FCC and Net Neutrality

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 2:56 pm

I do have to agree that failing to make it public makes me a little nervous about what crap they tacked onto it.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:01 pm

If it weren't standard practice, I might be concerned. Since it's not, the dissenter's call for a change today smacks of a delaying tactic.

Between the courts and Congress, I'm sure there will be ample opportunity to address any issues. It's not like the previous round wasn't decided by the courts when Verizon sued.

Anonymous Bosch · Post by **Anonymous Bosch** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:21 pm

Rip wrote:I do have to agree that failing to make it public makes me a little nervous about what crap they tacked onto it.

I predict ample vague phraseology, along with the need to expand regulatory bureaucracy to meet the needs of the expanding regulatory bureaucracy, and thereby interpret its meaning.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:22 pm

LordMortis wrote:Does this mean I am supposed to be ecstatic or ready to burn the Internet to the ground?

Cautiously Optimistic, I'd say.

Zekester · Post by **Zekester** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:40 pm

Comcast is in trouble now!

wonderpug · Post by **wonderpug** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:49 pm

Zekester wrote:Comcast is in trouble now!

I really have no idea who or what you are responding to.

Zekester · Post by **Zekester** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:57 pm

wonderpug wrote:
Zekester wrote:Comcast is in trouble now!

I really have no idea who or what you are responding to.

well then your avatar is quite fitting then

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:58 pm

psst: don't scare him off. he, Rip and em2nought are my favorite comedy team in R&P.

wonderpug · Post by **wonderpug** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:58 pm

Zekester wrote:
wonderpug wrote:
Zekester wrote:Comcast is in trouble now!

I really have no idea who or what you are responding to.
well then your avatar is quite fitting then

Productive conversation!

Zekester · Post by **Zekester** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:06 pm

hepcat wrote:psst: don't scare him off. he, Rip and em2nought are my favorite comedy team in R&P.

I knew you'd miss me. I actually blocked your ass, but soon discovered that you still showed up when I wasn't signed in

so there went that.

Productive conversation!

is there really any reason to keep talking about it now?

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:07 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:
Her proposed bill is meant to prevent by banning the Texas land office from vesting "any ownership, control, or management" over The Alamo to "an entity formed under the laws of another country."

So then it actually could be sold to the UN.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:12 pm

I suppose. Depending on the definition of "under', it was either done here or under international law, neither of which qualifies as "another country".

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:16 pm

Obama appointed Tom Wheeler, so Obama saves the internet!

wonderpug · Post by **wonderpug** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:17 pm

Zekester wrote:
Productive conversation!
is there really any reason to keep talking about it now?

I've only just joined the conversation and I am making a sincere effort to understand your point of view.

Zekester · Post by **Zekester** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:26 pm

then you're trying too hard

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:54 pm

Apparently, Verizon's been prepared for this for 80 years

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 9:19 pm

Since Verizon has been operating as a mobile carrier under those same rules for over twenty years, Verizon's PR department can go fuck itself.

Isgrimnur wrote:Here is the FCC press release.

Congress requires the FCC to refrain from enforcing – forbear from – provisions of the Communications Act that are not in the public interest. The Order applies some key provisions of Title II, and forbears from most others. Indeed, the Order ensures that some 27 provisions of Title II and over 700 regulations adopted under Title II will not apply to broadband. There is no need for any further proceedings before the forbearance is adopted. The proposed Order would apply fewer sections of Title II than have applied to mobile voice networks for over twenty years.

Emphasis mine.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 9:34 pm

Politicians speak out after ruling:

Republican politicians also spoke out against the FCC decision Thursday. In a letter signed by more than 20 Republican members of Congress, the lawmakers claimed that the new FCC rules “threaten the future viability of the Internet and America’s ability to compete in the global technology marketplace.” The lawmakers also promised to “not stand by idly.”

Now, I'm not keeping official track here but I'm pretty sure American Internet infrastructure is both pricey and slower in comparison to what is seen elsewhere in the world. While not a telecommunications corporation owner myself, I'm also pretty sure this decision isn't going to "threaten the future of...America's ability to compete in the global technology marketplace."

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:16 pm

The internet exists outside of the US. I'm thinking it's going to be just fine.

UsulofDoom · Post by **UsulofDoom** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:05 pm

I'm still confused on what people want? Does every one want 100% download speed 24/7? Do we get 100% water 24/7? 100% amps 24/7 . Can we all at the same time run any service 100% all the time? Meters are coming on band width. I think it's going to screw cloud services.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:15 pm

Do you think people don't understand utilities? Brownouts, capacity, etc?

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:15 pm

UsulofDoom wrote:I'm still confused on what people want? Does every one want 100% download speed 24/7? Do we get 100% water 24/7? 100% amps 24/7 . Can we all at the same time run any service 100% all the time? Meters are coming on band width. I think it's going to screw cloud services.

They just want as much straight unfiltered affordable internet access as they can get.

Why would this screw cloud services? Does it filter them or something?

What in this would cause metered bandwidth? Providers oversubscribe and have for ages, nothing about that will change. In fact the only thing I can think of that will change is ISPs not being allowed to filter traffic. As far as I know they are still free to provide private network services.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 11:36 am

UsulofDoom wrote:I'm still confused on what people want? Does every one want 100% download speed 24/7? Do we get 100% water 24/7? 100% amps 24/7 . Can we all at the same time run any service 100% all the time? Meters are coming on band width. I think it's going to screw cloud services.

I just want to make sure that AT&T doesn't give me different speeds to xxnx.com as fast as opposed to google.com.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:05 pm

UsulofDoom wrote:I'm still confused on what people want? Does every one want 100% download speed 24/7? Do we get 100% water 24/7? 100% amps 24/7 . Can we all at the same time run any service 100% all the time? Meters are coming on band width. I think it's going to screw cloud services.

Actually, IIUC, most utilities do a pretty good job of providing service 99.9% (over the long term, at any rate).

I remember when I looked into Net Neutrality - yes, bandwidth will cost ISPs money and that would presumably be passed on to customers, but from my understanding, the amount that it costs is far, far smaller than the kind of money ISPs wanted to get out of Netflix and others.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:14 pm

Defiant wrote: I remember when I looked into Net Neutrality - yes, bandwidth will cost ISPs money and that would presumably be passed on to customers, but from my understanding, the amount that it costs is far, far smaller than the kind of money ISPs wanted to get out of Netflix and others.

For example

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:18 pm

This was a bit amusing:

What the hell does Fox News think this even means?

But the rules, more broadly, would put the Internet in the same regulatory camp as the telephone by classifying it like a public utility, meaning providers like Comcast or Verizon would have to act in the "public interest" when providing a mobile connection to your home or phone.

Yes, the rules would classify broadband internet service as a telecommunications service, the same classification as telephone service. That's like a camp, I guess. A really unfun camp, with no swimming or crafts. Okay.

Comcast and Verizon would have to act in the "public interest"? Where the hell did that come from? What does that mean? Who has said this about net neutrality, ever? Does the Fox News CMS have a button labeled "words that sound like socialism" that generates this sort of thing? Can I get that on my Tumblr?

Why are Comcast and Verizon providing a mobile connection to my home?

Is Fox News aware that mobile phone voice service is regulated under Title II and it's been fine?
Seriously, what does this even mean?

Lest you think this was just a mistake, the same piece doubles down later on:

That would dramatically expand regulators' power over the industry by requiring providers to act in the public's interest and enabling the FCC to fine companies found to be employing "unreasonable" business practices.

(I love the "unreasonable" in quotes. "Unreasonable." No internet provider has ever been unreasonable!)

Zekester · Post by **Zekester** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:28 pm

Dear Foolish and Gullible Americans, Net Neutrality is Not Your Friend

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:29 pm

Isn't squeezing money out of our enslaved customers a reason? Is that not reasonable?

Now public interest. I can fully understand them being upset about that. The last thing they want is to be forced to act in the "public interest".

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:31 pm

Zekester wrote:Dear Foolish and Gullible Americans, Net Neutrality is Not Your Friend

You're right, it even destroyed your link.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:34 pm

hepcat wrote:
Zekester wrote:Dear Foolish and Gullible Americans, Net Neutrality is Not Your Friend
You're right, it even destroyed your link.

See, the FCC is already blocking internet stuff they don't like.

Zekester · Post by **Zekester** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:39 pm

Zekester · Post by **Zekester** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:40 pm

fixed. I think

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:47 pm

The problem with that snarky editorial is that he never once actually cites even a single passage from the bill that supports his belief that this is bad. Every single argument he makes boils down to "government involved=bad".

wonderpug · Post by **wonderpug** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:50 pm

Isn't it a definite fact Thing That Happened that Comcast & Verizon throttled Netflix bandwidth until Netflix wrote them each a check? Or is there some ambiguity or open interpretation about what really happened?

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:51 pm

404 Not Found

I've read enough arguments to see that both sides have valid concerns. I think it comes down to whom you trust (or distrust) more -- the government or corporations. Since we have evidence that the telecoms were already fixing to screw us over, whereas the government hasn't had a chance yet, I'm coming down on the regulation side...fully aware that I might regret it a few years down the information superhighway.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:54 pm

wonderpug wrote:Isn't it a definite fact Thing That Happened that Comcast & Verizon throttled Netflix bandwidth until Netflix wrote them each a check? Or is there some ambiguity or open interpretation about what really happened?

yes

I experienced it at home - suddenly my Breaking Bad episodes would drop to SD (or worse).

Zekester · Post by **Zekester** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:56 pm

wonderpug wrote:Isn't it a definite fact Thing That Happened that Comcast & Verizon throttled Netflix bandwidth until Netflix wrote them each a check? Or is there some ambiguity or open interpretation about what really happened?

So by getting the big bad guvment involved now they're not likely to do the same type of stuff?

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:59 pm

Why would they? Is the White House now known as the AT&T Government Stadium?

The whole point of the bill is to prevent corporations from treating the internet like it belongs to them entirely.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:59 pm

The article is clearly written by someone who doesn't understand the internet at all.

The FCC fears that Internet service providers might block traffic and could offer two-tiered service and could do this and might do that and conceivably would do such and such. They aren’t addressing a problem that currently plagues American consumers; only a problem that they insist will probably plague us at some point.

Sorry but yes they have, ask Netflix. Many providers have already been working on the marketing for the so-called "fast-lanes".

As these ISPs have pointed out, they don’t actually offer paid “fast lanes,” so these regulations are a remedy in need of a sickness. Besides, my internet provider doesn’t charge me for faster service, or offer me a break for slower service, but I’m not sure I see why such an arrangement would be so unbearably evil. Plenty of hotels have a model like this, and I actually rather appreciate it. I can decide what kind of connection fits my needs, and pay accordingly. So what?

This totally mis-characterizes what the "fast-lanes" are. It is a matter of prioritizing certain traffic, such as Youtube over netflix, or foxnews over CNN, based on who pays the protection money and who doesn't or whether it is a subsidiary/affiliate of the ISP.

To equate that to getting faster or slower overall internet service is just being foolish.

Thanks, FCC, but I don’t need your assistance. I’m not a damsel in distress; I’m just a consumer being presented with options.

No you really aren't. You are being given one or maybe two options and those options collude with each other to make sure that margins are nice and fat.

Net Neutrality itself was achieved by billionaires like George Soros handing out millions of dollars to the right people and placing proponents on the White House staff. Net Neutrality happened because rich people paid to have it prioritized.

There isn't a rolly eyes big enough.

So who should make the rules? Somebody is going to make the rules, Gullible Americans. Do you see that yet? Somebody always makes the rules. Right now Internet Providers, being private companies providing a service, do dictate certain things. This is how the free market works. But nobody really controls the conversation online. Nobody dictates the content.

Really? What nutjob thought this was about controlling the speech of the content? That is stupid, it is about controlling the content based on which content providers pay. Talk about being in left field.

Sure, we need an Internet connection to access it, and we need a platform like social media, or a blog, or the comment section of a cat video, or whatever, to voice our ideas, but in the end it all gets out there. The conversation online is already robust and open (not always entirely useful or worthwhile, but open nonetheless) (So open and robust that millions of people have spent the last 24 hours debating the color of a dress — these are the profound issues only the Internet can properly tackle).

So who makes the rules now? Yeah, you pay your bill to Verizon, you complain about the privacy settings on Facebook, but when it comes down to it, the Internet is about the only facet of American life where We The People really do have an unfettered voice.

And that’s why the government wants in. That’s why the government wants to make the rules. More specifically, whichever political party is in charge of the government at any particular time will make the rules.

Yea, we get it. You are under the illusion that the government wants to interfere with the content they don't like. Sorry but that is just ridiculous. Did they start controlling what you could say on the phone when the phone networks were regulated?

I am sure there are some good arguments against the move by the FCC. But this certainly isn't it.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:02 pm

Jesus H. Christ...I agree with Rip?!?!?

<neighbors find hepcat in shower 2 days later, furiously scrubbing himself and muttering, "can't get clean...no matter what...can't get clean">