|
FAUXTON posted:I will happily say I was dead wrong and assumed the worst about him when he was appointed, given his CV. It's the good kind of wrong. He's a good dingo. Same, I expected him to be a full on Telcom shill, very pleased to see that was not the case. I'm still going to refer to him as Tom "Hotwheels" Wheeler in conversation though. It's just affectionate instead of derogatory now.  If I have a gripe, it's that if I understand correctly, even between these two votes there is still no last mile unbundling. So I'm still stuck with Comcast forever unless this city actually decides to fire up a fiber network (they won't) or Google decides to grace us with their presence (maybe, they've been teasing it).
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 11:32 |
|
|
Quorum posted:Bleh. Half of the other websites I browse have, for some reason, decided to become terrified because "we didn't get to read the proposal before it was voted on" and "but now the evil gubmint will get to ban porn" and "obamacare for the internet." Even places like Imgur, which I'm flabbergasted even has a community. It's frustrating, Pretty much everybody who understood what Net Neutrality was, even at a basic level, supported it until Obama came out in favor of Title II. The second that happened, conservatives were all against the exact same thing they were for five minutes ago, because politics in this country has managed to boil down to "being with/against Obama on [insert issue]". Regardless of what the issue actually is.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
cr0y posted:Jesus christ republicans let it go already. The bill is almost certainly doomed to die, too. If the latest DHS funding showdown taught us anything, it's that even with their marginal majority Republicans can't push anything through without at least some Democratic support, and I very much doubt that'll happen here. Particularly in the senate.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 19:55
|
|