Net Neutrality

[Valsuelm]

Didn't millions of people petition for net neutrality, while a bunch of big corporations spent millions trying to strike it down?  I get being concerned about big government, but I'm plenty concerned about the practices of Comcast as well.

 

It's not near as simple as that. Corporations came down on multiple sides of the issue and millions of people saying they want net neutrality (myself being one of them), does not equate to millions of people wanting new regulations or a reclassification of what the internet is by the FCC. If it's not broken don't fix it very much applies here.

 

Right now we really don't know exactly what we have. There's no tangible reason for anyone to cheer right now, or much of one to jeer, other than the process by which this all happened (which is deplorable, yet par for the course in DC). As usual, much of media is slanting the story in a direction without any concrete evidence. In this case pretty much just regurgitating the talking points the White House and the commissioners on the FCC that voted for it stated (also pretty much as usual). We're getting little to no actual objective reporting on this issue from any major media source.

 

The regulations have not been made public yet. Which means that no one outside of the FCC knows much in regards to what exactly the regulations entail. Among other things, this tells me that what's in the apparent 300+ pages of new regulations is likely to be about as much about net neutrality as the Patriot Act is about being a patriot. I certainly hope I am wrong, and we'll find out in the not too distant future.

 

Whatever the new regulations contain though, it's near guaranteed that there's going to be at least one big court battle about it all. Not only has the fat lady not yet sung, we probably just witnessed the end to ACT I with this vote, and now sit in suspense during intermission. ACT II will start with the revelation of what the regulations say.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Guard Dog]

 

Whatever the new regulations contain though, it's near guaranteed that there's going to be at least one big court battle about it all. Not only has the fat lady not yet sung, we probably just witnessed the end to ACT I with this vote, and now sit in suspense during intermission. ACT II will start with the revelation of what the regulations say.

 

That it was all done behind closed doors and enacted in secret is particularly worrisome. As is the story in CNS that the FEC was consulted.

[LadyCrimson]

All I know is that before Netflix started paying Comcast more for a "fast lane", I couldn't use Netflix at all during most of the day, because slow loading on their site meant streaming movies was impossible. The only time I could watch Netflix was between 1am-8am. Since Netflix has been paying more, I've been able to watch Netflix whenever, whatever time of day/night I want.

 

If certain places/services = oodles more bandwidth considerations/costs for companies like Comcast, I don't really have a big issue with them wanting to charge more to either Netflix or to the consumer who wishes to use those sites, for all that mega bandwidth use. It doesn't seem unreasonable, at least in theory. Someone has to pay for it eventually. Price of using the 'net for mulitmedia entertainment vs. the past mostly low-bandwidth "information sharing."

 

But of course I don't want Comcast or others to be able to throttle any site they please, whenver, which I'm positive Comcast did/does (purposeful throttling isn't the same as access-demand just causing slowdowns). Nor do I really want to see ISP contracts dividing things up like cableTV - "standard internet, $35! standard internet+YouTube, $50! standard internet+youTube+netflix/amazon movie/hulu $90!" etc. So I can understand the fears. And I have no idea what could alleviate/be a good solution.

[Namutree]

And I have no idea what could alleviate/be a good solution.

Leaving the internet alone is the best solution. The internet is awesome as it is.

[Barothmuk]

 

And I have no idea what could alleviate/be a good solution.

Leaving the internet alone is the best solution. The internet is awesome as it is.

 

Lets not get carried away.

[LadyCrimson]

Lack of awesome 'net infrastructure is still one of the problems, imo (in the US). Just like our roads are getting old and our lack of public transport. Demand growing faster than infrastructure is upgraded.

 

Perhaps no throttling allowed etc. but more bandwidth use tiers. People like my mother, super cheap low price. People like me & hubby - yeah, our unlimited would probably triple in cost. Hahaha.

[Meshugger]

Well, /pol/ is speculating that those undisclosed 300 pages of Net Neutrality are either cancer or aids, and they are always right. So prepare for different degrees of cancer or aids masked as regulatory instancies.

 

Sources:

 

http://www.mediaite.com/online/obama-sent-reddit-a-hand-written-note-to-thank-users-for-net-neutrality-push/

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/soros-ford-shovel-196-million-to-net-neutrality-groups-staff-to-white-house/article/2560702

http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/26/the-fcc-just-voted-to-regulate-the-inter

 

While i do like that there is an authority that makes sure that access to any content on the internet is not discriminated, i do not like the fact that there has to be an authority that has to decide that, since it is a honeypot for the corrupted. Quite the paradox

[Elerond]

All I know is that before Netflix started paying Comcast more for a "fast lane", I couldn't use Netflix at all during most of the day, because slow loading on their site meant streaming movies was impossible. The only time I could watch Netflix was between 1am-8am. Since Netflix has been paying more, I've been able to watch Netflix whenever, whatever time of day/night I want.

 

If certain places/services = oodles more bandwidth considerations/costs for companies like Comcast, I don't really have a big issue with them wanting to charge more to either Netflix or to the consumer who wishes to use those sites, for all that mega bandwidth use. It doesn't seem unreasonable, at least in theory. Someone has to pay for it eventually. Price of using the 'net for mulitmedia entertainment vs. the past mostly low-bandwidth "information sharing."

 

But of course I don't want Comcast or others to be able to throttle any site they please, whenver, which I'm positive Comcast did/does (purposeful throttling isn't the same as access-demand just causing slowdowns). Nor do I really want to see ISP contracts dividing things up like cableTV - "standard internet, $35! standard internet+YouTube, $50! standard internet+youTube+netflix/amazon movie/hulu $90!" etc. So I can understand the fears. And I have no idea what could alleviate/be a good solution.

 

http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/this-hilarious-graph-of-netflix-speeds-shows-the-importance-of-net-neutrality/

 

My take to net neutrality is that, ISP sell consumers and companies certain amount bandwidth per second that is sometimes limited with maximum number of bytes that they can download/upload in day/week/month and usually their up/download bandwidth divination is such that download is wider than upload because download bandwidth is usually cheaper of two for ISPs. And if consumer or company wants to use or offer service to other consumers or companies that are in other ISPs customers then their ISPs pay each other for the network use, usually in such way that ISP that has data uploader in their network pays more than ISP that has data downloader in their network, but of course this depends on what those ISPs have agreed with each other. And therefore ISPs should never be in situation where amount of usage by their consumers cause them monetary or capacity problems except if they have sold bandwidth that their network don't actually have capacity to offer for their customers to get more money from them without actually investing in their network, by believing that their consumers don't actually never or rarely will use all the bandwidth they are buying. Which is where problems with high bandwidth services like Netflix come in and why ISPs want to limit/ask special compensation from them. And situation is not helped by fact that most of this high bandwidth services are in direct competition with other services that ISPs provide.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Well, /pol/ is speculating that those undisclosed 300 pages of Net Neutrality are either cancer or aids, and they are always right. So prepare for different degrees of cancer or aids masked as regulatory instancies.

 

Sources:

 

http://www.mediaite.com/online/obama-sent-reddit-a-hand-written-note-to-thank-users-for-net-neutrality-push/

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/soros-ford-shovel-196-million-to-net-neutrality-groups-staff-to-white-house/article/2560702

http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/26/the-fcc-just-voted-to-regulate-the-inter

 

While i do like that there is an authority that makes sure that access to any content on the internet is not discriminated, i do not like the fact that there has to be an authority that has to decide that, since it is a honeypot for the corrupted. Quite the paradox

What are they going on about? I'd check but I'm banned and don't feel like using a vpn or proxy.

[Meshugger]

 

Well, /pol/ is speculating that those undisclosed 300 pages of Net Neutrality are either cancer or aids, and they are always right. So prepare for different degrees of cancer or aids masked as regulatory instancies.

 

Sources:

 

http://www.mediaite.com/online/obama-sent-reddit-a-hand-written-note-to-thank-users-for-net-neutrality-push/

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/soros-ford-shovel-196-million-to-net-neutrality-groups-staff-to-white-house/article/2560702

http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/26/the-fcc-just-voted-to-regulate-the-inter

 

While i do like that there is an authority that makes sure that access to any content on the internet is not discriminated, i do not like the fact that there has to be an authority that has to decide that, since it is a honeypot for the corrupted. Quite the paradox

What are they going on about? I'd check but I'm banned and don't feel like using a vpn or proxy.

 

 

The libertanians hate it because they see it as government control of information. The national socialists hate it because Soros & co are involved and somehow have the control of information. The conservatives are suspicious of its implementation and possible price control, while the tradionalists hate it because it fuel the dependency of the internet in everyday life. All the rest, like a third of all posters are puzzled because because on paper it does sound good.

 

I dunno about /leftypol/ though, aren't they mostly anarcho-syndicalists?

 

In the end, they are always right

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

Well, /pol/ is speculating that those undisclosed 300 pages of Net Neutrality are either cancer or aids, and they are always right. So prepare for different degrees of cancer or aids masked as regulatory instancies.

 

Sources:

 http://www.mediaite.com/online/obama-sent-reddit-a-hand-written-note-to-thank-users-for-net-neutrality-push/http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/soros-ford-shovel-196-million-to-net-neutrality-groups-staff-to-white-house/article/2560702http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/26/the-fcc-just-voted-to-regulate-the-inter

 

While i do like that there is an authority that makes sure that access to any content on the internet is not discriminated, i do not like the fact that there has to be an authority that has to decide that, since it is a honeypot for the corrupted. Quite the paradox

 

What are they going on about? I'd check but I'm banned and don't feel like using a vpn or proxy.

 

The libertanians hate it because they see it as government control of information. The national socialists hate it because Soros & co are involved and somehow have the control of information. The conservatives are suspicious of its implementation and possible price control, while the tradionalists hate it because it fuel the dependency of the internet in everyday life. All the rest, like a third of all posters are puzzled because because on paper it does sound good.

 

I dunno about /leftypol/ though, aren't they mostly anarcho-syndicalists?

 

In the end, they are always right

Near as I can tell, /leftypol/ are mostly some brand of anarcho or communist. They seem to hate Maoists and anarcho capitalists though. And something about Hoxha.

 

I thought the always right thing was a joke? I suppose we'll have to wait until the 300 pages are released to see what's up.

[Tale]

I thought about making a joke here that in order to protest this, Forum Neutrality was suspended "so everyone can see what the US government is stealing from them." It would include a screenshot of this thread photoshopped so that half the posters were all fuzzy and unreadable and a promise that if you PM me, we can discuss a pricing plan catered to your budget.

 

But then I realized it sounded like a lot of work.

[ShadySands]

What we know so far

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

Well, /pol/ is speculating that those undisclosed 300 pages of Net Neutrality are either cancer or aids, and they are always right. So prepare for different degrees of cancer or aids masked as regulatory instancies.

 

Sources:

 http://www.mediaite.com/online/obama-sent-reddit-a-hand-written-note-to-thank-users-for-net-neutrality-push/http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/soros-ford-shovel-196-million-to-net-neutrality-groups-staff-to-white-house/article/2560702http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/26/the-fcc-just-voted-to-regulate-the-inter

 

While i do like that there is an authority that makes sure that access to any content on the internet is not discriminated, i do not like the fact that there has to be an authority that has to decide that, since it is a honeypot for the corrupted. Quite the paradox

What are they going on about? I'd check but I'm banned and don't feel like using a vpn or proxy.

 

The libertanians hate it because they see it as government control of information. The national socialists hate it because Soros & co are involved and somehow have the control of information. The conservatives are suspicious of its implementation and possible price control, while the tradionalists hate it because it fuel the dependency of the internet in everyday life. All the rest, like a third of all posters are puzzled because because on paper it does sound good.

 

I dunno about /leftypol/ though, aren't they mostly anarcho-syndicalists?

 

In the end, they are always right

Near as I can tell, /leftypol/ are mostly some brand of anarcho or communist. They seem to hate Maoists and anarcho capitalists though. And something about Hoxha.

 

I thought the always right thing was a joke? I suppose we'll have to wait until the 300 pages are released to see what's up.

 

 

Hoxha? oh dear

 

But yeah, i really wonder why those 300 pages are for. I mean, the principle is so easy: "Do not regulate accessability to content-sites". How difficult is that?

Edited February 27, 2015 by Meshugger

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

 

Well, /pol/ is speculating that those undisclosed 300 pages of Net Neutrality are either cancer or aids, and they are always right. So prepare for different degrees of cancer or aids masked as regulatory instancies.

 

Sources:

 http://www.mediaite.com/online/obama-sent-reddit-a-hand-written-note-to-thank-users-for-net-neutrality-push/http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/soros-ford-shovel-196-million-to-net-neutrality-groups-staff-to-white-house/article/2560702http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/26/the-fcc-just-voted-to-regulate-the-inter

 

While i do like that there is an authority that makes sure that access to any content on the internet is not discriminated, i do not like the fact that there has to be an authority that has to decide that, since it is a honeypot for the corrupted. Quite the paradox

 

What are they going on about? I'd check but I'm banned and don't feel like using a vpn or proxy.

 

The libertanians hate it because they see it as government control of information. The national socialists hate it because Soros & co are involved and somehow have the control of information. The conservatives are suspicious of its implementation and possible price control, while the tradionalists hate it because it fuel the dependency of the internet in everyday life. All the rest, like a third of all posters are puzzled because because on paper it does sound good.

 

I dunno about /leftypol/ though, aren't they mostly anarcho-syndicalists?

 

In the end, they are always right

Near as I can tell, /leftypol/ are mostly some brand of anarcho or communist. They seem to hate Maoists and anarcho capitalists though. And something about Hoxha.

I thought the always right thing was a joke? I suppose we'll have to wait until the 300 pages are released to see what's up.

 

Hoxha? oh dear

 

But yeah, i really wonder why those 300 pages are for. I mean, the principle is so easy: "Do not regulate accessability to content-sites". How difficult is that?

It looks like the Hoxha thing is a way to troll /marx/. I'll admit to liking the Hoxha goes bunkers flag.

 

As to the length, it's probably a lot of specifications and ****. Will want to look over it as soon as possible.

[Barothmuk]

Near as I can tell, /leftypol/ are mostly some brand of anarcho or communist.

Edgy liberals from what I can tell.

[Meshugger]

What we know so far

 

Aaaah. That's probably the biggest clue about those nefarious 300 pages. Taxes.

[ShadySands]

What the Net Neutrality Rules Say

 

Complete with death panels and French as the official language

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

What the Net Neutrality Rules Say

 

Complete with death panels and French as the official language

I knew it.

 

[Meshugger]

What the Net Neutrality Rules Say

 

Complete with death panels and French as the official language

 

I couldn't find anything about taxes, im dissapoint.

[ShadySands]

 

What the Net Neutrality Rules Say

 

Complete with death panels and French as the official language

 

I couldn't find anything about taxes, im dissapoint.

 

Forbes opinion piece on the taxes

[Meshugger]

 

 

What the Net Neutrality Rules Say

 

Complete with death panels and French as the official language

 

I couldn't find anything about taxes, im dissapoint.

 

Forbes opinion piece on the taxes

 

 

 

 

In addition, if states consider “intangible” property as taxable, wireless providers may also see the value of their spectrum taxed, which is worth well over a hundred billion dollars

 

Bingo.

[ShadySands]

FCC chairman Ajit Pai claims net neutrality hurts the sick and disabled

 

"One aspect of this proposal I think is worth highlighting here is the flexibility it would give for prioritizing services that could make meaningful differences in the delivery of healthcare. By ending the outright ban on paid prioritization, we hope to make it easier for consumers to benefit from services that need prioritization—such as latency-sensitive telemedicine. Now, we can’t predict exactly which innovations entrepreneurs will come up with. But by replacing an outright ban with a robust transparency requirement and FTC-led consumer protection, we will enable these services to come into being and help seniors," Pai said (PDF).

 

The argument is that by disallowing ISPs to charge extra to prioritize certain traffic, consumers are harmed, in particular the sick and disabled who rely on certain healthcare services. 'Think of the sick!', in other words.

 

But here's the thing. As currently implemented, the FCC's net neutrality rules already take this into consideration. The FCC under previous chairman Tom Wheeler differentiated between "Broadband Internet Access Services (BIAS)," which is general Internet traffic, and "Non-BIAS data services." The latter is given prioritized, isolated capacity to ensure lower latency, faster speed, and greater reliability. Critical healthcare services—pacemakers, telemedicine, and so forth—fall into this category and are exempt from the rules.

 

The FCC doubled down on the healthcare claim in a document of supposed myths and facts (PDF) related to net neutrality. 

 

So, does he just not have a clue about what he's trying to do or is he purposefully lying? 

[Bartimaeus]

lying

 

(e): he was previously one of verizon's lawyers that fought against the FCC under the obama administration. give me a break

Edited December 9, 2017 by Bartimaeus

[Epaminondas]

I have several friends on the Net Neutrality bandwagon. In fact, we have fought bitterly. Well, they were bitter. I figure we're all screwed anyhow, so I was pretty sanguine. When I ask these friends, some of whom I've known since I was a child, how their lives were made better when this chef d'oeuvre was crafted and put into effect, they were dumbfounded. Apparently it had been in place for so long... a year and change at that time when they started bitching, that they couldn't answer straight away. Then, they stumbled over themselves trying to perform Heraclean feats of mental gymnastics. Net Neutrality wants to govern as a utility something that was free and so monumentally open before the rules went into place that the very video that complains about the loss of Net Neutrality sites conditions that pre-existed it. ...But, yeah, I'm sure giving the government the power to oversee the internet is what all of the internet pioneers envisioned when it grew to be the monolithic thing it is today. That was facetious, by the way.