Ron Johnson, (R-WI): Net neutrality is just "a slogan," we need "paid fast lanes"

[Miles Archer]

Senator Ron Johnson, R-WI, said net neutrality is just “a slogan” this week and suggested the internet could be better served by having paid fast lanes for certain types of data.

Appearing on WTMJ Radio in Milwaukee with Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, Senator Johnson backed the chairman’s proposal to roll back the rules of the Obama administration designed to protect net neutrality.

During the appearance, Chairman Pai said net neutrality—which is the premise that all data should be treated as equal—is a “great slogan” but involves government regulation of the internet. “Do you want the government deciding how the Internet is run?" the Chairman asked.

Under Chairman Pai’s current proposal, the internet would be reclassified as an information service—an undoing of the classification as a public utility under Title II of the Communications Act that was put in place in 2015.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/06/senator-says-net-neutrality-is-just-a-slogan-internet-needs-paid-fast-lanes/

[MontanaMama]

1. Get rid of this guy, Wisconsin.

They already have our government, if they get our internet - we're done.

[PoliticAverse]

2. We do need paid fast lanes, which is why we have lots of them...

and why Netflix stopped trying to get other people to pay for their bandwidth use.

[clu]

3. no neutrality?

I assume this would be a toll on top of the fee I pay for internet access, and also on top of what youtube pays for their data centers and network connectivity?

[PoliticAverse]

8. Has anyone actually had to pay extra to their ISP to access certain sites on the Internet?

As far as I'm aware that hasn't happened yet. If it does happen the reason will be
because the "last mile" Internet connections are granted to monopolies. But remember the
new "net neutrality" rules were only adopted recently and the Internet has been operating
until then without such rules.

The Internet isn't a single-laned network that goes everywhere, it's a bunch of inter-connected
networks some of which are 'fast lanes'.

Content providers like youtube and netflix always pay for their bandwidth one way or another.
If you want your content consumers to have a better experience you have to pay for it. There
are entire companies/networks called CDN's (Content Distribution Networks) that exist to enable
large companies to get their content to customers faster. One problem was Netflix, which was
responsible for about 30% of total Internet traffic, wasn't willing to pay for their content delivery
and was trying to get other places to pay for their bandwidth. They've now adjusted to reality
have paid for a better network (fast lanes) for their content and their issue has mostly gone away.

The real problem is the "last mile" Internet delivery monopolies. Most places in the US have very limited
competition for Internet services and many places can't even get Internet connections that are fast
enough for services like Netflix, or the monopolies charge so much for fast service that many people can't
afford it. That's the real issue and has nothing to do with net neutrality. What does "net neutrality" mean
to you if you can't even get a connection that's fast enough to play youtube videos or your ISP charges
monopoly internet access prices that you can't afford to pay?

Long detailed article discussing the issue...
https://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-vs-netflix-is-this-really-about-net-neutrality/

[clu]

9. running a risk with an early morning post after quick google search

I just googled CDN (and read about half your link) and it looks like the equivalent of a high-availability failover for companies that need to make data available. if they're already paying for fast lanes, then why does net neutrality need to be changed? net neutrality supporter want to (from your article) force the FCC to classify broadband traffic as a title II service. I will concede a lot of ignorance on this point and resign myself to further reading.

in any case, yes - the ISPs were justified in charging youtube or Netflix a higher fee to provide high availability and probably the equivalent of failover. if that is the case, then why is congress pushing to legally close the issue?

edit- also, your article describes Verizon and ATT as both transit providers and last mile providers. I would assume that Comcast/spectrum is the same but that's a WAG.

edit edit- of course no one has had to pay more yet. the law has not yet been defined which will allow ISPs to charge the content provider (not the subscriber) extra fees. we would probably get a small fee increase in our Netflix bill.

PS: i'll do a little more research about the title II thing. i'm not sure it would "stifle innovation" we hear that argument a lot. I tried to find a cite for unused bandwidth capacity in the US but I have other things to do. interestingly, the Wikipedia article for "internet in the US" has a section for net neutrality which states

"Five failed attempts have been made to pass network neutrality bills in Congress. Each of these bills sought to prohibit Internet service providers from using various variable pricing models based upon the user's Quality of Service level. Described as tiered service in the industry and as price discrimination by some economists, typical provisions in the bill state "[Broadband service providers may] only prioritize...based on the type of content, applications, or services and the level of service purchased by the user, without charge for such prioritization" whats wrong with that, and why would repubs want to legislate it out of the system?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_the_United_States

[Thrill]

4. They picked this dumbass over Feingold

Wtf is wrong with this country

[MiddleClass]

7. They picked Cheeto

How dumb do you think they are? Double it.

[msongs]

5. umm anti-net-neutrality FCC regulations ARE government control of the internet. nt

[MiddleClass]

6. Here we go back to Bzzzz click you got mail click Bzzzz speeds

When broadband can only be purchased in bulk by corporations for the cloud storage

retail websites would be back to dial-up