|
As far as I'm concerned, the FCC acts as a representative of the American taxpayers and has carte blanche to gently caress telecom companies in any way they possibly can for stealing literally billions of dollars in tax credits, grants, subsidies, and publicly-funded contracts they've failed to deliver on. http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8401102 http://www.newnetworks.com/failedfiberstates.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20050207115446/http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/5210654.htm https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...-delivers.shtml
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:01 |
|
|
Zombie #246 posted:I am honestly extremely confused; I had only vaguely heard stuff about the net neutrality going on last year with all the SCOTUS talk, but it passed right? Isn't that a good thing? Someone give me a cliffnotes. the FCC basically announced it would be enforcing full-strength versions of regulations already on the books, which for years had not been because the existence of any regulations at all is verboten to conservatives. The ISPs aren't even doing the thing that's being regulated against, (yet), so there will literally be no difference for anyone at all anyways
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 08:00
|
|
|
Johnny Cache Hit posted:I'm assuming you know what net neutrality is. If not, the extreme basic version would be: if I send data to you, it doesn't matter if I'm Netflix and you're a Comcast customer, if I'm on Sprint and you're on AT&T, if I'm an iPhone user and you have an Android, etc. The data would be treated the same. Companies have hosed around with this in the past so it's not an abstract problem. Except that you can't just decide to change your classification, you have to adequately justify the change. So the FCC is going to have to explain why they fought the Title II classification a decade ago but want it now. Also, they're forbearing the universal service and interconnect requirements. E: and ISPs can still throttle based on total usage, they just can't throttle specific content. They can probably still try to throttle some peer to peer traffic based on an unlawful content argument, but they have less chance of success on that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 08:29
|
|
|
ihatepants posted:To add to this, this is how my Republican friend, who "supports the concept of net neutrality" explained why he's still upset at what happened: I actually called in to my local radio station yesterday after the host made the comment, "..and if you don't like their slow/lovely service you can just change providers.." to point out that most people don't have that choice and that was the same argument he gave me after we went around a few times. Time Warner has the monopoly in the city I live in and if you live in their district and want something else you're going with Dish or DirecTV for your only other internet/TV options. You could also consider me a conservative and I'm all for this reclassification of ISPs and the FCC stepping in to smack the telecom company dicks into the dirt. I won't feel bad for Verizon until they take some of their billion [+/-] dollar annual profit and push it back into infrastructure. Same goes for Time Warner. http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/vz/financials LCL-Dead fucked around with this message at 14:02 on Feb 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 13:44
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:The most visible result is that companies will not be able to throttle Internet speeds and charge extra for faster connections. To be clear - you mean they won't be able to charge you for the privilege of not throttling you, yes?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Buncha middle American mouth breathers who have never worked for corporations (and discovered that they're at least, if not more, incompetent and inefficient than government). It's funny how people don't realize there is no difference between a government or a private bureaucracy. The structures are the same by design.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
District Selectman posted:It's funny how people don't realize there is no difference between a government or a private bureaucracy. The structures are the same by design. Theoretically, the government is at least accountable to it's citizens. A company gives no shits.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
computer parts posted:To be clear - you mean they won't be able to charge you for the privilege of not throttling you, yes? Depends. I imagine that, like now, you would be able to pay more for a business account which gets priority routing. More importantly they won't be able to throttle one protocol but not another or charge netflix, hulu, Google, etc for the ability to be preferentially not throttled or (for example) let one company pay to have their traffic not count against transfer caps. Can anyone speak to how this will affect iptv services such as AT&T U-verse which pipe the video over the Internet connection? I know that U-verse prioritizes the video over other Internet traffic, to the point that it can bring your Internet throughput to a crawl if it decides to keep four streams running (two dvrs will do this apparently). The video also doesn't count against the transfer quotas. I wonder if the argument could be made that this is not neutral.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Well I was wrong about Wheeler... so far. There has to be a catch, Government doing something right hasn't happened since they sued Microsoft. I predict China style content filtering, starting with "terrorist sites".
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Except that you can't just decide to change your classification, you have to adequately justify the change. So the FCC is going to have to explain why they fought the Title II classification a decade ago but want it now. The forbearance on universal service was partial only - ISPs wouldn't have to contribute to the universal service fee (because No New Taxes) but they're going for a partial application of 254. I'm not sure how it'll play out though. And for interconnect Wheeler's memo specifically indicates that they will consider enforcement actions: quote:For the first time the Commission would have authority to hear complaints and take appropriate As to the throttling, yeah, data caps are still on the table, that has never changed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Except that you can't just decide to change your classification, you have to adequately justify the change. So the FCC is going to have to explain why they fought the Title II classification a decade ago but want it now. Well with the way appeals from the agency work the FCC's response to the inevitable lawsuit is "We just did exactly what this court told us to do  "
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Thanks for the informative answers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Dahn posted:There has to be a catch, Government doing something right hasn't happened since they sued Microsoft. Yes, because obviously the United States is actually a massive illuminati run despotism whose ultimate goal is the subjugation of the world. Like, I know that the US government isn't exactly the most trustworthy organization in the world, and we have good reason to not trust it, but it also isn't some kind of overtly evil force who want to turn the nation into the real life counterpart for Latveria. And even if it does turn out that it does contain that kind of censorship clause, you can bet your life that the second it gets used that there will be a million different lawsuits over it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
Bottom line: if you've been using the Internet this long and feel you have to question the efficacy of net neutrality or what it entails, you should probably stop using the Internet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
Dahn posted:There has to be a catch, Government doing something right hasn't happened since they sued Microsoft. Regardless of the intent or the actual outcome of yesterday's specific action, you can count on, with 100% certainty, that we are, in fact, on a slope to a regulated-content internet. There are too many people/groups/corporations who want this for either philosophical or business reasons to turn out any other way. Notice that even EFF is getting cold feet on this now, they're smart enough to know what's going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
Dahn posted:There has to be a catch, Government doing something right hasn't happened since they sued Microsoft. here's my gubbment-telecom regulation story. it'll show my age: When I was younger (post Ma Bell deregulation) my parents had a land line that would act up every time it rained. It'd get crackly and you could barely have a voice conversation let alone dial a BBS. Sometimes the phone would be completely dead. They'd call South Central Bell and the same thing would happen every time - "a technician will be out in 3-5 business days", and when the linesman showed up the thing was fine so he'd poke around for 20 minutes and say "sorry can't find the problem". This went on for eight or nine months. They went through the call center to supervisors to district managers and everyone kept saying "yeah sorry we can't really do anything." Somebody, probably the poor linesman that was dispatched every freaking week, let slip that our lines had reached end of life and were scheduled to be replaced sometime in the next few years, and we'd probably be doing this same song and dance for a while. Then one day Mom noticed the mandatory notice in the front of the White Pages that said "if you have unresolved utility issues call the state public utility commission". She called on Thursday afternoon, relayed her long story to the nice person on the other end of the phone who said they'd get in touch with Bell. Sunday morning when we were all eating breakfast two Bell trucks pull in to the driveway and a guy hops out. The district engineer apologizes and tells us they've isolated the problem, apparently our line's insulation was cracked and water was getting in and shorting it out when it rained. Because it's cracked in a few spots he's already got two linesmen running new cable at the junction a mile away, and they're just going to put a brand new line in for us directly from there to the pole, and here's his business card with his home phone number on it and we should call any time day or night if we have problems any time in the future, and did he mention that South Central Bell is extremely sorry for all the trouble? Six hours later we had a telephone line that was trouble free for decades. I'm sure the reality was that Bell probably knew the problem for day one and had figured that the best cost option would be to string everyone out and settle quickly with the PUC if anyone actually complained, but the end result was the same. And I hold no illusions that Title II will necessarily do the same to ISPs, but if Comcast is forced to give a tenth of the response we got, things'll get a poo poo ton better. Johnny Cache Hit fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Feb 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Dahn posted:There has to be a catch, Government doing something right hasn't happened since they sued Microsoft.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
CrashCat posted:They also got a LOT of comments when they opened up for that and probably heard a lot of what citizens are frustrated about. Maybe they actually read information from the interns that compiled those this time. The libertarians on my facebook page are all up in arms about how this is not only going to stifle innovation but also how the government is taking this over and it will kill the internet with that loving reason article which I refuse to read. But, if you actually read what the FCC commissioner said it becomes a lot clearer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Theoretically, the government is at least accountable to it's citizens. A company gives no shits. Theoretically companies are beholden to shareholders, and the public to continue to buy whatever goods it is they sell (aka Free Market Magic). In practice of course we both know neither is true. Most of the government is comprised of unelected bureaucrats. Elected officials are a small part of the government. I'd say the corporate equivalent of an elected official is C-Level management. Unelected government bureaucrats are just as unaccountable as corporate bureaucrats (we call them employees). In practice, if someone does something we as citizens/shareholders/general public don't agree with, a figure head is dethroned, and we're contented as if anything changed, but in both cases the bureaucracy thrives on without them. Most of the figure heads in either case don't have any idea of how the real day to day operations work - they're reported to by people who are reported to by people who are reported to by managers who delegate out the work into such infinitesimally small pieces that most of the people doing the work don't really know why they're doing it. Ok now I'm a little depressed, but hey, Net Neutrality is a good win. Somehow good things happen sometimes 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
District Selectman posted:Unelected government bureaucrats are just as unaccountable as corporate bureaucrats (we call them employees) I think mostly they're called employees in the government, too!
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Can anyone speak to how this will affect iptv services such as AT&T U-verse which pipe the video over the Internet connection? I know that U-verse prioritizes the video over other Internet traffic, to the point that it can bring your Internet throughput to a crawl if it decides to keep four streams running (two dvrs will do this apparently). The video also doesn't count against the transfer quotas. I wonder if the argument could be made that this is not neutral. 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. The kicker to these new regulations is that you have to treat all traffic a given type equally, regardless of what it contains, where it's coming from, or where it's going. So for example, AT&T can still perform QoS to prioritize iptv/video traffic over other traffic to ensure a smooth streaming experience, but they can't discriminate based on whether that traffic is coming from U-verse vs Netflix vs Hulu. The other big one is that they cannot charge the sender or receiver for a higher level of prioritization for their traffic. So you won't have any more poo poo like Verizon slowing Netflix to a crawl until they pay the
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Well with the way appeals from the agency work the FCC's response to the inevitable lawsuit is "We just did exactly what this court told us to do If they had, they'd have used the 706 authority, not reclassification. And they're claiming the ability to do enforcement actions against interconnect issues that violate other principles; they explicitly are not implementing "must connect" rules.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Well with the way appeals from the agency work the FCC's response to the inevitable lawsuit is "We just did exactly what this court told us to do Not to mention the FCC today is not the FCC of a decade ago and expecting it to answer for the decisions of a previous administration would be like expecting the same thing from the DOJ, Congress, or even the President's administration. The FCC might stammer a response solely because it'd be such a "are you loving kidding me" kind of question to ask of an organization whose leadership and operation changes with some regularity. Even a "we(the FCC) were wrong not to take the approach back then and even the courts thought so and as such we're going to remedy that right now" would suffice. The FCC can then start pointing out how companies like Verizon have claimed themselves as common carriers and utilities and poo poo to get access and free money they wouldn't have had otherwise. Pauline Kael posted:Regardless of the intent or the actual outcome of yesterday's specific action, you can count on, with 100% certainty, that we are, in fact, on a slope to a regulated-content internet. There are too many people/groups/corporations who want this for either philosophical or business reasons to turn out any other way. Notice that even EFF is getting cold feet on this now, they're smart enough to know what's going to happen. Ah yes, not allowing ISPs to gently caress consumers vigorously is the beginning of the end for us. Just like how Europe and Asia (outside of China) has been put on lockdown for the last decade or so, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Regardless of the intent or the actual outcome of yesterday's specific action, you can count on, with 100% certainty, that we are, in fact, on a slope to a regulated-content internet. There are too many people/groups/corporations who want this for either philosophical or business reasons to turn out any other way. Notice that even EFF is getting cold feet on this now, they're smart enough to know what's going to happen. Either way though, the other part where cities can now more freely make municipal broadband to get around lovely companies like Comcast is what I'm more excited about than whether Netflix has to give Comcast a kickback. I don't honestly expect anything to fix Comcast being assholes except other entities coming in and doing their job better for less money.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:
Why do you think that ISPs arent going to gently caress consumers now? What has changed for the positive for consumers? I have some bad news for you polyanna types. Just today it was pointed out on an industry messageboard I frequent that the new rules apply to 4mb and above, classifying that as broadband. What do you think that will mean? edit: I mean honestly guys, every time Obama takes a poo poo, you fall all over yourselves explaining how it's a transcendent poo poo that will change everything forever
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:I have some bad news for you polyanna types. Just today it was pointed out on an industry messageboard I frequent that the new rules apply to 4mb and above, classifying that as broadband. What do you think that will mean? The broadband classification changes mean a company can't try to pass off circa 2005 DSL-grade internet as broadband anymore and if they're required to provide broadband to X% or more of an area and don't under new rules then they have to make some upgrades. It also means that people whose sub 20/4 connections aren't labeled broadband any more might start asking around why and find out it's because they were being taken for suckers. I'm sure that industry message board will provide some rational and unbiased information for you though. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Why do you think that ISPs arent going to gently caress consumers now? What has changed for the positive for consumers? Gosh, I was pretty sure that meant telcos could no longer collect subsidies for deploying "broadband" that would have been shameful a decade ago. But you've truly opened my eyes to the impending threat of the telcos throttling everything back to <4mbps so they can put the screws to all the people lining up to watch Netflix on their poo poo connections.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Why do you think that ISPs arent going to gently caress consumers now? What has changed for the positive for consumers? Mind rewording that to be a coherent post? Broadband has been classified as 4 megabit for several years at this point. They upped it from 200 kilobits where it was prior.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
LGD posted:Gosh, I was pretty sure that meant telcos could no longer collect subsidies for deploying "broadband" that would have been shameful a decade ago. But you've truly opened my eyes to the impending threat of the telcos throttling everything back to <4mbps so they can put the screws to all the people lining up to watch Netflix on their poo poo connections. Can you point at the subsidies that telcos are receiving for deploying broadband?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
First post this page. poo poo
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Mind rewording that to be a coherent post? Broadband has been classified as 4 megabit for several years at this point. They upped it from 200 kilobits where it was prior. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Why do you think that ISPs arent going to gently caress consumers now? They are still going to gently caress consumers. They are just going to have to be a little more creative about it. But that means less profit. Which is the only reason ISPs are against net neutrality because it certainly has gently caress-all to do with anything they claim it does. An under-regulated industry is going to see more regulation. Of course they are mad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:They are still going to gently caress consumers. They are just going to have to be a little more creative about it. But that means less profit. Which is the only reason ISPs are against net neutrality because it certainly has gently caress-all to do with anything they claim it does. Telco isn't exactly a sane person's definition of under-regulated, you realize that, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:First post this page. 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?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Telco isn't exactly a sane person's definition of under-regulated, you realize that, right? Good thing most broadband in the US is cable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:They are still going to gently caress consumers. They are just going to have to be a little more creative about it. But that means less profit. Which is the only reason ISPs are against net neutrality because it certainly has gently caress-all to do with anything they claim it does. They're not against net neutrality. You know this because they voluntarily implement it in most cases, even though they've never had an effective requirement to do so. (The Comcast bit torrent resetting wasn't really about neutrality, it was about Comcast not really wanting to allow heavy bandwidth usage, and the various Netflix disputes weren't about Netflix specifically, Netflix was just the most visible victim because the majority of Level3 inbound traffic was from Netflix - anyone whose interconnect service was via Level3 had the same problems, and Level3 was resistant to changing their interconnect deal.) 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. crabcakes66 posted:Good thing most broadband in the US is cable. Also not an under regulated industry, particularly the broadband segment of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Anything that puts the screws to Comcast is OK in my book. That company is a massive pile of poo poo that grasps for monopolies in areas. Your choices where Comcast exists are often "Comcast" or "gently caress you." The connections are sometimes downright inconsistent and if you want a non-lovely one you're paying extra. Sometimes they just go down randomly for hours and Comcast gives no fucks at all. Yeah they aren't throttling stuff yet but I guarantee you that Comcast would happily make you pay extra for accessing "premium" (i.e., popular) websites. The only way to make a company like Comcast quit being such a gigantic poo poo is for the government to step in, twist their arms, and loving make them. If they want to act like a utility they get to be treated like one. In many areas they act like a utility by being the only supplier for something that has effectively become essential. Yeah you don't need an internet connection but these days there's a lot of poo poo you can't do without one and not everybody can easily get to a library with working computers. I feel like this is partly a preemptive "no, you don't want to start doing that" sort of thing on top of "hey Comcast...we're watching you. Do not gently caress up."
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Kalman posted:
Good post. The notion here, if I can goonsay, is that adding a Federal Department of the Internet will make your internet experience better. Thats what some actual posters ITT seem to think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Net Neutrality is good, force all conservatives back onto telegraphs if they don't stop bitching.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:01 |
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Anything that puts the screws to Comcast is OK in my book. That company is a massive pile of poo poo that grasps for monopolies in areas. Your choices where Comcast exists are often "Comcast" or "gently caress you." The connections are sometimes downright inconsistent and if you want a non-lovely one you're paying extra. Sometimes they just go down randomly for hours and Comcast gives no fucks at all. Yeah they aren't throttling stuff yet but I guarantee you that Comcast would happily make you pay extra for accessing "premium" (i.e., popular) websites. What in yesterday's announcement do you think will make Comcast quit being such a gigantic poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:46
|
|