No net neutrality talk yet?
- Thread starter Blueathletics
- Start date
I really don't understand any of the legal mumbo jumbo involved, but if the basic question is whether internet access needs to be treated like a standard utility such as electricity or water, then yes, I think the web should be.
Internet access is so fundamental to everything in our economy right now that it really is a utility.
Internet access is so fundamental to everything in our economy right now that it really is a utility.
It was heading down the wrong path with having tiers of Internet service for those who were willing to pay. Perfect example of this was how fast Netflix became after they made deals with Comcast, TWC, et all. They tried to say they weren't slowing down their traffic but it became quite obvious after the deal. Had nothing happened we would have seen more and more of this. This would allow established companies to keep out startups and other small companies that the Internet has helped level the playing field somewhat.
I don't buy the 'slow innovation' crap. If anything innovation has already slowed by allowing players like Comcast, TWC to keep other providers out of their markets. If Verizon and AT&T are pissed about it, you know it was probably right.
I don't buy the 'slow innovation' crap. If anything innovation has already slowed by allowing players like Comcast, TWC to keep other providers out of their markets. If Verizon and AT&T are pissed about it, you know it was probably right.
What kills me is that one of the guys who voted against it was most recently legal counsel for Verizon. You don't think money influenced his vote, do you?
Not only that, the whole argument that they won't be able to use those additional funds from "internet highways" to invest in infrastructure is BS. ISP's are already gold mines as they continue to hike rates while the cost to do business goes down and they still don't invest in infrastructure. We have some of the worst dollar to download speed in the world and it only seems like it will be better because big cable shits its pants everytime Google announces a new test city for its Fiber mega high speed.
Not only that, the whole argument that they won't be able to use those additional funds from "internet highways" to invest in infrastructure is BS. ISP's are already gold mines as they continue to hike rates while the cost to do business goes down and they still don't invest in infrastructure. We have some of the worst dollar to download speed in the world and it only seems like it will be better because big cable shits its pants everytime Google announces a new test city for its Fiber mega high speed.
Have the regulations that were actually passed been published yet?
Yes, preventing throttling in an ologopolistic market sounds great in theory, but there's absolutely no way that's the end game.
Yes, preventing throttling in an ologopolistic market sounds great in theory, but there's absolutely no way that's the end game.
What could be the ultimate goal for the FCC by doing what 99% of anyone not being paid by Comcast has been calling for?
Can't believe how many are for this...
Yes, if all that would be done is the basics then it would be great
Unfortunately, we are just giving the government one more thing to control and tell us what we.can and can't do. A big bag of worms was just opened and many fail to see it AT ALL. probably the same types who vote based on who there buddies say to. In the long run this will not be a goof thing.
Yes, if all that would be done is the basics then it would be great
Unfortunately, we are just giving the government one more thing to control and tell us what we.can and can't do. A big bag of worms was just opened and many fail to see it AT ALL. probably the same types who vote based on who there buddies say to. In the long run this will not be a goof thing.
the article i read said that this is essentially a decision (and eventually a legal battle) about whether or not a certain part of some 1930s legislation should apply to the internet. the question is how *much* of that act will be applied (at least that's my understanding)
so basically we have a list of which regulations could be used, but we dont know exactly which of the ones on the list will be used (i think?)
I don't trust it. If they say its for good, then it's not.
p.s. I watched that Andrew Snowden documentary last might so I'm super paranoid.
There it is. There's the talking point that the cable & phone companies have been using as a way to fight this. Luckily, they managed to get into the pockets of only a few people that could influence this voting. What this has done and what Net Neutrality means:
Broadband access is being reclassified as a telecommunications service and utility, like electricity and water, meaning it will be subject to much heavier regulationBroadband providers cannot block or speed up connections for a fee - all data should be treated equallyInternet providers cannot strike deals with content firms, known as paid prioritization, for smoother delivery of traffic to consumersInterconnection deals, where content companies pay broadband providers to connect to their networks, will also be regulatedFirms which feel that unjust fees have been levied can complain to the FCC. Each one will be dealt with on a case by case basis
Basically stating it - the internet gets to continue running as it is now with LESS power given to the greedy corporate jagoffs that would love nothing more than to reach into your pockets for more money while providing whatever kind of service they want.
Imagine if you have AT&T internet and their CEO wanted to block or throttle speeds to republican candidate websites because he's a democrat. Before this, he could do that. How about if he was a Louisville fan and wanted to block all Kentucky related content? Think that's crazy, probably, but they could have done that. Even charged you or the content provider more to even deliver that content to you.
Saying that the government is going to control the internet is completely false. It's a scare tactic used by people who want to see this as a partisan issue. Net neutrality affects EVERYONE the same way - EXCEPT for ISPs and those on their payroll. There's not a single person in America that should be against this action.
So paying TWC extra money/month to have their 50mb/s service will be a thing of the past, and TWC will now have to open up the speeds full throttle for everyone?
A great explanation of net neutrality
2blue4u's video needs to be posted again: Jon Oliver - watch it
2blue4u's video needs to be posted again: Jon Oliver - watch it
Not yet - but they did abolish state laws that would prevent city run broadband services.
Municipal broadband can be a HUGE deal. Some even provide free access to all residents, but all offer faster services for the same or less than a cable or phone company. I can't seem to find the article right now, but a rural city in Canada started up their own broadband service and got 100 Mbps down & up for about $25/mo to all of their residents.
Gee, wonder if that is gonna affect the quality of service, and increase prices? Nah, never happens when government heavily regulates something!
So you are OK with trading corporate jagoffs for government jagoffs who want even moreso to reach into other people's pockets to get money? Good for you.
Posting a link to a raging far-left liberal Oliver ain't helping your cause on selling this issue as some rainbows-and-gumdrops nonpartisan unifying issue dude.
I would think just the opposite, if they can't offer paid tiers then everyone will get awful 10mb/s or whatever. Why would they give everyone the faster speeds? Can the gov't do that? Strike that, they'll do what they want. Would be like telling a Chevy dealer they have to give everyone a loaded Tahoe at the price of their entry sedan because it isn't fair.
To be fair, I have no clue....but I doubt anyone else does. I think someone above linked an article written by a third party about the law....at that point you are already starting a game of "telephone". Cite the law, if you can. Be nice if there were some shorter, clearer laws that normal humans INCLUDING THE ALLEGED AUTHORS [/I]could read and decipher.
> Gee, wonder if that is gonna affect the quality of service, and increase prices? Nah, never happens when government heavily regulates something!
Your phone & water service is also regulated in the same way that the FCC just classified internet service. How's that regulation going for you?
> So you are OK with trading corporate jagoffs for government jagoffs who want even moreso to reach into other people's pockets to get money? Good for you
Does the FCC limit your other utilities in the same way that Time Warner/AT&T/Comcast could or would limit your internet usage? If you start up a business, say another Kentucky recruiting site, and Windstream/Time Warner demand you pay them $50,000/year so that their customers can access it at normal speeds. You can't afford that, so your site probably goes under. With new net neutrality rules, they can't demand that from you. Which are you OK with?
And if you think just because John Oliver may be a liberal he's not completely on point with this issue - you don't understand the issue. Ted Cruz is a far right complete moron and he's against it. Ted Cruz also gets paid about $250,000/year from Comcast so take a guess why he's against it. It's not a partisan issue. It's keeping the internet the way it is now and that's what this ruling by the FCC has done.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Your phone & water service is also regulated in the same way that the FCC just classified internet service. How's that regulation going for you?
> So you are OK with trading corporate jagoffs for government jagoffs who want even moreso to reach into other people's pockets to get money? Good for you
Does the FCC limit your other utilities in the same way that Time Warner/AT&T/Comcast could or would limit your internet usage? If you start up a business, say another Kentucky recruiting site, and Windstream/Time Warner demand you pay them $50,000/year so that their customers can access it at normal speeds. You can't afford that, so your site probably goes under. With new net neutrality rules, they can't demand that from you. Which are you OK with?
And if you think just because John Oliver may be a liberal he's not completely on point with this issue - you don't understand the issue. Ted Cruz is a far right complete moron and he's against it. Ted Cruz also gets paid about $250,000/year from Comcast so take a guess why he's against it. It's not a partisan issue. It's keeping the internet the way it is now and that's what this ruling by the FCC has done.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
This. The other side of the Net Neutrality has been asking for the 300+ page document, outlining all of the details. There's a lot of fine print that just got pushed through yesterday. Not that big ISP's/Conservatives would be for this... but their main concern right now is that they just wanted to see what was in the thing.
Clearly another area the government wants tho take control of. As we all know, anything the government touches turns to gold, right? Sad seeing how much control we as a nation are giving up to government and so many folks do not seem to care.
Here's a thought. If they're regulating it like water and electricity...that's not good. Basically you pay for what you use. So in essence, they would open up the broadband gates...as fast as you can take it, but charge you by the GB....
It's a very complicated situation with pieces of shit on both sides.
Reclassification needed to happen to stop the ISPs from ruining everything, which they most certainly would have given more time. What isn't needed is a hidden 300+ page plan that is going to wind up being one of the biggest power grabs in history.
So while it's nice we don't have to worry about telecoms finding new ways to butt-touch consumers with ever-increasing intensity, now we have to worry about dipshits in the FCC with sweeping regulatory powers over what has become a lifeblood of our society.
Reclassification needed to happen to stop the ISPs from ruining everything, which they most certainly would have given more time. What isn't needed is a hidden 300+ page plan that is going to wind up being one of the biggest power grabs in history.
So while it's nice we don't have to worry about telecoms finding new ways to butt-touch consumers with ever-increasing intensity, now we have to worry about dipshits in the FCC with sweeping regulatory powers over what has become a lifeblood of our society.
The broadband providers are terrible but that pricing has continually gone down. All utilities have consistently gone up at multiples of inflation with a myriad of fees stacked on, which has become a quasi-tax that gets around being legislated.
But to your last point I really cannot understand how someone can look at how our munis are being run and think they can become broadband providers with anything resembling efficiency. Several have tried to do their own wireless mesh networks and all have failed.
Except: ArsTechnica
"Pai claimed that an Internet provider could "find itself in the FCC's crosshairs" if it doesn't want to offer unlimited data plans. The FCC's order does not actually ban data caps; instead, the FCC is claiming authority to intervene when companies use data caps to harm competitors or customers"
Companies that had data caps had to put them on hold a while back while a court ruling was in progress. Now they are probably going to have to at least offer an unlimited plan, and this may even apply to wireless providers.
i generally am against government intervention, based mostly on the posters here who support it so openly and frequently.
I would rather them try and fail, than not be able to even try.
Not to mention that wired broadband is much easier to setup and maintain than wireless.
jamo - Do I recall correctly that you have a ridiculously great smaller ISP that is not within the Axis of Evil? Was that a municipality or just a smaller actor that somehow had their own infrastructure?
Or, am I totally making this up?
Or, am I totally making this up?
To me, it seems like we went from phone lines, to cable, to fiber optics fairly quickly. And that all happened on it's own.
If the ISPs started raping everyone, would we get a new innovation that could be better and cheaper in the long run because it was now cost effective?
Who knows. I have no idea what the technology requires. I'd say the answer to that is probably a definitive no now though.
So yes, I'm ignorant on the topic. But so is everyone of you that supports net neutrality. By design, you have no idea what happened yesterday.
If you think big money was influencing the FCC, then the Knight in Shining Armor Obama swept in to influence the FCC in a direction that benefits the people then you are a goddam idiot.
If the ISPs started raping everyone, would we get a new innovation that could be better and cheaper in the long run because it was now cost effective?
Who knows. I have no idea what the technology requires. I'd say the answer to that is probably a definitive no now though.
So yes, I'm ignorant on the topic. But so is everyone of you that supports net neutrality. By design, you have no idea what happened yesterday.
If you think big money was influencing the FCC, then the Knight in Shining Armor Obama swept in to influence the FCC in a direction that benefits the people then you are a goddam idiot.
You're more than just ignorant on the topic, you're just ignorant.
Obama supported it, that doesn't mean he influenced it in any direction. There were over 4 million customer comments on the FCC's website in favor of it. Tens of thousands of phone calls to the FCC as well as elected officials. This has been a huge issue for many people that caused the greatest outpouring of support the FCC has ever seen on any issue - so much so that it crashed their website multiple times.
The people demanded it and we got it.
If AT&T, Comcast and Verizon are for it, then I know it's not in the best interest of the public and I should be against.
The Internet was developed by the US Department of Defense with taxpayers money and is a service that belongs to us all - just like air and water. Corporations already charge for internet access and delivery service and content provides may charge what they want, if they choose. But giving massive corporations the right to control and sell internet speed for profit is beyond the pale. Despite the zillions of dollars spent trying to buy something that rightfully belongs to everyone, their effort failed.
The public wins one, for once.
This post was edited on 2/27 11:41 AM by Deeeefense
The Internet was developed by the US Department of Defense with taxpayers money and is a service that belongs to us all - just like air and water. Corporations already charge for internet access and delivery service and content provides may charge what they want, if they choose. But giving massive corporations the right to control and sell internet speed for profit is beyond the pale. Despite the zillions of dollars spent trying to buy something that rightfully belongs to everyone, their effort failed.
The public wins one, for once.
This post was edited on 2/27 11:41 AM by Deeeefense
Similar threads
