|
computer parts posted:There is no reason to think that this would be a thing at the consumer level. You don't realize companies pass cost to consumers, do you?
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
Damage to a brand doesn't mean much when you have an iron grip over tens of millions of people and can do whatever the gently caress you want because their options are you or no modern tv/internet access.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The idea of Comcast and Time Warner deep packet inspecting to determine that the data coming in over Level 3 is from the other is even more absurd. For one thing it'd be hurting everyone's torrent speeds. Comcast has been caught deliberately throttling customers' downloads when it comes to torrenting so you might want to read up on the kind of fuckery they engage in. What you think to be absurd is pretty normal for them. They do the bare minimal amount of work they can and if something actually puts demand on their services they throttle or blackmail it (see: Netflix).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2014 08:48
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Wheeler officially came out today and confirmed that the FCC will move to reclassify ISPs under common carrier under Title II, as well as wireless data networks. I honestly did not expect the wireless part and I'm hoping that the telecomms didn't either. What're the odds these proposed changes fail to pass? 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
One of the arguments (I think it was from Verizon?) was that this move will be shot down by courts because the FCC already classified them as whatever the hell they are currently, and that the FCC can't go and change that because... something. I'm not sure what about the FCC's powers makes them think that would hold up as a valid argument but I'm sure they'll have dozens of claims as to why the FCC isn't allowed to reclassify them regardless of any authority the FCC has from Congress.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I can't speak authoritively on this but telecom being functional is becoming increasingly important from an economic development angle. Further the FCC Connect America initiative is showing some positive signs too thanks to the broadband classification. Came across this article that basically claims the FCC will lose like the EPA did and for the same reasons: http://techfreedom.org/post/110086459629/wheeler-ensures-fcc-will-lose-in-court-again-on This reads a bit hysterical and all but is Wheeler's proposal really the same as the EPA case this refers to? It seems absurd to suggest that the FCC isn't supposed to have authority to classify internet and regulate it but it could easily be an out for the conservative/business friendly judges to use as a means of striking down the FCC's reclassification. I don't see it having any effect on the FCC overruling state laws that help cement monopolies for ISPs though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
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: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
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:So this might be deserving of its own thread but I feel like they are somewhat related (especially since I stumbled upon it while looking at articles about the NN ruling): That sound you hear is ESPN making GBS threads itself in terror.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
This would also probably make ESPN go the way of the WWE's subscription service because ESPN cable fees are enough that people who don't watch the channel frequently would drop it in a heartbeat if they could save that money.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2015 23:51
|
|