017 at 12:49

Looking at the comments some seem to be forgetting that this shouldn't really affect us.

HEADRAT · 1 Dec 2017 at 12:53

Depends on where the traffic you want is coming from

h4rm0ny · 1 Dec 2017 at 12:53

MissChief said:
HAHA! Lib-tards and snow-flakes are censored!

What? Where censorship is concerned it will be pointed at ANYONE the state considers problematic. Unless your political ideology extends no further than to suck up to whatever government is in power today, you will be affected by state censorship. Although in this case censorship is a relevant but parallel issue. Not sure you understand what the Hell you're talking about.

Rilot said:
This would be fine if there was choice over which ISP you use in the US. In many areas people only have one option. There's no way to vote with your feet.

In addition to limited choice, it's not like collusion is an unheard of thing between big companies.

moogle · 1 Dec 2017 at 12:54

MissChief said:
Looking at the comments some seem to be forgetting that this shouldn't really affect us.

Well everyone thinks because America will soon have it, it'll follow suit here.

HEADRAT · 1 Dec 2017 at 12:56

moogle said:
Well everyone thinks because America will soon have it, it'll follow suit here.

You honestly think that if the ISPs can find a way of squeezing more money out of the consumer (or big business) they won't do it?

ISPs have been complaining for years that the likes of Netflix etc. are making money from delivering multi Gbps worth of traffic over networks they don't have to pay for. (and if I'm honest I can see their point)

MissChief · 1 Dec 2017 at 12:58

moogle said:
Well everyone thinks because America will soon have it, it'll follow suit here.

With enough effective competition in the market place, and there are dozens of ISP's to choose from, any that tries this here will see a swift exodus of customers to someone who doesn't throttle. And I can't imagine OFCOM would be very happy about anyone trying to charge extra for access to content at a faster speed. The U.K. Telecommunications market is one of the best regulated in the world. I really can't see any ISP even trying it, never mind being allowed to.

moogle · 1 Dec 2017 at 13:01

HEADRAT said:
You honestly think that if the ISPs can find a way of squeezing more money out of the consumer (or big business) they won't do it?

ISPs have been complaining for years that the likes of Netflix etc. are making money from delivering multi Gbps worth of traffic over networks they don't have to pay for. (and if I'm honest I can see their point)

See @MissChief 's post above. I don't doubt that some will try it, (My money's on VM due to their traffic shaping instead of fixing their network) but as there's more competition than there is in the USA, I'd like to see an ISP here try it and get dropped off the face of the earth, or at least have a mass exodus of customers (I'm assuming us brits/Englishmen have the brains to see through their plans and realise it's a bad thing).

matt_fsr · 1 Dec 2017 at 13:04

Just think about the way an ISP makes their money.... (in simple terms)

They buy xTB/month data transfer from whatever backhaul supplier, OpenReach etc... and then they over-sell this to many thousands of users, not all of whom are using the data transfer at the same time. The more users they can subscribe up without having to buy additional data, the more profit they make! So as soon as they have a 'legitimate' way to penalise people and charge them more for high bandwidth use such as streaming, or Steam downloads, they'll be there like a shot!

AHarvey · 1 Dec 2017 at 13:08

Rilot said:
This would be fine if there was choice over which ISP you use in the US. In many areas people only have one option. There's no way to vote with your feet.

Is that by ISP choice or legislation?

If it's legislation it would suck but it would be a prime reason to start your own ISP in your area and start branching out.

moogle · 1 Dec 2017 at 13:10

AHarvey said:
Is that by ISP choice or legislation?

If it's legislation it would suck but it would be a prime reason to start your own ISP in your area and start branching out.

I think it's just ISP choice, and it's probably like here where any new ISP wanting to start up would have to fork out to create the infrastructure like Google have done. Most of them probably don't see it as a viable business plan.

EDIT - Plus I think the two biggest Telecoms companies are owned by the same corporation, so they only supply their own areas and never two of them fight for the same area, reducing the choice available.

h4rm0ny · 1 Dec 2017 at 13:12

HEADRAT said:
Streaming Media companies must be very concerned, Netflix could find themselves in the “slow lane” pretty quick, the only options I can see is

1. Netflix Have to pay ISPs do deliver their traffic unmolested

2. Consumer has to pay more to their ISP to deliver their traffic unmolested

Ugly!

There is an upside for the big players like Netflix though. It creates a barrier to entry for new competition. If the entrenched player can ensure that they get good quality bandwidth for their service and new players can't afford that, then it becomes a feature, not a bug.

AHarvey · 1 Dec 2017 at 13:17

moogle said:
I think it's just ISP choice, and it's probably like here where any new ISP wanting to start up would have to fork out to create the infrastructure like Google have done. Most of them probably don't see it as a viable business plan.

EDIT - Plus I think the two biggest Telecoms companies are owned by the same corporation, so they only supply their own areas and never two of them fight for the same area, reducing the choice available.

Now you mention it though, Google must be loving the idea of this. They can sweep in, offer a set fee for internet use and add to their world domination. It'll mean they not only have their search data but anyone using other browsers and search engines can also be monitored.

MissChief · 1 Dec 2017 at 13:33

Google have scaled back their investment in Google Fiber recently and are now looking at fixed wireless instead. Although slower than full FTTH it's far cheaper to set up and can still give good speeds locally.

Many US cable companies actively collude with each other not to set up competing networks in areas where one company has a monopoly on super fast internet access. Then they lobby and have local politicians in their pockets to legislate or make setting up a competing ISP, even locally owned and run from setting up in their town/city. It's highly anti-competitive but while AT&T, Comcast and Verizon are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to be allowed to sell their customers browsing data without their consent (it already passed by the way) they now want to charge customers extra to access high bandwidth services, or competitors to their own services. And the FCC, headed by an ex CEO of Verizon (a conflict of interest if ever I saw one) are going to get this at least sent to congress where the cable companies have so much support through lobbying and campaign donations there's a very real chance it'll pass into law. Do you think Netflix could have become so popular without net neutrality? The sheer number of 'cord cutters' (those cancelling their cable TV service in the US and using on demand services like Netflix etc) is on the rise. If a startup like Netflix tried to do so now (or when this gets passed) they'd be charged and throttled out of existence within a year.

HEADRAT · 1 Dec 2017 at 13:54

Agreed, the "barrier" to market is going to be really hard for new players", the "big boys" must be rubbing their hands together (I'm sure that why net neutrality ended up going, it didn't really serve "big business")

GGizmo · 1 Dec 2017 at 14:01

I see that Comcast already pulled back on its pledge to treat all traffic fairly: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ity-pledge-the-same-day-fcc-announced-repeal/
It would be interesting if ISP's tried to do this stuff over here. I think they would have a more difficult time and face a backlash as we have more choice. In most parts of the US they only seem to have 1 ISP to choose from so they are stuck.

HEADRAT · 1 Dec 2017 at 14:09

Yes I think we are more fortunate here, I live in a fairly small town and we have BT, SKY (LLU), Talk Talk (LLU) and soon Virgin Cable.

Unless they all move together, which could raise OFCOM's eyebrows, then people would probably vote with their feet.

moogle · 1 Dec 2017 at 14:34

AHarvey said:
Now you mention it though, Google must be loving the idea of this. They can sweep in, offer a set fee for internet use and add to their world domination. It'll mean they not only have their search data but anyone using other browsers and search engines can also be monitored.

It's the lesser of two evils really and if I was faced with the option I'd say "Harvest me Google!"

BowdonUK said:
I see that Comcast already pulled back on its pledge to treat all traffic fairly: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/comcast-deleted-net-neutrality-pledge-the-same-day-fcc-announced-repeal/
It would be interesting if ISP's tried to do this stuff over here. I think they would have a more difficult time and face a backlash as we have more choice. In most parts of the US they only seem to have 1 ISP to choose from so they are stuck.

BT had a bit of backlash with their "PHORM" programme before didn't they. Although it wasn't to do with traffic treatment but more so monitoring with an opt out choice rather than opt in. Also when VM introduced traffic shaping I would assume they lost some customers but they seem to be doing well still.

HEADRAT said:
Yes I think we are more fortunate here, I live in a fairly small town and we have BT, SKY (LLU), Talk Talk (LLU) and soon Virgin Cable.

Unless they all move together, which could raise OFCOM's eyebrows, then people would probably vote with their feet.

We do have the fortune of being able to piggyback off another ISP's infrastructure (BT/OpenReach), they don't have anything of the sort over the pond.

EDIT - I know it's not actually BT's infrastructure but it sorta is seeing as they're so closely linked to OpenReach.

Roar87 · 1 Dec 2017 at 15:18

MissChief said:
I can't see anything like this happening here, but it is scary that it's happening over there and the majority aren't aware, don't think it will affect them or don't care, because capitalism and anything is for **********, ********, socialists or Commies.

Just FYI capitalism is based on free markets which only work with healthy competition. This is anti-competitive, it's monopolistic, so essentially anti-capitalism.