|
Pauline Kael posted:What in yesterday's announcement do you think will make Comcast quit being such a gigantic poo poo? Not much. I think at this point the only thing the FCC is doing is warning Comcast to not become an even bigger gigantic poo poo.
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:33 |
|
|
Nonsense posted:Net Neutrality is good, force all conservatives back onto telegraphs if they don't stop bitching. No, the better thing is the Department of the Internet encroaching on content until we have GB style control prohibitions of porn. Boy oh boy will we see the sides flip on this issue immediately! Wait, I can't get my cartoon horse loving porn any more? Goddamned bluenoses! That's it, I'm tearing the Obama sticker off my Prius!
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Not much. I think at this point the only thing the FCC is doing is warning Comcast to not become an even bigger gigantic poo poo. So you're comfortable with the Feds placing themselves firmly into the Internet business to maybe one day potentially warn comcast not to become a bigger poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:No, the better thing is the Department of the Internet encroaching on content until we have GB style control prohibitions of porn. You're literally retarded.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:So you're comfortable with the Feds placing themselves firmly into the Internet business to maybe one day potentially warn comcast not to become a bigger poo poo? I'd like them to get Comcast to quit being a poo poo entirely but we're off to an OK start at the very least.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:So you're comfortable with the Feds placing themselves firmly into the Internet business to maybe one day potentially warn comcast not to become a bigger poo poo? And yet, the only thing net neutrality as implemented will have to do with content is that your horse porn receives the same priority as my streamed NASA launch. I'd rather have the federal government preventing racketeering by the broadband companies than allow the invisible hand of the free market to fist my wallet again, yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:No, the better thing is the Department of the Internet encroaching on content until we have GB style control prohibitions of porn. Boy oh boy will we see the sides flip on this issue immediately! Wait, I can't get my cartoon horse loving porn any more? Goddamned bluenoses! That's it, I'm tearing the Obama sticker off my Prius! But if you insist, please show your work about how this will lead inevitably to content prohibitions. EDIT: How DARE the government start regulating my phone lines! Pretty soon they'll send black helicopters when I call the phone sex hotline!
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:No, the better thing is the Department of the Internet encroaching on content until we have GB style control prohibitions of porn. Boy oh boy will we see the sides flip on this issue immediately! Wait, I can't get my cartoon horse loving porn any more? Goddamned bluenoses! That's it, I'm tearing the Obama sticker off my Prius! What stops Comcast from deciding to ban icky porn?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Mostly what I'm seeing here is the usual conservative garbage. -gently caress Obama. Check. -gently caress the Government. Check. -Corporate profits before all else. Check. Kalman posted:The telcos are against falling under title II and under regulatory requirements of net neutrality because regulatory compliance requires oversight and that does cost money. I'm not saying all regulation is bad, or even that net neutrality is bad, but that the telcos can be against being regulated without being against the specifics of the regulation itself, and can see a loss of profit in being regulated where they don't see a loss of profit in implementing the practices in the first place. Had the FCC gone the 706 route that the DC Circuit told them they should use, you wouldn't have seen any of the parade of horrible so put forward by neutrality advocates or antagonists, and you also wouldn't have seen legal challenges to it. Am I supposed to feel sorry for these companies that didn't do a better job communicating why they thought this shouldn't happen, and instead pandered to anti-government sentiment? And until something is done about local monopolies I will have to disagree on what constitutes under-regulated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
I have seen nothing but pseudo-Libertarian whining about this on any of the other websites I frequent, including the comments of otherwise liberal news sources. It's pretty depressing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
The Shortest Path posted:I have seen nothing but pseudo-Libertarian whining about this on any of the other websites I frequent, including the comments of otherwise liberal news sources. It's pretty depressing. Why? Libertarians are nobodies, and if anything it's just a thing where the country has left it vague before and now it is not vague and Serious People have to write 1500 words for a check.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Comcast will not stop being a little poo poo. However, approximately a handful of ways they were planning to be a little poo poo have now been preempted by the horrifying decision that the internet should stay more or less as it is. That's all! Hardly earthshaking, except that a few months ago we were all convinced that Comcast would be permitted to continue being a little poo poo in those specific ways. It's not like the Internet wasn't being regulated by the FCC earlier, either. This rule is just a replacement for some older rules that Verizon had thrown out by a court, rewritten to comply with the court's ruling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:No, the better thing is the Department of the Internet encroaching on content until we have GB style control prohibitions of porn. Boy oh boy will we see the sides flip on this issue immediately! Wait, I can't get my cartoon horse loving porn any more? Goddamned bluenoses! That's it, I'm tearing the Obama sticker off my Prius! You can bet your rear end that as soon as the government comes for Internet porn is when the revolution will come
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:Am I supposed to feel sorry for these companies that didn't do a better job communicating why they thought this shouldn't happen, and instead pandered to anti-government sentiment? No, you're supposed to understand that the problem the regulations solve doesn't appear to actually be a problem, and that the solution creates new problems (e.g., removing FTC ability to enforce unfair competition laws against ISPs - given that the FTC has been a MUCH more effective protector of consumer rights than the FCC, that's a very real and very large loss.) quote:And until something is done about local monopolies I will have to disagree on what constitutes under-regulated. What do you think any of this will do about local monopolies?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:You can bet your rear end that as soon as the government comes for Internet porn is when the revolution will come Nah, it'll be used as a bludgeon against the Right when the Left is in charge and visa versa. The right will love being able to use and expand federal control over the internet to go after pornographers, but by then this is going to be so set in stone that no amount of internet outrage will make any difference.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
You could consider me a conservative and I'm all for this. What's with all the hate?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Kalman posted:The telcos are against falling under title II and under regulatory requirements of net neutrality because regulatory compliance requires oversight and that does cost money. The FCC claims they left out the burdensome regulatory stuff, though. Are you saying they're lying about that? I'm genuinely asking because I'm not anywhere near familiar enough with the law to fact check them but I assume they couldn't get away with a bald-faced lie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Comcast will not stop being a little poo poo. However, approximately a handful of ways they were planning to be a little poo poo have now been preempted by the horrifying decision that the internet should stay more or less as it is. That's all! Hardly earthshaking, except that a few months ago we were all convinced that Comcast would be permitted to continue being a little poo poo in those specific ways. It's not like the Internet wasn't being regulated by the FCC earlier, either. This rule is just a replacement for some older rules that Verizon had thrown out by a court, rewritten to comply with the court's ruling. How do you know any of this? The FCC refuses to release any of the new rules for review. Obama and the FCC have you just where they want you - all the retards cheering 'victory' without having any actual idea what the new rules are. Don't any of you cheerleaders have a problem with this notion of passing rules and/or laws without allowing any public review? I live in the tariff world, we can't do ANYTHING without significant advanced notice, and significant time for public comment. How on earth should the Federal government, the grantor of all your rights, have such a lower standard?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:The FCC claims they left out the burdensome regulatory stuff, though. Are you saying they're lying about that? I'm genuinely asking because I'm not anywhere near familiar enough with the law to fact check them but I assume they couldn't get away with a bald-faced lie. Who knows, they wont release what they agreed on. Your guess is as good as anyone else's.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Nah, it'll be used as a bludgeon against the Right when the Left is in charge and visa versa. The right will love being able to use and expand federal control over the internet to go after pornographers, but by then this is going to be so set in stone that no amount of internet outrage will make any difference. Yeah, just like how every phone call from an Obama campaign office was blocked while Bush was in office 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Yeah, just like how every phone call from an Obama campaign office was blocked while Bush was in office I'm thinking more like the FCC gets used as a blunt instrument for culture wars on both sides. It's a very lovely possibility, but whatever, I already use VPN to get an IP address from elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:I'm thinking more like the FCC gets used as a blunt instrument for culture wars on both sides. It's a very lovely possibility, but whatever, I already use VPN to get an IP address from elsewhere. Hahahah yeah I'm sure if the US government goes full China on the internet your VPN will save you 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Sydin posted:From what I understand, basic QoS such as a standard prioritization of traffic based on type is acceptable under the new rules, so long as all that traffic is treated the same within their own types. They'll still be able to prioritize, that's what QoS is all about. If Net Neutrality rules made it illegal to perform QoS, we'd have some legitimate issues. Additionally, I believe that for purposes of managing network congestion ISP's will also still be able to throttle, so long as they throttle all traffic for all users, rather than certain protocols or high usage IP's. I'm actually going to take a guess that things like FIOS TV and Uverse TV won't fall under the Title II regulations (there's a section in the memo noting that some things won't be subject) as that traffic is more than likely going to be defined at private network traffic rather than 'internet' traffic since it should never leave that provider's network. What it *might* do though, is make AT&T/Verizon hold up to (or at least revise) the speeds they advertise, because at that point the traffic is no longer interchangeable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
LCL-Dead posted:You could consider me a conservative and I'm all for this. What's with all the hate? "But Obama did it! Obama bad!!!" - pretty much everyone who is opposed to it, seriously. Seriously the biggest thing it did was to essentially ensure the status quo persists for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:How do you know any of this? The FCC refuses to release any of the new rules for review. Obama and the FCC have you just where they want you - all the retards cheering 'victory' without having any actual idea what the new rules are. Don't any of you cheerleaders have a problem with this notion of passing rules and/or laws without allowing any public review? I live in the tariff world, we can't do ANYTHING without significant advanced notice, and significant time for public comment. How on earth should the Federal government, the grantor of all your rights, have such a lower standard? literally, they can't pass rules without public review (5 USC 553), so no, I'm not worried.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:The FCC claims they left out the burdensome regulatory stuff, though. Are you saying they're lying about that? I'm genuinely asking because I'm not anywhere near familiar enough with the law to fact check them but I assume they couldn't get away with a bald-faced lie. They left out a bunch of regulatory requirements but, and this is important, there's a huge difference between leaving it out by forbearance (the process they used) and leaving it out by saying they don't claim that authority or didn't create rules to apply it (the process they could have used under 706.) Forbearance is essentially "you are legally required to do this but for the time being we have decided not to make you do it." The requirements on the FCC if they change their mind are much, much lower than the requirements on the FCC to make new rules or find new authorities. The requirements are also statutory here, rather than rulemaking based. And even with respect to the non-forborn portions, the oversight obligations are a lot higher now than they were because the telcos are going to need to be able to produce evidence they aren't doing things against the rules, instead of just not doing it. From the telco perspective, it's basically "here are new rules we have to be able to prove we are following even though we were already following them. And here are some rules that are Swords of Damocles over our heads that the FCC claims it won't apply but could much more easily apply now than before and we would have a much harder time arguing that applying them is improper." The right way to do all of this would have been a new telco act and write a new title designed to deal with the unique issues ISPs face. That's hard to do, but it also could have avoided the negatives on both sides.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
given the impossibility of any substantive legislation in any area passing for at least the next two years if not longer, and given statutory authority to take some, if not perfect, action, I'll take the executive action.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:given the impossibility of any substantive legislation in any area passing for at least the next two years if not longer, and given statutory authority to take some, if not perfect, action, I'll take the executive action. Psssst they could have passed a net neutrality specific bill - admittedly spurred by the FCC's actions, but there were some coming out recently. And quite a few Republicans are interested in a new comms act and have been for quite a while - Upton is the big name in that group. Also, I will generally agree with you except when the action is to protect against hypothetical harms that haven't actually occurred yet and incurs actual and immediate harms. Which is what this is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Psssst they could have passed a net neutrality specific bill - admittedly spurred by the FCC's actions, but there were some coming out recently. And quite a few Republicans are interested in a new comms act and have been for quite a while - Upton is the big name in that group. then Congress can still pass a bill
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Kalman posted:
And that presents its own  of potential issues, between Congressional deadlock and the fact that 'designing it to deal with the unique issues ISPs face' could encompass just about anything from an entire spectrum of possible outcomes ranging from 'pretty good' to 'Comcast and FBI jointly impose dystopian hellscape, consumers get fisted'.The outcome we look to be getting isn't necessarily the best but it could very easily have been much, much, much worse. Not that there's really anything stopping congress from getting involved too, but, with the issue tentatively addressed for the time being it's not something that's likely to get reopened again until something actually happens. hailthefish fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Feb 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:given the impossibility of any substantive legislation in any area passing for at least the next two years if not longer, and given statutory authority to take some, if not perfect, action, I'll take the executive action. This, it's been made painfully clear over the last few years that our legislature is completely incapable of doing its loving job, which is why the judicial and executive have had to take up the bulk of affecting policy even though it really shouldn't be their job to do so. Until congress learns to act like actual loving adults who can cooperate despite differing opinions (and this goes for democrats AND republicans) kudos to the other branches for at least trying to keep things trundling along. Stricter regulation of ISP's was something that needed to happen. These companies have made it perfectly clear that they have every intent to abuse their legal monopolies in order to pinch every possible penny, and it shows. Our national broadband coverage outside of major metropolitan areas is garbage, our fiber & cable infrastructure is old an dying, the average national speed is loving pathetic compared to many other developed nations, and yet somehow despite all this prices are still going up. Oh, and Comcast has no money to invest in their infrastructure, but they do have ~$70 billion to acquire TWC. Okay, sure. That doesn't sound disingenuous at all. Would I have preferred congress to draft regulations that are more modern and specifically geared towards how ISP's operate vs traditional telecommunications companies? Absolutely, but it's clear as day that it just isn't in the cards right now. In which case then, I'll take what we can get, which is Title II. It's not the best solution by far, but it is a good first step. The next step is to get last mile unbundling, which might actually bring some competition and improvement to what is currently a stagnant industry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Nah, it'll be used as a bludgeon against the Right when the Left is in charge and visa versa. The right will love being able to use and expand federal control over the internet to go after pornographers, but by then this is going to be so set in stone that no amount of internet outrage will make any difference. Remember all those other times the Right has banned pornographic magazines or other medium of pornography distribution? Yeah, me neither. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Feb 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Kalman posted:They left out a bunch of regulatory requirements but, and this is important, there's a huge difference between leaving it out by forbearance (the process they used) and leaving it out by saying they don't claim that authority or didn't create rules to apply it (the process they could have used under 706.) I sort-of understood and am OK with the Sword of Damocles, though. "Yeah I know you don't like this but we could always make you loving hate it" seems like it'd be a not-terrible way to keep them in line, assuming everything holds up in court. Yes, obviously having a bill that's not a copy+past of Comcast/Verizon/AT&T/TW's corporate slashfic would be great, but I'm not holding out hope.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:How do you know any of this? The FCC refuses to release any of the new rules for review. Obama and the FCC have you just where they want you - all the retards cheering 'victory' without having any actual idea what the new rules are. Don't any of you cheerleaders have a problem with this notion of passing rules and/or laws without allowing any public review? I live in the tariff world, we can't do ANYTHING without significant advanced notice, and significant time for public comment. How on earth should the Federal government, the grantor of all your rights, have such a lower standard? I'm pleased you think I'm a retard for not wanting Comcast to be able to hold my infrastructure for ransom. For the moment, this is a summary of the rules which were voted on; I've been unable to find any statement from any of the individuals with access to the full text of the rules that the summary is factually incorrect. If that were an objection which could be reasonably raised, you can count on the two Republican members of the FCC, let alone any of their aides, to have raised it. At any rate, the rules will by statute have to be exposed to public scrutiny before they can go into effect. So until then it's hardly in anyone's best interest to begin immediately panicking about how the government is coming to take away your porn-- after all, the telephone lines are regulated under the exact same rule and legislation, and phone sex hotlines remain (somehow) a booming business.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
With regards to the rules being delayed isn't that largely because the republican members of the council refuse to submit the edits they'd want in order to delay and go on bout how it's not been put to the public yet?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:poo poo indeed. I see a lot of stuff from the Clinton and Bush administrations, but nothing recent. My question was simple - please show me subsidies that telcos (I dont know anything about cable) are receiving today to roll out broadband. By today, I mean, if telcoX spends $10 on February 27th 2015, will they get a subsidy for it. And if so, by whom? The Connect America Fund is probably the major one that's going to be effected by yesterday's vote. Beginning this year (and for the next five), $1.8 billion per year is going to be earmarked for a broadband deployment fund to bring high-speed access to areas that don't have it. The money is being shifted from the Universal Service Fund, and major ISPs get first refusal for subsidy territories. Otherwise it goes to a bid. I'm a little bit floored that nobody had this on hand, since the definition of broadband which was part of yesterday's Title II decision ties directly into what qualifies as "broadband deployment" for Connect America. When they announced it last April, one of the strings attached was a minimum download rate which would qualify as broadband for the purposes of qualifying for the come-and-get-it bell. For the 2014 Connect America Fund announcement, it was 10M. In the weeks leading up to yesterday's vote, they said they were redefining the minimum as 25M. So it does actually have an impact beyond what they can call the service in the ads. EasyEW fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Feb 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
EasyEW posted:I'm a little bit floored that nobody had this on hand, since the definition of broadband which was part of yesterday's Title II decision ties directly into what qualifies as "broadband deployment" for Connect America. When they announced it last April, one of the strings attached was a minimum download rate which would qualify as broadband for the purposes of qualifying for the come-and-get-it bell. For the purposes of the 2014 Connect America Fund announcement, it was 10M. In the weeks leading up to yesterday's vote, they said they were redefining the minimum as 25M. So it does actually have an impact beyond what they can call the service in the ads. When people say it has no effect, we're referring to the vast majority of the forum's experience. Like if you already got service, it's not going to get you faster or better service any time soon. And if you don't already have broadband, you probably aren't on here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:When people say it has no effect, we're referring to the vast majority of the forum's experience. Like if you already got service, it's not going to get you faster or better service any time soon. And if you don't already have broadband, you probably aren't on here. I dunno, you could be accessing SomethingAwful via IP Over Avian Carriers. Assuming they're carrying SSDs chock full of the latest fresh developments in D&D, you could be as little as two weeks behind the times!
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Where's the money in consumer friendly regulations or rules? Oh none you say? Its almost as if this is loving elementary and somehow conservativism is only a worth while principle when it protects despotic behavior by the industry that somehow made enough profits to buy one of the original three television networks in the world.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:33 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:When people say it has no effect, we're referring to the vast majority of the forum's experience. Like if you already got service, it's not going to get you faster or better service any time soon. And if you don't already have broadband, you probably aren't on here. It's only an effect on deployment in unserved markets, sure, but from the industry side of it, you've got to figure that's a big "only".
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 00:22
|
|