4 ms·

FCC to Mandate Net Neutrality for the Web

60 points by jrwoodruff 17y ago

tlrobinson 17y ago
Great, but "the Web"? Or "the Internet"? Call it a pet peeve, but I hate when people (especially technical ones talking about it in a technical context) forget that the Web is a subset of the Internet.
- lutorm 17y ago
  Only port 80 traffic is bound by net neutrality... ;-)
  - weaksauce 17y ago
    Don't forget port 443 or else you will not get your encrypted stuff equally served.
    - thorax 17y ago
      I'm going back to port 70, guys, sorry.
  - eel 17y ago
    A corollary is that this may make ___ over HTTP more popular.
    - wmf 17y ago
      Actually net discrimination makes ___ over HTTP more popular because then you can hope that the magic black box prioritizes your traffic rather than penalizes it. In a neutral net, tunneling your protocol over HTTP or port 80 doesn't help.
reedlaw 17y ago
What I don't understand is why a bunch of entrepreneurial types (or at least this blogger for a web start-up site) would be in favor of more government regulation.
- thras 17y ago
  Sometimes, though rarely, government regulation helps the entrepreneur more than it helps the entrenched players.
  - reedlaw 17y ago
    Then why not just get rid of all of it and make a level playing field? Why favor entrepreneurs over big business, or vice-versa?
    - tolmasky 17y ago
      There is also a third player on the web which is non-businesses. Now, you may argue that there is no place for non commercial entities, and this may very well be a valid argument, but there is also an argument for the web being a place where data can flow without discrimination regardless of the capital behind it.
    - jeromec 17y ago
      reedlaw - I think you're too caught up with ideology. I'm now more libertarian than I've ever been, but I temper that wonderful ideology with real world considerations. Historical events in the U.S. have caused such imbalances that simply making "a level playing field" now, in many situations, would never self-regulate everything back into balance solely from free market principles. Even Ron Paul who is against pork barrel projects ideologically "brings home the bacon" with pork projects for his district because that is part of the reality of how government currently works. He would take heat for staunchly passing on it all. The best he has been able to do is purposely draft pork into legislation he knows will pass, then vote "No" on it himself for symbolism only. If we admit to ourselves that the world we live in is not perfect (and unlikely to change soon) then we ask ourselves should legislation be sensitive to that or guided only by ideology?
bokonist 17y ago
While we understand the arguments of the ISPs, the simple truth is that the web will not work if a few Internet providers control what can and cannot be streamed to your computer. Without net neutrality rules, they could decide to shut off YouTube, Hulu, or any other website for whatever reason they choose. As long as there is even a modestly competitive market for internet hookups (more than one firm), then ISPs will compete to serve the interests of the consumers. Comcast isn't going to shut off Hulu unless it's massively unprofitable. If there is not a competitive market, then that is the real problem that should be addressed. You shouldn't limit people's ability to enter into contracts to buy services. If we want bandwidth to expand, and if we want fast, low latency video and voice connections, cable companies will need to be able to charge premium prices, both to consumers and content providers. Instead, we are beginning the long process of binding the internet in a layer of legislative gray goo, despite there being no evidence of ISPs acting against the interest of consumers.
- natrius 17y ago
  I think you're underestimating the amount of competition needed for a healthy market. I have two choices: Time Warner Cable or AT&T DSL. It's easy to see how they could both decide that, for instance, crushing Hulu is in their best interest. Both of these companies provide television service. If they did this before Hulu got popular, it'd be even easier to avoid angering customers. ISPs are free to charge premium prices for premium services, but it is dangerous to allow them to discriminate between sources of traffic when there are so few competitors.
  - bokonist 17y ago
    Then, as I said, fix the competition problem. Don't add some new regulation that doesn't fix the underlying problem, and that causes new problems of its own.
    - sammcd 17y ago
      Isn't the only way to fix the competition problem more administrative grey goo? I have worked in this industry. There is a nice history of buying up all competitors... Especially when the competitors used to be parts of you. Did you forget the governments attempt to break up AT&T already?

60 points by jrwoodruff 17y ago

Great, but "the Web"? Or "the Internet"? Call it a pet peeve, but I hate when people (especially technical ones talking about it in a technical context) forget that the Web is a subset of the Internet.

lutorm 17y ago
Only port 80 traffic is bound by net neutrality... ;-)
- weaksauce 17y ago
  Don't forget port 443 or else you will not get your encrypted stuff equally served.
  - thorax 17y ago
    I'm going back to port 70, guys, sorry.
- eel 17y ago
  A corollary is that this may make ___ over HTTP more popular.
  - wmf 17y ago
    Actually net discrimination makes ___ over HTTP more popular because then you can hope that the magic black box prioritizes your traffic rather than penalizes it. In a neutral net, tunneling your protocol over HTTP or port 80 doesn't help.

reedlaw 17y ago

What I don't understand is why a bunch of entrepreneurial types (or at least this blogger for a web start-up site) would be in favor of more government regulation.

thras 17y ago
Sometimes, though rarely, government regulation helps the entrepreneur more than it helps the entrenched players.
- reedlaw 17y ago
  Then why not just get rid of all of it and make a level playing field? Why favor entrepreneurs over big business, or vice-versa?
  - tolmasky 17y ago
    There is also a third player on the web which is non-businesses. Now, you may argue that there is no place for non commercial entities, and this may very well be a valid argument, but there is also an argument for the web being a place where data can flow without discrimination regardless of the capital behind it.
  - jeromec 17y ago
    reedlaw - I think you're too caught up with ideology. I'm now more libertarian than I've ever been, but I temper that wonderful ideology with real world considerations. Historical events in the U.S. have caused such imbalances that simply making "a level playing field" now, in many situations, would never self-regulate everything back into balance solely from free market principles. Even Ron Paul who is against pork barrel projects ideologically "brings home the bacon" with pork projects for his district because that is part of the reality of how government currently works. He would take heat for staunchly passing on it all. The best he has been able to do is purposely draft pork into legislation he knows will pass, then vote "No" on it himself for symbolism only. If we admit to ourselves that the world we live in is not perfect (and unlikely to change soon) then we ask ourselves should legislation be sensitive to that or guided only by ideology?

bokonist 17y ago

While we understand the arguments of the ISPs, the simple truth is that the web will not work if a few Internet providers control what can and cannot be streamed to your computer. Without net neutrality rules, they could decide to shut off YouTube, Hulu, or any other website for whatever reason they choose. As long as there is even a modestly competitive market for internet hookups (more than one firm), then ISPs will compete to serve the interests of the consumers. Comcast isn't going to shut off Hulu unless it's massively unprofitable. If there is not a competitive market, then that is the real problem that should be addressed. You shouldn't limit people's ability to enter into contracts to buy services. If we want bandwidth to expand, and if we want fast, low latency video and voice connections, cable companies will need to be able to charge premium prices, both to consumers and content providers. Instead, we are beginning the long process of binding the internet in a layer of legislative gray goo, despite there being no evidence of ISPs acting against the interest of consumers.

natrius 17y ago
I think you're underestimating the amount of competition needed for a healthy market. I have two choices: Time Warner Cable or AT&T DSL. It's easy to see how they could both decide that, for instance, crushing Hulu is in their best interest. Both of these companies provide television service. If they did this before Hulu got popular, it'd be even easier to avoid angering customers. ISPs are free to charge premium prices for premium services, but it is dangerous to allow them to discriminate between sources of traffic when there are so few competitors.
- bokonist 17y ago
  Then, as I said, fix the competition problem. Don't add some new regulation that doesn't fix the underlying problem, and that causes new problems of its own.
  - sammcd 17y ago
    Isn't the only way to fix the competition problem more administrative grey goo? I have worked in this industry. There is a nice history of buying up all competitors... Especially when the competitors used to be parts of you. Did you forget the governments attempt to break up AT&T already?