4 ms·

Do NOT be fooled. An explicit ban on paid prioritization is the only way to preserve the system we have today. If you allow paid prioritization, there will no l

Do NOT be fooled. An explicit ban on paid prioritization is the only way to preserve the system we have today. If you allow paid prioritization, there will no longer be a "vibrant" tech sector (as we think of it today) in the US. If you only ban paid prioritization, ISPs will continue to hold monopolies, price-fix, offer inferior service, not invest in their infrastructure, and fuck over their customers with fraudulent charges. But, hey, Netflix will stay in business, so all's well, right?! The goal with this move is to AVOID common carriers and AVOID competition. Paid prioritization is a minor symptom of the problem that ISPs are not common carriers. I say this because without common carriers, if the only ISP has paid prioritization, a there is no competitor to switch to. Banning paid prioritization will do nothing to address the actual problems with American ISPs. Our cable lobbyists and therefore our government will do anything to avoid common carrier legislation being passed. Common carriers would not be allowed to control the content on their wires at all -- they would be forced to let ISPs purchase bandwidth and compete on the same wire. Granting wire ownership and content control to one company is a natural monopoly: In almost every locale new ISPs cannot use the wires someone else owns, new ISPs cannot dig trenches for new wires, and new ISPs have no common wires to offer service on. Therefore, no new ISPs can form under normal conditions, and competition cannot exist. The only logical conclusion is that we are being denied a free market, on purpose.

opendais 12y ago
Did you read the article? "No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect." "To do that, I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act — while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services. This is a basic acknowledgment of the services ISPs provide to American homes and businesses, and the straightforward obligations necessary to ensure the network works for everyone — not just one or two companies." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 Title 2 is Common Carrier. Now whether they actually do anything with a Republican senate/congress in 2015 idk. But they are suggesting what you are asking for.
warfangle 12y ago
> An explicit ban on paid prioritization is the only way to preserve the system we have today Errr... no, it won't preserve the system. Because the system right now, at least at the interconnect level, already has paid prioritization. See: the interconnect fight vis a vis NFLX, Level 3, Verizon. > The goal with this move is to AVOID common carriers and AVOID competition. Not sure where you're getting the competition thing, but it's absolutely not about avoiding common carriers. Title II is very, very specifically a common carrier. > Our cable lobbyists and therefore our government will do anything to avoid common carrier legislation being passed. No need for legislation; just a reclassification. No legislation needed for that. > Banning paid prioritization will do nothing to address the actual problems with American ISPs. Nothing? It'll do something. It's a step in the right direction. One of the requirements under Title II has to do specifically with interconnection: this bullshit between Verizon and Level 3 and NFLX would be patently illegal. > Common carriers would not be allowed to control the content on their wires at all -- they would be forced to let ISPs purchase bandwidth and compete on the same wire. Granting wire ownership and content control to one company is a natural monopoly: In almost every locale new ISPs cannot use the wires someone else owns, new ISPs cannot dig trenches for new wires, and new ISPs have no common wires to offer service on. Therefore, no new ISPs can form under normal conditions, and competition cannot exist. The only logical conclusion is that we are being denied a free market, on purpose. I think you're kind of missing the point of what common carriers actually are. You're hitting some things, but completely missing on others. Nobody is calling for granting wire ownership to a single entity. That's not what common carrier status means. Read up a bit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier

opendais 12y ago

Did you read the article? "No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect." "To do that, I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act — while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services. This is a basic acknowledgment of the services ISPs provide to American homes and businesses, and the straightforward obligations necessary to ensure the network works for everyone — not just one or two companies." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 Title 2 is Common Carrier. Now whether they actually do anything with a Republican senate/congress in 2015 idk. But they are suggesting what you are asking for.

warfangle 12y ago

> An explicit ban on paid prioritization is the only way to preserve the system we have today Errr... no, it won't preserve the system. Because the system right now, at least at the interconnect level, already has paid prioritization. See: the interconnect fight vis a vis NFLX, Level 3, Verizon. > The goal with this move is to AVOID common carriers and AVOID competition. Not sure where you're getting the competition thing, but it's absolutely not about avoiding common carriers. Title II is very, very specifically a common carrier. > Our cable lobbyists and therefore our government will do anything to avoid common carrier legislation being passed. No need for legislation; just a reclassification. No legislation needed for that. > Banning paid prioritization will do nothing to address the actual problems with American ISPs. Nothing? It'll do something. It's a step in the right direction. One of the requirements under Title II has to do specifically with interconnection: this bullshit between Verizon and Level 3 and NFLX would be patently illegal. > Common carriers would not be allowed to control the content on their wires at all -- they would be forced to let ISPs purchase bandwidth and compete on the same wire. Granting wire ownership and content control to one company is a natural monopoly: In almost every locale new ISPs cannot use the wires someone else owns, new ISPs cannot dig trenches for new wires, and new ISPs have no common wires to offer service on. Therefore, no new ISPs can form under normal conditions, and competition cannot exist. The only logical conclusion is that we are being denied a free market, on purpose. I think you're kind of missing the point of what common carriers actually are. You're hitting some things, but completely missing on others. Nobody is calling for granting wire ownership to a single entity. That's not what common carrier status means. Read up a bit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier