FCC Approves New Net Neutrality Rules

[|Zach|]

FCC approves new net neutrality rules

The Federal Communications Commission voted Thursday to implement new net neutrality rules designed to make sure Internet service providers treat all legal content equally.

The historic vote on the proposal by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler elicited hearty cheers from a wide array of technology companies and consumer groups while setting the table for further legal challenges from Internet service providers. The controversial proceedings that led up to the vote generated heated lobbying in Washington and public clamor on social media, all in efforts to steer the future direction of the rules that guide Internet traffic.

"No one ... should control free and open access to the Internet," Wheeler said to applause from the standing room-only crowd gathered before the FCC panel. "It's the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet. The Internet is too important to allow broadband providers to make the rules."

Net neutrality, also called open Internet, is a principle that Internet networks are equally available to all types of legal content generators. Internet service providers (ISPs), mostly large cable or telephone companies, would be prohibited from discriminating against content by slowing transmission speeds or seeking payments in exchange for faster lanes of their Internet networks, a practice called "paid prioritization."

Implementing the principle at a time when Internet streaming technology is changing so rapidly proved challenging to Wheeler as he sought to balance the varying interests of influential content streamers, like Netflix, and large ISPs that have spent millions to fight the effort. The FCC was besieged with passionate comments from both sides of the debate, receiving about 4 million comments, a record. In the end, Wheeler, with a nudge from President Obama, delivered on his proposals, though not without a fight from his colleagues and Republican lawmakers who wanted to delay the vote.

Wheeler's proposal reclassifies ISPs as public utilities, like phone companies, that are subject to a set of regulations that ensure all consumers get fair access to their services. ISPs would be banned from paid prioritization deals, though they can set aside fast lanes for some exceptions, including public services, like remote heart monitoring.

The authority for the new rules comes from Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. The new rules also call for the regulators to "forbear" — or refrain — from some provisions of Title II, including pricing regulation and other parts that are less relevant to broadband services.

The regulations will be published in the Federal Register in a few weeks. They become effective 30 days after publication.

Pro-business advocates and ISPs, including wireless carriers, have denounced Wheeler's approach. The proposal's insistence on laying out the do's and don'ts of operating Internet networks would inhibit ISPs from introducing new services — say, connected refrigerators and smartphone-controlled windows and doors — and limit innovations in improving their networks, they say.

"What doesn't make sense, and has never made sense, is to take a regulatory framework developed for Ma Bell in the 1930s and make her great grandchildren, with technologies and options undreamed of eighty years ago, live under it," said Jim Cicconi, AT&T's senior executive vice president-external and legislative affairs, in a statement.

The five-member commission voted 3 to 2 to approve the proposal, as expected. Joining Wheeler in voting for his plan were Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel. Commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly, the two Republicans on the commission, voted against it.

"We cannot have a two-tiered Internet with fast lanes that speed the traffic of the privileged and leave the rest of us lagging behind," Rosenworcel said. "We cannot have gatekeepers who tell us what we can and cannot do and where we can and cannot go online."

The outcome is hardly surprising as all five commissioners had telegraphed their stances since Wheeler revealed the summary of his proposal earlier this month. President Obama came out strongly in support of the Title II option late last year.

Opponents sought to delay the vote until, citing a lack of transparency. On Monday, Pai and O'Rielly issued a joint statement criticizing Wheeler's refusal to reveal the entire 332-page plan and called for "the FCC leadership … to allow the American people a reasonable period of not less than 30 days to carefully study it" before the vote. The chairman made public only a summary before the vote.

O'Rielly reiterated his concern that Obama had inserted himself into the process. "I am just sick about what Chairman Wheeler was forced to go through during this process," O'Rielly said in a statement. "It was disgraceful to have the Administration overtake the Commission's rulemaking process and dictate an outcome for pure political purposes."

Several Republicans — Reps. Greg Walden, R-Ore. and Fred Upton, R-Mich., and Sen. John Thune, R-S.D. — helped create draft legislation in an effort to overrule the FCC's plans. Their legislation would ban paid prioritization, but falls short of reclassifying the Net as a utility.

"We will continue to seek a consensus solution, and hopefully bipartisan legislation, Cicconi said.

The FCC approved net neutrality rules since 2008. But Wheeler, a former tech industry executive and industry lobbyist, was forced to come up with a new proposal when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in early 2013 tossed out the earlier rules.

Anticipating Wheeler's proposals, ISPs have started to threaten lawsuits. "Instead of a clear set of rules moving forward, with a broad set of agreement behind them, we once again face the uncertainty of litigation," Cicconi said.

Some the key details of the proposal are still unclear. The FCC would have authority to enforce any "interconnection" agreements — deals struck between ISPs and content providers to transmit data more efficiently in the "back-end" of the Internet networks — that are "not just and reasonable."

But whether Netflix can continue to pay some ISPs to locate its servers closer to their networks' key distribution points to stream its movies without too much lag — as it does now — remains unclear.

In a lengthy speech before the crowd, Pai also questioned the FCC's ability to continue to refrain from the "forbearance" promises it made. The FCC also has agreed to not impose further tariffs or require ISPs to unbundle some services or file a burdensome amount of documents. But "the plan repeatedly states that it is only forbearing 'at this time,'" Pai said. "For other rules, the FCC will refrain 'for now.'"

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/02/26/fcc-approves-net-neutrality-rules/24053057/

[RedDread]

Tom Wheeler - Apparently not a Dingo.

[Bearcat]

Good. Completely absurd it even got to that point... if you didn't already know, all you have to do is look at what's happening in KC to know the ISPs are completely full of shit.

[Just Passin' By]

Terrible situation that will, hopefully, be quickly reversed

[saphojunkie]

Terrible situation that will, hopefully, be quickly reversed

what?

[petegz28]

Good. Completely absurd it even got to that point... if you didn't already know, all you have to do is look at what's happening in KC to know the ISPs are completely full of shit.

What is happening??

[|Zach|]

What is happening??

Pete has no idea why neutrality is desired let alone needed...I am going to step aside to allow is idiocy to take center stage.

[loochy]

What is happening??

google fiber

[Beef Supreme]

Pete has no idea why neutrality is desired let alone needed...I am going to step aside to allow is idiocy to take center stage.

You should have stepped aside and left this topic in DC.

[hometeam]

If my shitty ass country electric company can come up with the money to build THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of miles of rural fiber lines, and provide uncapped, world-leading internet speed, at an affordable price, why cant companies making money hand over fist?

Oh I know. They can.

I was paying 7.99 per mb of download speed, and 53.99 (!!!!!) per mb of upload speed via centurylink

I now pay .10 per mb of upload and .10 per mb of download through an electric co-op.

So I dont want to hear they cant build infrastructure. Cant and wont are two different things.

[|Zach|]

You should have stepped aside and left this topic in DC.

It's a huge deal.

[Beef Supreme]

It's a huge deal.

It can be a huge deal in the DC section, cuz I can just about guarantee this thread ends up there.

[BWillie]

So, does this mean an internet service provider can't charge say

$50 for 200 mbps
$30 for 100 mbps
$15 for 10 mbps
$10 for 2 mbps

It would just all be the same speed, for the same price??

???? anybody know

[Bugeater]

It can be a huge deal in the DC section, cuz I can just about guarantee this thread ends up there.
Maybe if you shut the hell up it won't

[KC native]

So, does this mean an internet service provider can't charge say

$50 for 200 mbps
$30 for 100 mbps
$15 for 10 mbps
$10 for 2 mbps

It would just all be the same speed, for the same price??

???? anybody know

No. They can still offer different tiers of service.

It just means they can't prioritize websites/content on the basis of those companies paying for "fast lanes".

[Garcia Bronco]

Anyone think now that they'll try to gerimander what a "Legal content provider" is? And some tech has to have prioritization...so does this impact QoS for voice and video traffic?

[DaneMcCloud]

Anyone think now that they'll to germander what a "Legal content provider" is?

Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, iTunes, etc.

[Garcia Bronco]

Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, iTunes, etc.

What about this site for example?

[loochy]

What about this site for example?

not legal

plz restrict bandwidth plz

[ndws]

If my shitty ass country electric company can come up with the money to build THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of miles of rural fiber lines, and provide uncapped, world-leading internet speed, at an affordable price, why cant companies making money hand over fist?

Oh I know. They can.

I was paying 7.99 per mb of download speed, and 53.99 (!!!!!) per mb of upload speed via centurylink

I now pay .10 per mb of upload and .10 per mb of download through an electric co-op.

So I dont want to hear they cant build infrastructure. Cant and wont are two different things.

If that shitty company is part of RUS or other funding programs, that's how they are able to deploy ftth. I work for one of those small shitty isp's that recently finished a ftth rollout in the past few years. It doesn't entirely all come out of the company piggy bank. There are a number of programs geared to make that kind of thing happen.

[Mr. Laz]

Good. Completely absurd it even got to that point... if you didn't already know, all you have to do is look at what's happening in KC to know the ISPs are completely full of shit.

this

[eDave]

Good. Completely absurd it even got to that point... if you didn't already know, all you have to do is look at what's happening in KC to know the ISPs are completely full of shit.

Didn't ATT SUDDENLY discover new bandwidth capacities to counter Google? LOL

[Bearcat]

What is happening??

ISPs cry that bandwidth is expensive and someone (content providers, but more likely customers) should pay for all the bandwidth used by Netflix, Hulu, etc.

ISPs, most notably Comcast, contribute millions to campaign funds to buy votes instead of, you know, updating their shit that's put to shame by other countries.

Google Fiber happens.

TWC starts offering Fiber customers 100mbps service at the same cost as their normal shitty service (that I'm pretty sure didn't even exist a couple years ago) and now has 50mbps and 100mbps available to just about anyone.

AT&T comes out with gigabit service.

tl;dr -- Competition happened.

[Reerun_KC]

ISPs cry that bandwidth is expensive and someone (content providers, but more likely customers) should pay for all the bandwidth used by Netflix, Hulu, etc.

ISPs, most notably Comcast, contribute millions to campaign funds to buy votes instead of, you know, updating their shit that's put to shame by other countries.

Google Fiber happens.

TWC starts offering Fiber customers 100mbps service at the same cost as their normal shitty service (that I'm pretty sure didn't even exist a couple years ago) and now has 50mbps and 100mbps available to just about anyone.

AT&T comes out with gigabit service.

tl;dr -- Competition happened.

Pakistan has a better network infrastructure than most of the US...

They have fiber to most villages and into almost all the homes so they can surf their gay male porn.

[ptlyon]

Pakistan has a better network infrastructure than most of the US...

They have fiber to most villages and into almost all the homes so they can surf their gay male porn.

ROFL

[Imon Yourside]

What scares me the most about this is the fact it sets precedent to do more unpopular things in the future. Am I wrong in assuming it will be easier to move forward regulating other aspects of the internet?

[sedated]

TWC starts offering Fiber customers 100mbps service at the same cost as their normal shitty service (that I'm pretty sure didn't even exist a couple years ago) and now has 50mbps and 100mbps available to just about anyone.

AT&T comes out with gigabit service.

I was on the phone with one of TWC's "advanced" technical support, and his quote was "you have the basic package, which in a google zone is anything but basic". Then told a story about how people on the coasts were pissing and moaning about TWC not offering (or giving as they are doing in KC) 100 Mbps to them and only "those hayseeds in flyover country" could get it.

[ModSocks]

I was on the phone with one of TWC's "advanced" technical support, and his quote was "you have the basic package, which in a google zone is anything but basic". Then told a story about how people on the coasts were pissing and moaning about TWC not offering (or giving as they are doing in KC) 100 Mbps to them and only "those hayseeds in flyover country" could get it.

"Hayseeds"?

Yeah....i bet your Rep made that shit up.

[Just Passin' By]

What scares me the most about this is the fact it sets precedent to do more unpopular things in the future. Am I wrong in assuming it will be easier to move forward regulating other aspects of the internet?

People cheering this are fools who can't be bothered to learn from history.

[eDave]

Pakistan has a better network infrastructure than most of the US...

They have fiber to most villages and into almost all the homes so they can surf their gay male porn.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41438000/jpg/_41438778_pylon_bbc203.jpg

[Imon Yourside]

People cheering this are fools who can't be bothered to learn from history.

Exactly as I suspected then huh? Ya i find it hard to cheer for this, the CP lawyers can step in and answer the question but i know how this movie ends. I've seen it in other aspects of our life.

[Reerun_KC]

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41438000/jpg/_41438778_pylon_bbc203.jpg

And probably all fiber... Its a clusterfuck for sure... But they make us Hayseeds in flyover country look like we in the stone ages with our technology....

Its embarrassing as I have seen it first hand.

[Chiefspants]

People cheering this are fools who can't be bothered to learn from history.

We should have let poor St. Vanderbilt keep his trains. :(

[mdstu]

People cheering this are fools who can't be bothered to learn from history.

Okay, I guess I'm one of these fools you speak of.

Explain to me why Net Neutrality is a bad thing.

[ModSocks]

Okay, I guess I'm one of these fools you speak of.

Explain to me why Net Neutrality is a bad thing.

They're under the impression that these rules are set in stone and that no governing body has the power to change this....

[eDave]

Okay, I guess I'm one of these fools you speak of.

Explain to me why Net Neutrality is a bad thing.

It doesn't allow the rich to get richer.

[mdstu]

They're under the impression that these rules are set in stone and that no governing body has the power to change this....

Well sure, I'm not that foolish. I understand that when the tides change, so do the rules. But does that make this a bad ruling?

[Bearcat]

What scares me the most about this is the fact it sets precedent to do more unpopular things in the future. Am I wrong in assuming it will be easier to move forward regulating other aspects of the internet?

If you're saying it shouldn't have been ruled on in the first place, I totally agree. But, given that it was ruled on and there were two possible outcomes, one is clearly better than the other.

[Just Passin' By]

Exactly as I suspected then huh? Ya i find it hard to cheer for this, the CP lawyers can step in and answer the question but i know how this movie ends. I've seen it in other aspects of our life.

The people cheering this largely don't even understand what actually happened. This isn't just a one off law added by Congress.

the agency will regulate network owners by scooping them up under Title II of the 1934 Telecommunications Act, a specific set of regulations that apply to phone companies.

Maybe those people cheering will smarten up and figure it out. In the meantime, maybe the courts will strike down this FCC power grab on the issue, as they did the last time. One can always hope.

[BWillie]

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41438000/jpg/_41438778_pylon_bbc203.jpg

Seems safe.

[Bearcat]

The people posting in this thread largely speaking in vague terms on the ignorance of others could always elaborate.

[Loneiguana]

The people cheering this largely don't even understand what actually happened. This isn't just a one off law added by Congress.



Maybe those people cheering will smarten up and figure it out. In the meantime, maybe the courts will strike down this FCC power grab on the issue, as they did the last time. One can always hope.


The people posting in this thread largely speaking in vague terms on the ignorance of others could always elaborate.

This

/its not getting struck down. That was a major reason they made this change, so it would stand up to the courts. When such a major element of your post is so very wrong, chances are the rest of the post is garbage as well.

[saphojunkie]

So, from what I understand, a couple people think net neutrality is a slippery slope and now the FCC will control us all.

Gotcha.

You're retarded.

[Jakemall]

page 332

[Pitt Gorilla]

Exactly as I suspected then huh? Ya i find it hard to cheer for this, the CP lawyers can step in and answer the question but i know how this movie ends. I've seen it in other aspects of our life.In which specific aspects have you seen this?

[KC native]

The people cheering this largely don't even understand what actually happened. This isn't just a one off law added by Congress.



Maybe those people cheering will smarten up and figure it out. In the meantime, maybe the courts will strike down this FCC power grab on the issue, as they did the last time. One can always hope.

dumb fuck is dumb.

[Lex Luthor]

So, from what I understand, a couple people think net neutrality is a slippery slope and now the FCC will control us all.

Gotcha.

You're retarded.
Damn it, you stole my thunder. I was about to tell Killer_Clown how retarded the slippery slope argument is.

[Rausch]

So, from what I understand, a couple people think net neutrality is a slippery slope and now the FCC will control us all.

Gotcha.

You're retarded.

LMAO

[Just Passin' By]

This

/its not getting struck down. That was a major reason they made this change, so it would stand up to the courts. When such a major element of your post is so very wrong, chances are the rest of the post is garbage as well.

Nothing in my post was wrong, you idiot.

[kysirsoze]

The people posting in this thread largely speaking in vague terms on the ignorance of others could always elaborate.


And then....


Nothing in my post was wrong, you idiot.


What else would you expect?

[BigRedChief]

As this is in my wheel house, I applaud the FCC decision and think it will hold up in the courts.

If there is an intelligent discussion about this, I'd be happy to join that thread but flinging insults and poo...... no thanks.

[petegz28]

As this is in my wheel house, I applaud the FCC decision and think it will hold up in the courts.

If there is an intelligent discussion about this, I'd be happy to join that thread but flinging insults and poo...... no thanks.

I don't think it will be challenged in court.

[DaneMcCloud]

Nothing in my post was wrong, you idiot.

I'm not sure if you understand this legislation.

With the passage of Net Neutrality, small businesses are the clear winner. Had it not passed, huge corporations could pay ISP's to provide their customers with more bandwidth while slowing down internet speeds (and the traffic that goes along with it) to smaller business, independent websites, etc.

It basically keeps the internet "neutral" gateway in which corporations cannot control the flow of information.

[DaneMcCloud]

I don't think it will be challenged in court.

I think it will and by you know whom

[Don Corlemahomes]

So, from what I understand, a couple people think net neutrality is a slippery slope and now the FCC will control us all.

Gotcha.

You're retarded.

I love you

ROFL

[DaFace]

This is good.

(That's about all I have to contribute.)

[petegz28]

I think it will and by you know whom

If you men the Repubs then I'd say they have not the spine to challenge anything. They'll yack and bitch and all that but as always, stop short of doing anything about it.

[kysirsoze]

If you men the Repubs then I'd say they have not the spine to challenge anything. They'll yack and bitch and all that but as always, stop short of doing anything about it.

Cable companies?

[eDave]

I don't think it will be challenged in court.

The GOP will sue because they want you to pay more and so the rich get richer. Did you vote for the GOP??? Well if you did and you're not rich you are a fool. They want to make you poorer and the rich richer. You might as well become a Scientologist.

[Loneiguana]

Nothing in my post was wrong, you idiot.

Outside of all of it, the most glaring wrongness is this:

"In the meantime, maybe the courts will strike down this FCC power grab on the issue, as they did the last time. One can always hope. "

From here:

http://media.npr.org/documents/2015/feb/fcc-wheeler-openinternet.pdf

His common-sense proposal would replace, strengthen and supplement FCC rules struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit more than one year ago. The draft Order supports these new rules with a firm legal foundation built to withstand future challenges. The Chairman’s comprehensive proposal will be voted on the FCC’s February 26 open meeting.

...
The Chairman’s proposal provides the strongest legal foundation for the Open Internet rules by relying on multiple sources of authority: Title II of the Communications Act and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.


It's built to withstand the courts. In short, you are the very definition of wrong.

[Bearcat]

I'm not sure if you understand this legislation.



I guess that makes more sense, especially with comments like "move forward regulating other aspects of the internet," when the whole point is not regulating the internet.

We need to end women's suffrage, too!

[petegz28]

Cable companies?

meh...

[Bugeater]

LMAO The meltdown on the FOX news facebook page is priceless.

[Bearcat]

LMAO The meltdown on the FOX news facebook page is priceless.

LMAO

I think Dane is right... and Fox headlined it as "sweeping Internet regulation plan," so people are freaking out about it, thinking "net neutrality" = "throttling the internet".

[keg in kc]

My completely apolitical take: it'll go horribly wrong. Because that's what government do.

[Bearcat]

Wow, that Fox News post takes any train wreck here and puts it to shame... I stay far far away from politics, but holy shit talk about uninformed. LMAO

[Loneiguana]

LMAO

I think Dane is right... and Fox headlined it as "sweeping Internet regulation plan," so people are freaking out about it, thinking "net neutrality" = "throttling the internet".

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-y3PxJVEAA-I2u.jpg

[Rausch]

LMAO The meltdown on the FOX news facebook page is priceless.

Anyone who watches that $3it for anything other than legs or election coverage is full blown dumb as fuck...

[notorious]

Great news.

[srvy]

My completely apolitical take: it'll go horribly wrong. Because that's what government do.

End thread right there!

Secrecy in Government is so cool! Don't ya love it. Of course CP experts are making comments on 300 some pages only a hand full of people have seen and Im willing to bet none are CP members.

[suzzer99]

It can be a huge deal in the DC section, cuz I can just about guarantee this thread ends up there.

Pretty soon all topics will be relegated to DC and never discussed in polite company. Say hello to corporate-ocracy.

This is only a political issue because one side decided to turn the partisan spigot on it in hopes of drumming up support.

[Rausch]

Great news.

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/heraldextra.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/7/0c/70cc9994-5c6c-11e3-8baf-0019bb2963f4/529e5eda166e3.preview-620.gif

[Bearcat]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-y3PxJVEAA-I2u.jpg

Strict rules might be even better than "sweeping regulations".... it's basically saying "Rule #1: There are no rules".

[srvy]

But Loneturdinthebowl knows

[Bearcat]

And I was just texting someone about the hilarity and they said "I don't get your point, didn't they just approve internet regulation?"


At that point I had to read the beginning of the article again to make sure I wasn't going crazy. LMAO

[Mr. Laz]

Wow, that Fox News post takes any train wreck here and puts it to shame... I stay far far away from politics, but holy shit talk about uninformed. LMAO

leave it up to that POS network, they shouldn't be allowed to label themselves 'news'


of course that cum dumpster Drudge is right there with them as usual, with snarky shit

[notorious]

Misinformation happens on both sides.


It goes to show how many people can't think for themselves.

[GloucesterChief]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-y3PxJVEAA-I2u.jpg

Please explain how reclassifying ISPs under a stricter regulatory scheme is not internet regulation.

[prhom]

This is great news. Maybe now I'll be able to get my Directv on-demand to work with my Comcast broadband. I can't prove it with my limited expertise, but since we switched from Century link to Comcast our dtv on-demand suddenly stopped working and I'm sure it's because Comcast doesn't want to let Dtv customers use their Internet to watch tv. You could connect to the Internet but would soon after get disconnected. Dtv tech support couldn't figure it out and blamed Comcast and Comcast blamed Dtv. Really irritating.

[Zebedee DuBois]

maintaining the status quo - the internet we've all grown to love.

[eDave]

leave it up to that POS network, they shouldn't be allowed to label themselves 'news'


of course that cum dumpster Drudge is right there with them as usual, with snarky shit

I love the fact that he is gay yet promotes anti-gay agenda's. All about the Benjamin's man.

[Mr. Laz]

I love the fact that he is gay yet promotes anti-gay agenda's. All about the Benjamin's man.

I didn't even know he was gay.

:doh!:

[jspchief]

People cheering this are fools who can't be bothered to learn from history.
Yes, because look how badly Americans are being fleeced by other utilities.

Comcast, a company notorious for abysmal service, was building a monopoly on television and internet. Bribing cities into legislation that barred competition. This ruling puts an end to that. How horrible.

[jspchief]

I don't think it will be challenged in court.
Verizon has already stated they will sue.

[Rausch]

I love the fact that he is gay yet promotes anti-gay agenda's. .

That's just fucked up...

[Mr. Laz]

So does this stop search engines and ISP from returning searches etc for paying sites first as well?

[BigRedChief]

Pretty soon all topics will be relegated to DC and never discussed in polite company. Say hello to corporate-ocracy.

This is only a political issue because one side decided to turn the partisan spigot on it in hopes of drumming up support.No shit. Its to ensure the little guy or start up gets a fair shot at success and not crushed before they ever get going by a huge conglomerate.

This is good for entrepreneurs, small businesses. Why is Fox and the right wing not happy?

[jspchief]

So does this stop search engines and ISP from returning searches etc for paying sites first as well?
Probably not.

[BigRedChief]

So does this stop search engines and ISP from returning searches etc for paying sites first as well?Nope. Free market decides that. Google resolved that a long time ago. Just label them advertisements or paid.

[Bearcat]

No shit. Its to ensure the little guy or start up gets a fair shot at success and not crushed before they ever get going by a huge conglomerate.

This is good for entrepreneurs, small businesses. Why is Fox and the right wing not happy?

Because Obama supports it? :shrug:








Oh god, I think I'm in a political discussion....

[GloucesterChief]

Yes, because look how badly Americans are being fleeced by other utilities.

Comcast, a company notorious for abysmal service, was building a monopoly on television and internet. Bribing cities into legislation that barred competition. This ruling puts an end to that. How horrible.

Must be too young to remember Ma Bell. Another FCC regulated utility.

[mnchiefsguy]

It is no secret that I do not agree with the President all that often. However, I believe that today's ruling is a very, very good thing for the internet and good for customers.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

ROFL Fucking conservatards...

[GloucesterChief]

ROFL ****ing conservatards...

Yes because the government has proven that it is so consumer friendly, knowledgeable about most things, and not prone to regulatory capture at all. LMAO

[Mr. Laz]

Probably not.

Nope. Free market decides that. Google resolved that a long time ago. Just label them advertisements or paid.
well dam

you can pretty much skip the 1st page of any google search related to buying anything. Bastards.

[jspchief]

Must be too young to remember Ma Bell. Another FCC regulated utility.
This ruling is designed to prevent monopolized internet... to prevent a MA Internet. You should read up on the subject.

[BigRedChief]

Yes because the government has proven that it is so consumer friendly, knowledgeable about most things, and not prone to regulatory capture at all. LMAOCouldn't be helped. They tried self regulation. Didn't work. The internet was going towards a model that those with the deepest pockets get the bandwidth. Bandwidth should be the same price for all. Companies are free to charge whatever they want, but its the same price for everyone.

I see the bandwidth as important to our daily lives as any utility. In our communities, we all pay the same price for Electricity, Gas, water etc. Same principle.

We don't have Ford/Macy's/Best Buy buying all the electricity they want and whats left, someone else buy. If there is not enough electricity left over for your business, too bad.

[Mr. Laz]

Couldn't be helped. They tried self regulation. Didn't work.
Self-regulation almost never works because it relies on people doing the right thing, just for the sake of doing right.

too many people are scum so ........

[BigRedChief]

well dam

you can pretty much skip the 1st page of any google search related to buying anything. Bastards.I'm okay with that. It's a business. They need to make money, Advertising is the best model. Yahoo had 90% of the search engine traffic.

They started accepting money to get to the top of the results. Search for Revlon and Faberge was at the top of the results. Without telling anyone that the results were rigged and they were paid.

Along comes Google and says we will label our paid results. You can trust our search. That was it. Search engine supremacy was decided. And the beemoth that is Google was born.

[GloucesterChief]

Couldn't be helped. They tried self regulation. Didn't work.


Actually working just fine without the government involvement. The dispute between Comcast and Netflix was a business dispute. Netflix's service was flooding Comcast's network taking up about a third of the bandwith in the evening.

Of course Comcast is going to want to see some money from that. Also, there is good evidence that it was Netflix actually doing the throttling. (http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2014/10/07/netflix-net-neutrality/16824437/).


The internet was going towards a model that those with the deepest pockets get the bandwidth. Bandwidth should be the same price for all. Companies are free to charge whatever they want, but its the same price for everyone.


Bandwith is still a scarce resource. Those who pay the most for bandwith must need it the most. Bandwith can't be the same price for all because there are different capacities geographically.


I see the bandwidth as important to our daily lives as any utility. In our communities, we all pay the same price for Electricity, Gas, water etc. Same principle.


Not in my community. We have competitive electric companies where I live. I can change providers whenever I choose. Your community might have crappy monopolized services but not everybody does.


We don't have Ford/Macy's/Best Buy buying all the electricity they want and whats left, someone else buy. If there is not enough electricity left over for your business, too bad.

Without government intervention in your scenario here another power company will be more than willing to step in and provide more electricity particularly when price goes up. Price is a signal after all. That other company could possibly be a new company or one from the next town over.

Regulations and government created monopolies stop that from happening. They raise barriers to competition and entrench current players. If you think this is a good thing then you will probably be sadly mistaken not long down the road.

[Mr. Laz]

I'm okay with that. It's a business. They need to make money, Advertising is the best model. Yahoo had 90% of the search engine traffic.

They started accepting money to get to the top of the results. Search for Revlon and Faberge was at the top of the results. Without telling anyone that the results were rigged and they were paid.

Along comes Google and says we will label our paid results. You can trust our search. That was it. Search engine supremacy was decided. And the beemoth that is Google was born.
I understand but it's still pretty fraudulent.

If you go to a company trading stocks they aren't supposed to be allowed to suggest you to buy some trash stock just because some company paid them to.

Search results aren't supposed to be bought and paid for imo

at least put all the "ad" results in yellow or off to the side to let people know that your a whore.

[GloucesterChief]

I understand but it's still pretty fraudulent.

If you go to a company trading stocks they aren't supposed to be allowed to suggest you to buy some trash stock just because some company paid them to.

Search results aren't supposed to be bought and paid for imo

at least put all the "ad" results in yellow or off to the side to let people know that your a whore.

Actually, it is fine if the company discloses that it was paid to recommend that stock. You can then decide if you want to do business with that firm or not.

[Mr. Laz]

Actually, it is fine if the company discloses that it was paid to recommend that stock. You can then decide if you want to do business with that firm or not.
Yea, but you know they don't.

If they were honest about it there wouldn't need to be a rule about it.

[BigRedChief]

Actually working just fine without the government involvement.
.No idea what reality your in, but no one on any side thought it was working just fine.
The dispute between Comcast and Netflix was a business dispute. Netflix's service was flooding Comcast's network taking up about a third of the bandwith in the evening. That # is BS put out by Comcast but so what if a 1/3 was Netflix. The customer has paid for that bandwidth. They can watch or download whatever they want with that bandwidth. ISP's shouldn't get paid by the customer and the company for the same bandwidth.

As for the rest of your comments. They seem like right wing talking points. Not going down that road here in the Lounge.

[Bearcat]

Without government intervention in your scenario here another power company will be more than willing to step in and provide more electricity particularly when price goes up. Price is a signal after all. That other company could possibly be a new company or one from the next town over.


That certainly didn't happen with ISPs... it's TWC or satellite here, Comcast or satellite a bit south of here, etc. And unless the utilities are going to share the same infrastructure, it seems like that would be incredibly inefficient.

[Bearcat]

And bandwidth sure was scarce around here a couple years ago.... but, now there's a company that gives 5mbps away for free and will do so for the next 7 years, and now the other ISPs can't seem to give away that bandwidth fast enough.

Weird.

[GloucesterChief]

That certainly didn't happen with ISPs... it's TWC or satellite here, Comcast or satellite a bit south of here, etc. And unless the utilities are going to share the same infrastructure, it seems like that would be incredibly inefficient.

Government sanctioned monopolies. Sounds like TWC has a franchise agreement with your local city or county.

[petegz28]

So does this stop search engines and ISP from returning searches etc for paying sites first as well?

I don't know but I wish it would make travel sites have to sell me direct flight tickets as cheap as tickets with layovers!!!

[BigRedChief]

And bandwidth sure was scarce around here a couple years ago.... but, now there's a company that gives 5mbps away for free and will do so for the next 7 years, and now the other ISPs can't seem to give away that bandwidth fast enough.

Weird.I have went from 40mbps to 70mps in 1 1/2 years down here for the same price. Every time someone else comes into the market and offers more bandwidth for cheaper, TWC bumps up their bandwidth.

Let the free market rein. Seems like that would be straight out of the Republican dogma.

[GloucesterChief]

I have went from 40mbps to 70mps in 1 1/2 years down here for the same price. Every time someone else comes into the market and offers more bandwidth for cheaper, TWC bumps up their bandwidth.

Let the free market rein. Seems like that would be straight out of the Republican dogma.

Gee, I thought you said self regulation wasn't working. Seems like it and competition is working just fine.

Perhaps you don't need the FCC to come in and screw everything up.

[petegz28]

I have went from 40mbps to 70mps in 1 1/2 years down here for the same price. Every time someone else comes into the market and offers more bandwidth for cheaper, TWC bumps up their bandwidth.

Let the free market rein. Seems like that would be straight out of the Republican dogma.

Um that seems to conflict with some of your other posts. Just saying....

[DaneMcCloud]

Gee, I thought you said self regulation wasn't working. Seems like it and competition is working just fine.

Perhaps you don't need the FCC to come in and screw everything up.

You really don't seem to understand this ruling. You and Just Passing By.

Maybe it's a Massachusssets thing.

[mr. tegu]

Gee, I thought you said self regulation wasn't working. Seems like it and competition is working just fine.

Perhaps you don't need the FCC to come in and screw everything up.

You wouldn't mind ISPs being able to favor certain content so that some is faster than others?

[GloucesterChief]

You really don't seem to understand this ruling. You and Just Passing By.


Considering that it is 300+ pages instead of a few defining what Net Neutrality is. I am guessing there is a whole lot more to it than that. Even then, more regulation means more compliance costs which drive out new competition leaving the large companies entrenched.


Maybe it's a Massachusssets thing.

I am not from Massachusetts but I wouldn't think a Scandinavian would understand that there is more than one place called Gloucester.

[jspchief]

You really don't seem to understand this ruling. You and Just Passing By.

Maybe it's a Massachusssets thing.
I think there is a ton of misinformation being put out by right wing media. Hannity had a politician on the other night spouting total nonsense similar to what these guys are saying.

There's a lot of information out there, but it takes time to understand this issue. Too many people think they are informed by soundbites.

[GloucesterChief]

You wouldn't mind ISPs being able to favor certain content so that some is faster than others?

I would actually. If I am a gamer I would want my ISP to favor my gaming packets. If I like streaming videos, I want my ISP to favor those. If I have VOIP I want my ISP to favor that.

There are very good reasons why a customer would want their ISP to favor one type of packet over another.

[GloucesterChief]

I think there is a ton of misinformation being put out by right wing media. Hannity had a politician on the other night spouting total nonsense similar to what these guys are saying.

There's a lot of information out there, but it takes time to understand this issue. Too many people think they are informed by soundbites.

Yes. Mark Cuban who made his billions from the internet providing content opposes net neutrality but you know he is just misinformed.

[Mr. Laz]

Yes. Mark Cuban who made his billions from the internet providing content opposes net neutrality but you know he is just misinformed.
you really don't understand, do you?

[BigRedChief]

Um that seems to conflict with some of your other posts. Just saying....This is not about companies. Or about their right to charge whatever they want to charge for that bandwidth. They are free to charge whatever they want for their bandwidth. It just has to charge every customer the same rate and not throttle their content unless they pay more than everyone else. And if you don't pay more.....we will throttle you and ruin your business, so pay us pal or else. If every company is doing this to every customer, there is no fair market.

Again, maybe its a Fox News misinformation thing, It's about double charging for that bandwidth. And huge corporations being able to buy up all the bandwidth and squeeze out small businesses.

[Bearcat]

Yes. Mark Cuban who made his billions from the internet providing content opposes net neutrality but you know he is just misinformed.

Sounds like he's mostly against bad government and some speculation about TV and the internet.

[KC native]

Holy fuck. There are people still arguing that this is a bad thing?

[DaneMcCloud]

Again, maybe its a Fox News misinformation thing, It's about double charging for that bandwidth. And huge corporations being able to buy up all the bandwidth and squeeze out small businesses.

Exactly. Had this law not gone into effect, massive corporations with virtually unlimited resources could put the little internet guy out of business quickly.

So for now, it remains a level playing field.

[Bugeater]

Yes. Mark Cuban who made his billions from the internet providing content opposes net neutrality but you know he is just misinformed.
Yes, because billionaires become billionaires by always having the general public's best interests in mind.

[petegz28]

According to USA Today, no one outside of the FCC has actually seen the 317-322 pages regarding this regulation. I will be curious to see what else is in there. The main issues everyone who seems to champion seems to be a no brainer and you have to wonder why it would take a year and 322 pages to say that ISP's cannot sell preferential treatment?

[Mr. Laz]

Yes, because billionaires become billionaires by always having the general public's best interests in mind.
exactly

I bet Donald Trump is against Net Neutrality too.

[Mr. Laz]

According to USA Today, no one outside of the FCC has actually seen the 317-322 pages regarding this regulation. I will be curious to see what else is in there. The main issues everyone who seems to champion seems to be a no brainer and you have to wonder why it would take a year and 322 pages to say that ISP's cannot sell preferential treatment.
This is definitely a concern.

No telling what kind of shit people have tried to sneak in there.

[mr. tegu]

I would actually. If I am a gamer I would want my ISP to favor my gaming packets. If I like streaming videos, I want my ISP to favor those. If I have VOIP I want my ISP to favor that.

There are very good reasons why a customer would want their ISP to favor one type of packet over another.

So the non gamer paying that same ISP is screwed and they pay the same rate as you but their favorite content is half the speed? What happens when content providers have to start paying up to get their content on the higher speed?

"Hey Hulu, this is what Netflix pays for higher speeds for their content so you can either match it or stick with not giving us what they give and be stuck on the slower speeds. It's your fault when customers stop using you."

[Bearcat]

According to USA Today, no one outside of the FCC has actually seen the 317-322 pages regarding this regulation. I will be curious to see what else is in there. The main issues everyone who seems to champion seems to be a no brainer and you have to wonder why it would take a year and 322 pages to say that ISP's cannot sell preferential treatment?

Well, the law about gas container regulations was 250 pages... :doh!:

[srvy]

I think there is a ton of misinformation being put out by right wing media. Hannity had a politician on the other night spouting total nonsense similar to what these guys are saying.

There's a lot of information out there, but it takes time to understand this issue. Too many people think they are informed by soundbites.

Enlighten us since it seems you were privy to these 300+ pages.

[dirk digler]

As I said in the DC thread this is a good thing and I support it but there will be unintended consequences from their action. It had to happen though to keep the ISP's from killing content providers like Netflix, Amazon etc and also to allow me to continue to watch porn without all the stuttering and downloading bittorrents. :D

[Fish]

Actually working just fine without the government involvement. The dispute between Comcast and Netflix was a business dispute. Netflix's service was flooding Comcast's network taking up about a third of the bandwith in the evening.

Netflix's service was flooding Comcast's network?

You mean, Comcast's own customers were accessing Netflix. You know... using the service they're paying for..

That's essentially what this is about. Comcast wants to control which sources their customers access the most, and throttle access to those sources unless a premium is paid.

[petegz28]

As I said in the DC thread this is a good thing and I support it but there will be unintended consequences from their action. It had to happen though to keep the ISP's from killing content providers like Netflix, Amazon etc and also to allow me to continue to watch porn without all the stuttering and downloading bittorrents. :D

Since the internet is now a "utility", I fully expect to see things coming down the pipe that aren't so friendly. Our government is nothing if not greedy and controlling.

[KC native]

Since the internet is now a "utility", I fully expect to see things coming down the pipe that aren't so friendly. Our government is nothing if not greedy and controlling.

I'll take unfounded and paranoid nonsense for $1000, Alex.

[petegz28]

I'll take unfounded and paranoid nonsense for $1000, Alex.

Yeah because the history of our government is so against my statement, right?

[Bugeater]

Since the internet is now a "utility", I fully expect to see things coming down the pipe that aren't so friendly. Our government is nothing if not greedy and controlling.
Well by all means start freaking out about it now!

[petegz28]

Well by all means start freaking out about it now!

Why does recognizing the inevitable have to equate to freaking out?

[GloucesterChief]

Exactly. Had this law not gone into effect, massive corporations with virtually unlimited resources could put the little internet guy out of business quickly.

So for now, it remains a level playing field.

The myth of a non government sanctioned predatory monopoly. Not going to happen. If a monopoly becomes predatory without government protection and sanction the raising of prices signals that there is a death of supply, so new competition enters the market.

There hasn't been a monopoly that has been predatory towards consumers without government intervention and protection.

[DaneMcCloud]

Since the internet is now a "utility", I fully expect to see things coming down the pipe that aren't so friendly. Our government is nothing if not greedy and controlling.

I'm sure the end result will have you packing heat while surfing the 'net.

You can never be too safe.

[petegz28]

I'm sure the end result will have you packing heat while surfing the 'net.

You can never be too safe.

Nah, I'll just tell them I know Dane McCloud and watch them kiss my ass. :thumb:

[KC native]

The myth of a non government sanctioned predatory monopoly. Not going to happen. If a monopoly becomes predatory without government protection and sanction the raising of prices signals that there is a death of supply, so new competition enters the market.

There hasn't been a monopoly that has been predatory towards consumers without government intervention and protection.

I'll take fringe nut job opinions for $1000, Alex.

[BossChief]

If my shitty ass country electric company can come up with the money to build THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of miles of rural fiber lines, and provide uncapped, world-leading internet speed, at an affordable price, why cant companies making money hand over fist?

Oh I know. They can.

I was paying 7.99 per mb of download speed, and 53.99 (!!!!!) per mb of upload speed via centurylink

I now pay .10 per mb of upload and .10 per mb of download through an electric co-op.

So I dont want to hear they cant build infrastructure. Cant and wont are two different things.

In cedar falls, we pay 57.50 (total after tax, no contract) per month for 50meg internet with no data cap.

All fiber

[DaneMcCloud]

The myth of a non government sanctioned predatory monopoly. Not going to happen. If a monopoly becomes predatory without government protection and sanction the raising of prices signals that there is a death of supply, so new competition enters the market.

There hasn't been a monopoly that has been predatory towards consumers without government intervention and protection.
Bullshit.

I watched Guitar Center go public and wipe out every mom and pop store on Sunset and Ventura boulevards, then proceed to do it across the country. Their tactics are Mafia-like aim to crush every single Internet seller, large or small.

Had this not passed, GC could have bought bandwidth in order to further crush their competition.

[GloucesterChief]

So the non gamer paying that same ISP is screwed and they pay the same rate as you but their favorite content is half the speed? What happens when content providers have to start paying up to get their content on the higher speed?

"Hey Hulu, this is what Netflix pays for higher speeds for their content so you can either match it or stick with not giving us what they give and be stuck on the slower speeds. It's your fault when customers stop using you."

Then they switch to the ISP that favors the content they want. Isn't competition in the free market grand instead of the government regulated morass you favor where neither customer gets the services they want the most?

[DaFace]

Sometimes I like these threads. They help me to see the people who are so far out of touch that I honestly have no desire to interact with them. It's positively unfathomable to me that someone could look at the history of the internet and decide that this is a bad thing.

[mr. tegu]

Then they switch to the ISP that favors the content they want. Isn't competition in the free market grand instead of the government regulated morass you favor where neither customer gets the services they want the most?

Because everyone has multiple options since companies have been so eager to compete with one another.

[KC native]

Then they switch to the ISP that favors the content they want. Isn't competition in the free market grand instead of the government regulated morass you favor where neither customer gets the services they want the most?

So explain how Texas went from being below average in electricity costs to way above average after electricity was deregulated in Texas?

[tk13]

Have to admit I had no idea until today there were even people against net neutrality. I thought the only people against it were lobbyists, ISPs, and people who owned stock in ISPs.

[GloucesterChief]

Bullshit.

I watched Guitar Center go public and wipe out every mom and pop store on Sunset and Ventura boulevards, then proceed to do it across the country. Their tactics are Mafia-like aim to crush every single Internet seller, large or small.

Had this not passed, GC could have bought bandwidth in order to further crush their competition.

So it is not that Guitar Center provided a service or product that people wanted to buy and found at least similar enough to their smaller competition that people didn't mind?

They suddenly got all this money out of the ether right?

Please, if people didn't like Guitar Center no matter how many stores they put out of business they wouldn't be making money.

You may not personally like the results of the free market but that doesn't mean it isn't working.

[|Zach|]

Have to admit I had no idea until today there were even people against net neutrality. I thought the only people against it were lobbyists, ISPs, and people who owned stock in ISPs.

This.

[GloucesterChief]

Because everyone has multiple options since companies have been so eager to compete with one another.

They are when they are allowed to do so. Every company wants to eliminate their competition or reduce their market share. Currently, there are not allowed to do so in most places due to government intervention in the market.

You are complaining about a problem caused by government (local) but blaming the free market and running to government (federal) to further regulate (restrict) the free market.

The problem is government not the ISPs.

[GloucesterChief]

So explain how Texas went from being below average in electricity costs to way above average after electricity was deregulated in Texas?

My electrical rates are fine. I shop around but I haven't found them more expensive than say Northern Virginia. Better service too. Power went out more frequently in Northern Virginia than here in Houston. Much more frequently where I grew up in the sticks in Hampton Roads.

[KC native]

They are when they are allowed to do so. Every company wants to eliminate their competition or reduce their market share. Currently, there are not allowed to do so in most places due to government intervention in the market.

You are complaining about a problem caused by government (local) but blaming the free market and running to government (federal) to further regulate (restrict) the free market.

The problem is government not the ISPs.

You're a fucking moron. The ISPs have refrained from competing with each other to protect their margins.

The ISPs are the problem.

It's even worse when you look at the billions in tax breaks they were given specifically to run fiber to houses and they've come no where close to what they promised they would when they asked for those tax breaks.

[KC native]

My electrical rates are fine. I shop around but I haven't found them more expensive than say Northern Virginia. Better service too. Power went out more frequently in Northern Virginia than here in Houston. Much more frequently where I grew up in the sticks in Hampton Roads.

LMAO

Anecdote bullshit.

Electricity in Texas is less reliable than before deregulation. It also went from being below the national average to above the national average.

Competition and deregulation has failed for utilities. But hey free markets solve everything in your fringe nut job view.

[DaneMcCloud]

So it is not that Guitar Center provided a service or product that people wanted to buy and found at least similar enough to their smaller competition that people didn't mind?

They suddenly got all this money out of the ether right?

Please, if people didn't like Guitar Center no matter how many stores they put out of business they wouldn't be making money.

You may not personally like the results of the free market but that doesn't mean it isn't working.
Their purchasing power afforded them discounts on the same exact instruments that the Mom & Pop competitors sold, which allowed them to undercut their competitors until they were forced to close their doors.

Once their competitors were gone, they raised their prices.

Customers lose.

[petegz28]

Their purchasing power afforded them discounts on the same exact instruments that the Mom & Pop competitors sold, which allowed them to undercut their competitors until they were forced to close their doors.

Once their competitors were gone, they raised their prices.

Customers lose.

Isn't that pretty much capitalism? I'm not saying I like what they did or what Wal-Mart does, etc. but still....

[DaneMcCloud]

The problem is government not the ISPs.

:facepalm:

[DaneMcCloud]

Isn't that pretty much capitalism? I'm not saying I like what they did or what Wal-Mart does, etc. but still....

I think it's Monopolization, not capitalism.

And I will never, ever and have never shopped at a WalMart or Sam's for that very reason. I'd rather pay a little more elsewhere than patronize them.

[petegz28]

I think it's Monopolization, not capitalism.

And I will never, ever and have never shopped at a WalMart or Sam's for that very reason. I'd rather pay a little more elsewhere than patronize them.

I'm a Costco person but that's a separate issue. You call it monopolization but that's what capitalism ultimately breeds to one degree or another.

[Don Corlemahomes]

I'm sure the end result will have you packing heat while surfing the 'net.

You can never be too safe.

LMAO

[DaneMcCloud]

I'm a Costco person but that's a separate issue. You call it monopolization but that's what capitalism ultimately breeds to one degree or another.

It's also the same reason why the City of Los Angeles won't allow Walmarts to operate. There are too many Mom & Pops that would be put of out business. I'm pretty sure that had they known that Guitar Center was going to wipe out scores of musical instrument stores across SoCal, they'd have done something about that, too.

I'm all about local business, when possible. Screw the Private Equity firms.

[GloucesterChief]

Their purchasing power afforded them discounts on the same exact instruments that the Mom & Pop competitors sold, which allowed them to undercut their competitors until they were forced to close their doors.

Once their competitors were gone, they raised their prices.

Customers lose.

And if they raise their prices too much then more competition comes in. Like you said before, they are already fighting internet competition.

Now the question is was Guitar Centers prices after the mom and pop went out of business still lower than the mom and pop stores price? If so consumers still won.

[DaneMcCloud]

And if they raise their prices too much then more competition comes in. Like you said before, they are already fighting internet competition.

Now the question is was Guitar Centers prices after the mom and pop went out of business still lower than the mom and pop stores price? If so consumers still won.

You're completely out of your element and I have no desire to discuss this with you.

[KC native]

You're completely out of your element and I have no desire to discuss this with you.

That's how fringers are.

Notice how quickly he moved past the real world failure of deregulation of utilities.

[mr. tegu]

They are when they are allowed to do so. Every company wants to eliminate their competition or reduce their market share. Currently, there are not allowed to do so in most places due to government intervention in the market.

You are complaining about a problem caused by government (local) but blaming the free market and running to government (federal) to further regulate (restrict) the free market.

The problem is government not the ISPs.

I find it hard to believe you are in favor of processes that would allow company x to pay an ISP more than their competitors to keep company y's product down as an inferior product by limiting the speed to company y's product. A new innovative competitor would have no chance to really even get started.

[Dave Lane]

No shit. Its to ensure the little guy or start up gets a fair shot at success and not crushed before they ever get going by a huge conglomerate.

This is good for entrepreneurs, small businesses. Why is Fox and the right wing not happy?

Ummm you must be living in the 80's when the GOP actually paid lip service to being proponents of small business.

[petegz28]

I find it hard to believe you are in favor of processes that would allow company x to pay an ISP more than their competitors to keep company y's product down as an inferior product by limiting the speed to company y's product. A new innovative competitor would have no chance.

So you don't think companies should be able to pay for preferential treatment at all? In this case let's say Netflix can't pay for faster speeds to their servers? Note I am not saying turn down speeds to someone else's service, I am saying pay for faster speed to their service. Sorta like how I pay more for 250mb internet then say someone who pays for 50mb.

[tk13]

I don't want to go down this rabbit hole, but I can't even begin to understand how a "free market" would consist of an Internet where the sites, goods and services I choose to engage with are not determined by me, but my ISP. That is the opposite of free. I, the consumer, don't get a choice... everything is chosen for me. That's a little too Big Brother for me.

[GloucesterChief]

I don't want to go down this rabbit hole, but I can't even begin to understand how a "free market" would consist of an Internet where the sites, goods and services I choose to engage with are not determined by me, but my ISP. That is the opposite of free. I, the consumer, don't get a choice... everything is chosen for me. That's a little too Big Brother for me.

AOL pretty much tried that. It worked for a while but they are a shell of their former self. I don't think in a free market you would have that. You would have ISPs that would prioritize games, or streaming video, or VoIP though. Offering the consumer faster speeds for what their particular hobby is.

Trying to restrict is probably a non-seller.

[GloucesterChief]

You're completely out of your element and I have no desire to discuss this with you.

In other words you don't have an answer.

[BigRedChief]

I don't want to go down this rabbit hole, but I can't even begin to understand how a "free market" would consist of an Internet where the sites, goods and services I choose to engage with are not determined by me, but my ISP. That is the opposite of free. I, the consumer, don't get a choice... everything is chosen for me. That's a little too Big Brother for me.This is why I don't get the rights wings opposition to this. Well I know why politicians are because of the dark and public money they get from the billionaires and their corporations that would profit from deciding who gets bandwidth and who doesn't. But the rest of the Republican party? Why would they not back this law? Why would the Tea Party be against this law?

[DaneMcCloud]

In other words you don't have an answer.

No. I chose not to waste my time discussing with a clueless moron such as yourself.

[Dave Lane]

So you don't think companies should be able to pay for preferential treatment at all? In this case let's say Netflix can't pay for faster speeds to their servers? Note I am not saying turn down speeds to someone else's service, I am saying pay for faster speed to their service. Sorta like how I pay more for 250mb internet then say someone who pays for 50mb.

It's probably best you put the drink down and head to bed. Seriously you have no idea what you are talking about. I do.

[GloucesterChief]

That's how fringers are.

Notice how quickly he moved past the real world failure of deregulation of utilities.

Like I said, in my experience. It is not the case. You may have a different experience. I am happy with my service and I find it goes out less than other places that I have lived.

Also, this report says that it is a little high (http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_6_a) but certainly not the highest in the nation.

[Dave Lane]

I find it hard to believe you are in favor of processes that would allow company x to pay an ISP more than their competitors to keep company y's product down as an inferior product by limiting the speed to company y's product. A new innovative competitor would have no chance to really even get started.

Tegu gets it.

[petegz28]

This is why I don't get the rights wings opposition to this. Well I know why politicians are because of the dark and public money they get from the billionaires and their corporations that would profit from deciding who gets bandwidth and who doesn't. But the rest of the Republican party? Why would they not back this law? Why would the Tea Party be against this law?

How can you be all in about a regulation when they haven't released all the details yet? The part we think we know about is good. I am just sort of asking the same question you just asked but back at you.

[petegz28]

It's probably best you put the drink down and head to bed. Seriously you have no idea what you are talking about. I do.

Well, I feel better now, Dave. Thanks for telling us how smart you are.

[GloucesterChief]

No. I chose not to waste my time discussing with a clueless moron such as yourself.

In other words, you still don't have an answer to if prices after Guitar Center raised them were still lower than the Mom and Pop shops.

[petegz28]

It's probably best you put the drink down and head to bed. Seriously you have no idea what you are talking about. I do.

So, Dave "I do" Lane, tell us about the details no one outside of the FCC has yet to see. Since you know so much, I mean.

[GloucesterChief]

This is why I don't get the rights wings opposition to this. Well I know why politicians are because of the dark and public money they get from the billionaires and their corporations that would profit from deciding who gets bandwidth and who doesn't. But the rest of the Republican party? Why would they not back this law? Why would the Tea Party be against this law?

Because it tries to fix a non-problem with the heavy hand of government and will stifle innovation and competition.

[KC native]

Like I said, in my experience. It is not the case. You may have a different experience. I am happy with my service and I find it goes out less than other places that I have lived.

Also, this report says that it is a little high (http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_6_a) but certainly not the highest in the nation.

:facepalm:

I never said they were the highest. Proponents of deregulation said it would lower costs. The jump from being below the national average cost to being above the national average shows this is nonsense.

And even the proponents of deregulation have conceded that service is less reliable and the grid is in worse condition after deregulation.

Just admit it, free markets aren't the panacea that you paint them to be.

[BigRedChief]

How can you be all in about a regulation when they haven't released all the details yet? The part we think we know about is good. I am just sort of asking the same question you just asked but back at you.I bet its an FCC version of Obama-care death panels. But, I could be wrong.

[GloucesterChief]

I find it hard to believe you are in favor of processes that would allow company x to pay an ISP more than their competitors to keep company y's product down as an inferior product by limiting the speed to company y's product. A new innovative competitor would have no chance to really even get started.

It would be the opposite actually. Just like the agreement that Netflix has with Comcast and Verizon. They pay to have their product faster not to slow down somebody elses.

[tk13]

AOL pretty much tried that. It worked for a while but they are a shell of their former self. I don't think in a free market you would have that. You would have ISPs that would prioritize games, or streaming video, or VoIP though. Offering the consumer faster speeds for what their particular hobby is.

Trying to restrict is probably a non-seller.

Why would that be a non-seller? If you don't put some kind of rule in place, Company A can just go to every ISP and pay to have Company B throttled. Why wouldn't you? The name of the game is to crush your competition. If you had the money, why wouldn't you raise your speeds while hurting your competition? If you had the ability to keep customers from going to a competitor, you'd take it.

[petegz28]

I bet its an FCC version of Obama-care death panels. But, I could be wrong.

cool story, bro

[jspchief]

I find it hard to believe you are in favor of processes that would allow company x to pay an ISP more than their competitors to keep company y's product down as an inferior product by limiting the speed to company y's product. A new innovative competitor would have no chance to really even get started.
And make no mistake. This is about cable companies that are facing competition from online television, using their control of the internet to stifle competition in the television market.

All comcast, time warner, etc need to do is price Netflix ' s "fast lane" to a degree that it's no longer a viable business. Don't want to pay for the fast lane? Then the cable company throttles bandwidth so the competing service is so poor no one has a realistic choice.

It's an industry built on monopolies, through an infrastructure payed for with tax money. And people are going to complain this ruling will kill competition?

[GloucesterChief]

Why would that be a non-seller? If you don't put some kind of rule in place, Company A can just go to every ISP and pay to have Company B throttled. Why wouldn't you? The name of the game is to crush your competition. If you had the money, why wouldn't you raise your speeds while hurting your competition?

Because the ISP is a business too and they don't want to piss off their customers and Company B and lose them.

Basically, company A would be paying the ISP to build out bandwith for them. Company B can opt to do the same or not.

[mdchiefsfan]

Bullshit.

I watched Guitar Center go public and wipe out every mom and pop store on Sunset and Ventura boulevards, then proceed to do it across the country. Their tactics are Mafia-like aim to crush every single Internet seller, large or small.

Had this not passed, GC could have bought bandwidth in order to further crush their competition.

It's because of those damn kids you see at Guitar Center, isn't it? They hire pros to look like really skilled kids to draw in the customers and raise profits. You don't see that outside mom and pop stores all the time, do you? :D

[Dave Lane]

So, Dave "I do" Lane, tell us about the details no one outside of the FCC has yet to see. Since you know so much, I mean.

Thank you for admitting the obvious. I shall see to it that when the internet death panels arrive at your home that you are treated with dignity before you are executed.

[petegz28]

And make no mistake. This is about cable companies that are facing competition from online television, using their control of the internet to stifle competition in the television market.

All comcast, time warner, etc need to do is price Netflix ' s "fast lane" to a degree that it's no longer a viable business. Don't want to pay for the fast lane? Then the cable company throttles bandwidth so the competing service is so poor no one has a realistic choice.

It's an industry built on monopolies, through an infrastructure payed for with tax money. And people are going to complain this ruling will kill competition?

This regulation does nothing to get rid of the cable company monopolies.

[GloucesterChief]

And make no mistake. This is about cable companies that are facing competition from online television, using their control of the internet to stifle competition in the television market.

All comcast, time warner, etc need to do is price Netflix ' s "fast lane" to a degree that it's no longer a viable business. Don't want to pay for the fast lane? Then the cable company throttles bandwidth so the competing service is so poor no one has a realistic choice.

It's an industry built on monopolies, through an infrastructure payed for with tax money. And people are going to complain this ruling will kill competition?

You may have missed it but Netflix did a lot of throttling themselves. (http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2014/10/07/netflix-net-neutrality/16824437/)

[petegz28]

Thank you for admitting the obvious. I shall see to it that when the internet death panels arrive at your home that you are treated with dignity before you are executed.

What was that? You don't know? I thought you said you knew?

[jspchief]

Because the ISP is a business too and they don't want to piss off their customers and Company B and lose them.

Basically, company A would be paying the ISP to build out bandwith for them. Company B can opt to do the same or not.

You don't seem to grasp that these Internet companies don't have competition in a huge portion of their markets. They don't have to worry about pissing off their customers. Look at how poor Comcasts reputation is, yet how much of the market they control.

[Dave Lane]

Because the ISP is a business too and they don't want to piss off their customers and Company B and lose them.

Basically, company A would be paying the ISP to build out bandwith for them. Company B can opt to do the same or not.

Do you understand these ISP collude together and refuse to compete. You do understand that right? I ran an ISP for many years. What the ILECs did to the little guys was brutally efficient I will give them that.

[Bowser]

Just admit it Pete - you're pissed at this more because Obama backed it and less about what you're afraid the FCC "might" do down the road.

[Dave Lane]

What was that? You don't know? I thought you said you knew?

The obvious fact I know way more about this than you. I will see that your death is as pleasant as possible for that admission.

[petegz28]

Just admit it Pete - you're pissed at this more because Obama backed it and less about what you're afraid the FCC "might" do down the road.

I'm not pissed at it. I never said I was against it, for what we know about.

[petegz28]

The obvious fact I know way more about this than you. I will see that your death is as pleasant as possible for that admission.

What is it you know, Dave? Tell us. No one has seen the actual regulation so I am just curious as to what more you think you know than anyone else?

[dirk digler]

And make no mistake. This is about cable companies that are facing competition from online television, using their control of the internet to stifle competition in the television market.

All comcast, time warner, etc need to do is price Netflix ' s "fast lane" to a degree that it's no longer a viable business. Don't want to pay for the fast lane? Then the cable company throttles bandwidth so the competing service is so poor no one has a realistic choice.

It's an industry built on monopolies, through an infrastructure payed for with tax money. And people are going to complain this ruling will kill competition?

100% right.

Also in the majority of the country there is only 1 or 2 options for Internet service because the barriers to entry are to high and because of state laws and regulations that favored the big companies.

[KC native]

You may have missed it but Netflix did a lot of throttling themselves. (http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2014/10/07/netflix-net-neutrality/16824437/)

heh, a fringe op-ed held out as authoritative.

Confirmation bias FTW!

[Dave Lane]

Just admit it Pete - you're pissed at this more because Obama backed it and less about what you're afraid the FCC "might" do down the road.

How long has it been since Pete last went unhinged? Couple weeks? That's not too bad by Pete standards. At least no one in the lounge had to witness the 9/11 insanity.

[Bearcat]

The ISPs have refrained from competing with each other to protect their margins.

The ISPs are the problem.


A few minutes spent comparing the services/cost of Google Fiber to all other ISPs should drive home both points.

It's equivalent to a new company offering gas for 3 cents/gallon.... you don't see a massive correction like that in a free market.

If that doesn't scream something is wrong with the ISPs, the whole economy must be fucked.

[petegz28]

How long has it been since Pete last went unhinged? Couple weeks? That's not too bad by Pete standards. At least no one in the lounge had to witness the 9/11 insanity.

I'll take your 3rd consecutive post of not answering my question as an admission you don't know jack from shit. :thumb:

[Discuss Thrower]

Meh. Big telco still wins. Local exchanges are gonna be nuked but that's no concern to anyone here, is it.

[petegz28]

A few minutes spent comparing the services/cost of Google Fiber to all other ISPs should drive home both points.

It's equivalent to a new company offering gas for 3 cents/gallon.... you don't see a massive correction like that in a free market.

If that doesn't scream something is wrong with the ISPs, the whole economy must be ****ed.

Something wrong? They were charging what they could, because they could. I am not saying they weren't fucking people over because they were. But they could. So why wouldn't they?

[KC native]

A few minutes spent comparing the services/cost of Google Fiber to all other ISPs should drive home both points.

It's equivalent to a new company offering gas for 3 cents/gallon.... you don't see a massive correction like that in a free market.

If that doesn't scream something is wrong with the ISPs, the whole economy must be fucked.

It's amazing to me how far some people will go to deny what's right in front of their faces.

[|Zach|]

How long has it been since Pete last went unhinged? Couple weeks? That's not too bad by Pete standards. At least no one in the lounge had to witness the 9/11 insanity.

Remember him saying how the airports one Thanksgiving were going to be a mess because of the new security machines? He thought there was going to be this grand mess and this was his issue for like...a week because he thought someone cared about what his wife looks like if she went through security.

[Dave Lane]

I'll take your 3rd consecutive post of not answering my question as an admission you don't know jack from shit. :thumb:

You got me you've called me out and now I'm here with egg on my face because I thought I'd read it. Darn how did I forget I hadn't? I dunno maybe it because I can fucking read what is contained in a law from what the people that wrote the law said. Maybe I won't have to read 332 pages. I'm sure you've read the rules on ILEC telephone wire routing. Yet somehow you can probably discuss telephony with someone without reading the entire text of every FFC ruling.

[petegz28]

You got me you've called me out and now I'm here with egg on my face because I thought I'd read it. Darn how did I forget I hadn't? I dunno maybe it because I can ****ing read what is contained in a law from what the people that wrote the law said. Maybe I won't have to read 332 pages. I'm sure you've read the rules on ILEC telephone wire routing. Yet somehow you can probably discuss telephony with someone without reading the entire text of every FFC ruling.

In other words you don't know shit. LMAO

[Dave Lane]

Remember him saying how the airports one Thanksgiving were going to be a mess because of the new security machines? He thought there was going to be this grand mess and this was his issue for like...a week because he thought someone cared about what his wife looks like if she went through security.

Ahhh thanks for sharing Zach anyone else have a favorite Pete thread?

[petegz28]

Ahhh thanks for sharing Zach anyone else have a favorite Pete thread?

Don't get butt hurt because I called you out to back up something you can't back up.

[Don Corlemahomes]

The fact 3 people just made a decision about how to regulate something as large as the internet without any congressional input is ****ing scary in and of itself.

I'm not pissed at it. I never said I was against it, for what we know about.

You aren't pissed, eh?

[Dave Lane]

Ahhh thanks for sharing Zach anyone else have a favorite Pete thread?

And by thread I mean meltdown.

[petegz28]

You aren't pissed, eh?

I am not. I have stated since the beginning my concern was how it went down, not what went down. I would have rather congress been involved.

Nice try though, asshole.

[Dave Lane]

Meh. Big telco still wins. Local exchanges are gonna be nuked but that's no concern to anyone here, is it.

Eventually pots is going away. ILECs will become ISPs. A few very rural CLECs may hang on but 20 years from now no one will remember a phone line.

[BigRedChief]

I am not. I have stated since the beginning my concern was how it went down, not what went down. I would have rather congress been involved.

Nice try though, asshole.So it all about Obama?:rolleyes:

[petegz28]

And by thread I mean meltdown.

You mean like your OCD threads bashing Christians??? :thumb:

[petegz28]

So it all about Obama?:rolleyes:

I have not said Obama's name once in this thread or any other. Don't worry, dumb ass, I am not pointing any fingers at your hero.

[Dave Lane]

You mean like your OCD threads bashing Christians??? :thumb:

Did I hurt your little feeling? I'm so sorry I won't bully you any more so you can feel special.

[Bearcat]

Something wrong? They were charging what they could, because they could. I am not saying they weren't fucking people over because they were. But they could. So why wouldn't they?

Points were being made about free market while arguing against net neutrality... and yes, there's something very wrong with that. The logic.

[Don Corlemahomes]

Well considering the "most transparent administration" is living up to its "least transparent administration" reputation, it's hard to say, now isn't it?

I have not said Obama's name once in this thread or any other. Don't worry, dumb ass, I am not pointing any fingers at your hero.

You didn't use his name (we all know what you mean by administration, however), but this is your comment regarding full document not being published directly from the thread in DC.

[GloucesterChief]

Points were being made about free market while arguing against net neutrality... and yes, there's something very wrong with that. The logic.

Points were being made that there wasn't a free market and more government regulation wouldn't make for a free market since franchise agreements still exist.

[petegz28]

You didn't use his name (we all know what you mean by administration, however), but this is your comment regarding full document not being published directly from the thread in DC.

Stand by what I said.....I never once said nor blamed Obama. As your girlfriend cosmo loves to remind us all, the "administration" is not Obama.

[Bowser]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fpbOEoRrHyU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[petegz28]

Points were being made about free market while arguing against net neutrality... and yes, there's something very wrong with that. The logic.

Well let's look at that because there is some merit to that argument. Google Fiber did more to lower prices and increase bandwidth for the consumer than any government ruling. I realize I am talking about the consumer end but nonetheless, the free market did its job there so you can't just throw the baby out with the bath water.

[GloucesterChief]

heh, a fringe op-ed held out as authoritative.

Confirmation bias FTW!

Here is a blog post (http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/10/mlab-netflix-routing-decisions.html) with links to the original reports research. Decide for yourself.

[petegz28]

You didn't use his name (we all know what you mean by administration, however), but this is your comment regarding full document not being published directly from the thread in DC.

And to elaborate further, this had nothing to do with the ruling. It had to do with the regulation not being made public.

Try a little harder next time.

[Don Corlemahomes]

Stand by what I said.....I never once said nor blamed Obama. As your girlfriend cosmo loves to remind us all, the "administration" is not Obama.

Do you agree, such that when you say administration you mean not obama?

[KC native]

Here is a blog post (http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/10/mlab-netflix-routing-decisions.html) with links to the original reports research. Decide for yourself.

And here's a guy from Level 3 that says they are full of shit

http://blog.level3.com/open-internet/verizons-accidental-mea-culpa/

[Bearcat]

Points were being made that there wasn't a free market and more government regulation wouldn't make for a free market since franchise agreements still exist.

Gotcha... but, that wasn't exactly the point of this anyway. Google Fiber will go a long way towards fixing that, and in the meantime, today's ruling will hopefully prevent shit from getting even worse.

[petegz28]

Do you agree, such that when you say administration you mean not obama?

Do you even realize that post had nothing to do with the ruling? We were talking about the regulation and the lack of its publicity.

So fuck off already. I never blamed Obama for this going through the FCC as opposed to Congress. Now STFU

[Don Corlemahomes]

Do you even realize that post had nothing to do with the ruling? We were talking about the regulation and the lack of its publicity.

So **** off already. I never blamed Obama for this going through the FCC as opposed to Congress. Now STFU

I can't tell if you are dishonest or just dumb.

[petegz28]

I can't tell if you are dishonest or just dumb.

I can tell your a dumb fuck. Now STFU and go away.

[Don Corlemahomes]

I can tell your a dumb ****. Now STFU and go away.

So both; just as I suspected.

[Bearcat]

Well let's look at that because there is some merit to that argument. Google Fiber did more to lower prices and increase bandwidth for the consumer than any government ruling. I realize I am talking about the consumer end but nonetheless, the free market did its job there so you can't just throw the baby out with the bath water.

Oh, I'm all for the government not being involved... FFS, the damn thing is 300 pages, and only government could do that to such a simple issue. But, Google Fiber isn't fixing the market soon... it's been what, 4 years since they chose KC and it's still not completely rolled out (and I'm not blaming Google, it's not a simple task)?

Hell, to that point, I see why the ISPs are pushing something so absurd... squeeze all you can out of it until you're forced to actually upgrade your shit and charge reasonable prices.

If/when Google fixes shit and it's a free market with actual competition, etc; sure, throw out net neutrality stuff, because all the ISPs will be providing more bandwidth than anyone ever needs.

Until that happens, if it takes 300 pages to stop the ISPs from being even more evil, I'm all for it.

[GloucesterChief]

And here's a guy from Level 3 that says they are full of shit

http://blog.level3.com/open-internet/verizons-accidental-mea-culpa/

I am not saying that Verizon is an angel and Netflix isn't either. I am sure both used dirty tactics in negotiation. You know what though? They came to agreement without the government stepping in. That is what is supposed to happen. Not for one party to go running off the government to come down on their side.

Of course I believe Level3 for their study in Los Angeles but that blog post doesn't mention the M-Labs report linked in the blog post I posted.

[GloucesterChief]

Gotcha... but, that wasn't exactly the point of this anyway. Google Fiber will go a long way towards fixing that, and in the meantime, today's ruling will hopefully prevent shit from getting even worse.

Doubtful. The government always makes things worse because it is ham handed and begotten to political, not economic interests. Not to mention regulatory capture.

[petegz28]

Oh, I'm all for the government not being involved... FFS, the damn thing is 300 pages, and only government could do that to such a simple issue. But, Google Fiber isn't fixing the market soon... it's been what, 4 years since they chose KC and it's still not completely rolled out (and I'm not blaming Google, it's not a simple task)?

Hell, to that point, I see why the ISPs are pushing something so absurd... squeeze all you can out of it until you're forced to actually upgrade your shit and charge reasonable prices.

If/when Google fixes shit and it's a free market with actual competition, etc; sure, throw out net neutrality stuff, because all the ISPs will be providing more bandwidth than anyone ever needs.

Until that happens, if it takes 300 pages to stop the ISPs from being even more evil, I'm all for it.

Actually the mere threat of Google Fiber in the area got my cable bill lowered by $100 and increased channels and internet speed. so while GF is still slow rolling, the price effect of competition is happening all over by companies trying to get out in front of it.

I am all for what we think has happened. It's what else that might be in the 300 pages that we don't know about yet that I am reserving judgment on.

[GloucesterChief]

Oh, I'm all for the government not being involved... FFS, the damn thing is 300 pages, and only government could do that to such a simple issue. But, Google Fiber isn't fixing the market soon... it's been what, 4 years since they chose KC and it's still not completely rolled out (and I'm not blaming Google, it's not a simple task)?

Hell, to that point, I see why the ISPs are pushing something so absurd... squeeze all you can out of it until you're forced to actually upgrade your shit and charge reasonable prices.

If/when Google fixes shit and it's a free market with actual competition, etc; sure, throw out net neutrality stuff, because all the ISPs will be providing more bandwidth than anyone ever needs.

Until that happens, if it takes 300 pages to stop the ISPs from being even more evil, I'm all for it.

That is the problem. Once government regulates an industry very rarely are those regulations rolled back even with all the negative consequences that usually follow.

[Discuss Thrower]

Eventually pots is going away. ILECs will become ISPs. A few very rural CLECs may hang on but 20 years from now no one will remember a phone line.

And that's good and well... if everyone migrates to cities or suburbs.

But I'm sure it'll be the ISP's fault when they refuse to upgrade from any copper lines to towns with fewer than 10,000 people for broadband because they can't justify the expense.

[Bearcat]

Actually the mere threat of Google Fiber in the area got my cable bill lowered by $100 and increased channels and internet speed. so while GF is still slow rolling, the price effect of competition is happening all over by companies trying to get out in front of it.

I am all for what we think has happened. It's what else that might be in the 300 pages that we don't know about yet that I am reserving judgment on.

I was curious how quickly other providers were reacting in Johnson County, LS, etc; but even then I assume it takes a contract between Google and that location before the other ISPs will do anything.... and even if it only takes an announcement of future Fiber, we're only at 7 cities at this point.

Fair enough, and in response to that and what GC said, I'm just an IT geek and only care about the net neutrality part of it... the issue itself and the need for government interaction and like others have said, the thought of there being opposition outside of ISPs is just mind boggling. The only politics I ever pay attention to come to me via The Daily Show, so I'm well aware how the government is just as corrupt and as much out for themselves & money and how they're blind to those they work for than the ISPs.

So yeah, I'm not arguing for that part, either, but given the circumstances & outside of something crazy in those 300 pages, it seems pretty clear that the consumers won one.

[Loneiguana]

I am not saying that Verizon is an angel and Netflix isn't either. I am sure both used dirty tactics in negotiation. You know what though? They came to agreement without the government stepping in. That is what is supposed to happen. Not for one party to go running off the government to come down on their side.

Of course I believe Level3 for their study in Los Angeles but that blog post doesn't mention the M-Labs report linked in the blog post I posted.

We used extortion to increase revenue!

See, we got a deal done without the government!

[Loneiguana]

I can't take this 332 pages of regulation B.S. This talking point is a perfect example of how B.S. gets tossed around like fact.

From the mouth of the original idiot who said it:

The Republican commissioner acknowledged that the actual regulations take up just eight pages of the document.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/republican-fcc-commissioner-public-is-being-misled-about-net-neutrality-plan-20150210

And before you go, der, what else was in the document:

The rest of the document is a summary of public feedback and reasoning for the FCC's decision,

And again, here is everything you need to know about what was ruled on today:

http://media.npr.org/documents/2015/feb/fcc-wheeler-openinternet.pdf

Fact Sheet: Chairman Wheeler Proposes New Rules for Protecting the Open Internet

Chairman Wheeler is proposing clear, sustainable, enforceable rules to preserve and protect the open Internet as a place for innovation and free expression. His common-sense proposal would replace, strengthen and supplement FCC rules struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit more than one year ago. The draft Order supports these new rules with a firm legal foundation built to withstand future challenges. The Chairman’s comprehensive proposal will be voted on the FCC’s February 26 open meeting.

Consumers and Innovators Need an Open Internet

An open Internet allows consumers to access the legal content and applications that they choose online, without interference from their broadband network provider. It fosters innovation and competition by ensuring that new products and services developed by entrepreneurs aren’t blocked or throttled by Internet service providers putting their own profits above the public interest. An open Internet allows free expression to blossom without fear of an Internet provider acting as a gatekeeper. And it gives innovators predictable rules of the road to deliver new products and services online.

Legal Authority: Reclassifying Broadband Internet Access under Title II

The Chairman’s proposal provides the strongest legal foundation for the Open Internet rules by relying on multiple sources of authority: Title II of the Communications Act and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In doing so, the proposal provides the broad legal certainty required for rules guaranteeing an open Internet, while refraining (or “forbearing”) from enforcing provisions of Title II that are not relevant to modern broadband service. Together Title II and Section 706 support clear rules of the road, providing the certainty needed for innovators and investors, and the competitive choices and freedom demanded by consumers.
• First, the Chairman’s proposal would reclassify “broadband Internet access service”—that’s the retail broadband service Americans buy from cable, phone, and wireless providers—as a telecommunications service under Title II. We believe that this step addresses any limitations that past classification decisions placed on our ability to adopt strong Open Internet rules, as interpreted by the D.C. Circuit in the Verizon case last year. But just in case, we also make clear that if a court finds that it is necessary to classify the service that broadband providers make available to “edge providers,” it too is a Title II telecommunications service. (To be clear, this is not a “hybrid”— both the service to the end user and to the edge provider are classified under Title II.)
• Second, the proposal finds further grounding in Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Notably, the Verizon court held that Section 706 is an independent grant of authority to the Commission that supports adoption of Open Internet rules. Using it here—without the limitations of the common carriage prohibition that flowed from earlier classification decisions—bolsters the Commission’s authority.
• Third, provisions on mobile broadband also rest on Title III of the Communications Act. Among other things, the draft Order persuasively rebuts claims that Title III does not allow classification of mobile broadband as a telecommunications service.
• Finally, Title II’s “just and reasonable” standard and the Verizon court’s finding that Section 706 authorizes the FCC to protect the “virtuous circle” of network innovation and infrastructure development provide standards for the FCC to protect Internet openness against new tactics that would close the Internet.

New Rules to Protect an Open Internet

While the FCC’s 2010 open Internet rules had limited applicability to mobile broadband, the new rules – in their entirety – would apply to mobile broadband, recognizing advances in technology and the growing significance of wireless broadband access in recent years. Today, 55 percent of Internet traffic is carried over wireless networks. This proposal extends protection to consumers no matter how they access the Internet, whether they on their desktop computer or their mobile devices.

Bright Line Rules: The first three rules would ban practices that are known to harm the Open Internet:
• No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
• No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
• No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration – in other words, no “fast lanes.” This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates.

A Standard for Future Conduct: Because the Internet is always growing and changing, there must be a known standard by which to determine whether new practices are appropriate or not. Thus, the proposal would create a general Open Internet conduct standard that ISPs cannot harm consumers or edge providers.

Greater Transparency: The rules described above would restore the tools necessary to address specific conduct by broadband providers that might harm the Open Internet. But the Chairman’s proposal also recognizes the critical role of transparency in a well-functioning broadband ecosystem. The proposal enhances existing transparency rules, which were not struck down by the court.

Reasonable Network Management: For the purposes of the rules, other than paid prioritization, an ISP may engage in reasonable network management. This recognizes the need of broadband providers to manage the technical and engineering aspects of their networks.
• In assessing reasonable network management, the Commission’s proposed standard would take account of the particular engineering attributes of the technology involved—whether it be fiber, DSL, cable, unlicensed wireless, mobile, or another network medium.
• However, the network practice must be primarily used for and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management—and not commercial—purpose. For example, a provider can’t cite reasonable network management to justify reneging on its promise to supply a customer with “unlimited” data.

Broad Protection

Some data services do not go over the public Internet, and therefore are not “broadband Internet access” services subject to Title II oversight (VoIP from a cable system is an example, as is a dedicated heartmonitoring service). The Chairman’s proposal will ensure these services do not undermine the effectiveness of the open Internet rules. Moreover, broadband providers’ transparency disclosures will continue to cover any offering of such non-Internet data services —ensuring that the public and the Commission can keep a close eye on any tactics that could undermine the Open Internet rules. 3

Interconnection: New Authority to Address Complaints About ISPs’ Practices

For the first time the Commission would have authority to hear complaints and take appropriate enforcement action if necessary, if it determines the interconnection activities of ISPs are not just and reasonable, thus allowing it to address issues that may arise in the exchange of traffic between massmarket broadband providers and edge providers.

Forbearance

Congress requires the FCC to refrain from enforcing – forbear from – provisions of the Communications Act that are not in the public interest. The proposed Order applies some key provisions of Title II, and forbears from most others. There is no need for any further proceedings before the forbearance is adopted. The proposed Order would apply fewer sections of Title II than have applied to mobile voice networks for over twenty years.

• Major Provisions of Title II that the Order WILL APPLY:
o The proposed Order applies “core” provisions of Title II: Sections 201 and 202 (e.g., no “unjust and unreasonable practices”
o Allows investigation of consumer complaints under section 208 and related enforcement provisions, specifically sections 206, 207, 209, 216 and 217
o Protects consumer privacy under Section 222 o Ensures fair access to poles and conduits under Section 224, which would boost the deployment of new broadband networks o Protects people with disabilities under Sections 225 and 255
o Bolsters universal service fund support for broadband service in the future through partial application of Section 254.

• Major Provisions Subject to Forbearance:
o Rate regulation: the Order makes clear that broadband providers shall not be subject to tariffs or other form of rate approval, unbundling, or other forms of utility regulation
o Universal Service Contributions: the Order DOES NOT require broadband providers to contribute to the Universal Service Fund under Section 254
o The Order will not impose, suggest or authorize any new taxes or fees – there will be no automatic Universal Service fees applied and the congressional moratorium on Internet taxation applies to broadband.

Fostering Investment and Competition All of this can be accomplished while encouraging investment in broadband networks. To preserve incentives for broadband operators to invest in their networks, Chairman Wheeler’s proposal will modernize Title II, tailoring it for the 21st century, encouraging Internet Service Providers to invest in the networks American increasingly rely on.

The proposed order does not include utility-style rate regulation
• No rate regulation or tariffs
• No last-mile unbundling
• No burdensome administrative filing requirements or accounting standards.

A Case Study: Investment in the Wireless Industry

For 21 years the wireless industry has been governed by Title II-based rules that forbear from traditional phone company regulation. The wireless industry has invested over $400 billion under similar rules, proving that modernized Title II regulation can support investment and competition. Fewer provisions will apply to ISPs than were applied to wireless carriers. When Title II was first applied to mobile, voice was the predominant mobile service. During the period between 1993 and 2009, carriers invested heavily, including more than $270 billion in building out their wireless networks, an increase of nearly 2,000%


There, now those melting down over it have no excuse when it comes to understanding what happened today.

[Dave Lane]

And here's a guy from Level 3 that says they are full of shit

http://blog.level3.com/open-internet/verizons-accidental-mea-culpa/

Level 3 used to be one of the very best organizations in the US for solid never oversold bandwidth.

[Dave Lane]

And that's good and well... if everyone migrates to cities or suburbs.

But I'm sure it'll be the ISP's fault when they refuse to upgrade from any copper lines to towns with fewer than 10,000 people for broadband because they can't justify the expense.

I've got Excede satellite and Verizon hot spot at my very remote observatory. Running them from in town tonight. It's not google fiber but it's internet without a pots line.

[cosmo20002]

Stand by what I said.....I never once said nor blamed Obama. As your girlfriend cosmo loves to remind us all, the "administration" is not Obama.

Wha?

You're having a really bad day, pete. Stop the lies and stop the insanity.

[Imon Yourside]

I'm only worried about what happens down the road, 300 pages for what? has anyone read all 300+? What can/can't be regulated in the future?

Bright Line Rules: The first three rules would ban practices that are known to harm the Open Internet:
• No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
• No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
• No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration – in other words, no “fast lanes.” This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates.

Who decides what harms the open internet?

[jspchief]

I'm only worried about what happens down the road, 300 pages for what? has anyone read all 300+? What can/can't be regulated in the future?

Bright Line Rules: The first three rules would ban practices that are known to harm the Open Internet:
• No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
• No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
• No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration – in other words, no “fast lanes.” This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates.

Who decides what harms the open internet?
The FCC

[Lzen]

By Jeffrey Tucker (http://tucker.liberty.me) from Beautiful Anarchy link (http://tucker.liberty.me) Feb 26, 2015

http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2015/02/fcc-net-neutrality_wide-91cb48ed6e00c1ee2ef20d017e094aa3aa547712-s1600-c85.jpg
A triumph of “free expression and democratic principles”? How stupid do they think we are?


It’s been painful to watch the gradual tightening of government control in the name of net neutrality. The Federal Communications Commission’s decision to rewrite the rules and declare the Internet as a public utility seals the deal. It cartelizes the industry and turns a “Wild West” into a planned system of public management — or at least intends to.



All the rest is a veneer to cover what is actually a power grab.



This whole plot has had all the usual elements. It has a good name and its supporters say it is about stopping private and public control. It’s had the backing of all the top names in content delivery, from Yahoo to Netflix to Amazon. It’s had the quiet support of the leading Internet service providers. The decision to impose the rule has been declared by a tiny group of unaccountable bureaucrats operating with the support of the executive lame duck.



The opposition, in contrast, has been represented by small players in the industry, hardware providers like Cisco (http://blogs.cisco.com/gov/cisco-statement-on-fcc-decision-to-regulate-the-internet), free-market think tanks and disinterested professors, and a small group of writers and pundits who know something about freedom and free-market economics. The public at large should have been rising up in opposition but people are largely ignorant of what’s going on.



Here’s what’s really going on. The incumbent rulers of the world’s most exciting technology have decided to lock down the prevailing market conditions to protect themselves against rising upstarts in a fast-changing market. To impose a new rule against throttling content or using the market price system to allocate bandwidth resources protects against innovations that would disrupt the status quo.



What’s being sold as economic fairness and a wonderful favor to consumers is actually a sop to industrial giants who are seeking untrammeled access to your wallet and an end to competitive threats to market power. One person I know compared the move to the creation of the Federal Reserve itself: the creation of an industrial cartel in the name of improving the macroeconomic environment. That’s a good comparison.



Let’s back up and grasp the position of the large content providers. Here we see the obvious special interests at work. Netflix, Amazon, and the rest don’t want ISPs to charge either them or their consumers for their high-bandwidth content. They would rather the ISPs themselves absorb the higher costs of such provision. It’s very clear how getting the government to make price discrimination illegal is in their interest. It means no threats to their business model.



By analogy, let’s imagine that a retailer furniture company were in a position to offload all their shipping costs to the trucking industry. By government decree, the truckers were not permitted to charge any more or less whether they were shipping one chair or a whole houseful of furniture. Would the furniture sellers favor such a deal? Absolutely. They could call this “furniture neutrality” and fob it off on the public as preventing control of furniture by the shipping industry.



But that leaves the question about why the opposition from the ISPs themselves (the truckers by analogy) would either be silent or quietly in favor of such a rule change. Here is where matters get complicated. After many years of experimentation in the provision of Internet services — times when we went from telephone dial-up to landlines to T1 connections to experimenting with 4G data coverage — the winner in the market (for now) has been the cable companies. Consumers prefer the speed and bandwidth over all existing options.



But what about the future? What kind of services are going to replace the cable services, which are by-and-large monopolies due to special privileges from states and localities? It’s hard to know for sure but there are some impressive ideas out there. Costs are falling for all kinds of wireless and even distributed systems.



If you are a dominant player in the market — an incumbent firm like Comcast and Verizon — you really face two threats to your business model. You have to keep your existing consumer base onboard and you have to protect against upstarts seeking to poach consumers from you. A rule like net neutrality can raise the costs of doing business but there is a wonderful upside to this: your future potential competitors face the same costs. As an established player in the market, you are in a much better position to absorb higher costs than those barking at your heels. This means that you can slow down development, cool it on your investments in fiber optics, and generally rest on your laurels more.



But how can you sell such a nefarious plan? You get in good with the regulators. You support the idea in general, with some reservations, while tweaking the legislation in your favor. You know full well that this raises the costs to new competitors. When it passes, call it a vote for the “open internet” that will “preserve the right to communicate freely online.”
But when you look closely at the effects, the reality is exactly the opposite. It closes down market competition by generally putting government and its corporate backers in charge of deciding who can and cannot play in the market. It erects massive new barriers to entry for upstart firms while hugely subsidizing the largest and most well-heeled content providers.



So what are the costs to the rest of us? It means absolutely no price reductions in internet service. It could mean the opposite. Watch your bills. I predict that it is not going to be pretty. It also means a slowing down in the pace of technological development due to the reduction in competition that will immediately follow the imposition of this rule. In other words, it will be like all government regulation: most of the costs will be unseen but the benefits will be concentrated in the hands of the ruling class.



There is an additional threat to how to the FCC has reclassified the internet as a public utility. It means a blank check for government control across the board. Think of the medical marketplace, which is now entirely owned by a non competitive cartel of industry insiders. This is the future of the internet under net neutrality.



If you look at how all this shakes out, this is really no different from how most every other sector in life has come to be regulated by the state, from food to money to medicine to education. It always shakes out this way, with a sleepy public believing the propaganda, an elite group of insiders manipulating the regulations for their own benefits, a left-wing intelligentsia that is naive enough to believe platitudes about fairness, and a right wing that is mostly ignorant and for sale to the highest bidder.



No, I don’t believe that this ruling means the end of times for the internet. But it does mean that progress going forward in the digital age will be slowed compared with what it would otherwise be. Future generations will laugh in bemusement: it was the dawn of a new age and yet they believed it could be controlled the same as all that came before. Fools.



http://tucker.liberty.me/2015/02/26/net-neutrality-triumph-of-the-ruling-class/?utm_source=Liberty.me&utm_campaign=b0c6c07ca5-20150227_Article_Feature_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ecad00b597-b0c6c07ca5-139723837

[petegz28]

By Jeffrey Tucker (http://tucker.liberty.me) from Beautiful Anarchy link (http://tucker.liberty.me) Feb 26, 2015

http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2015/02/fcc-net-neutrality_wide-91cb48ed6e00c1ee2ef20d017e094aa3aa547712-s1600-c85.jpg
A triumph of “free expression and democratic principles”? How stupid do they think we are?


It’s been painful to watch the gradual tightening of government control in the name of net neutrality. The Federal Communications Commission’s decision to rewrite the rules and declare the Internet as a public utility seals the deal. It cartelizes the industry and turns a “Wild West” into a planned system of public management — or at least intends to.



All the rest is a veneer to cover what is actually a power grab.



This whole plot has had all the usual elements. It has a good name and its supporters say it is about stopping private and public control. It’s had the backing of all the top names in content delivery, from Yahoo to Netflix to Amazon. It’s had the quiet support of the leading Internet service providers. The decision to impose the rule has been declared by a tiny group of unaccountable bureaucrats operating with the support of the executive lame duck.



The opposition, in contrast, has been represented by small players in the industry, hardware providers like Cisco (http://blogs.cisco.com/gov/cisco-statement-on-fcc-decision-to-regulate-the-internet), free-market think tanks and disinterested professors, and a small group of writers and pundits who know something about freedom and free-market economics. The public at large should have been rising up in opposition but people are largely ignorant of what’s going on.



Here’s what’s really going on. The incumbent rulers of the world’s most exciting technology have decided to lock down the prevailing market conditions to protect themselves against rising upstarts in a fast-changing market. To impose a new rule against throttling content or using the market price system to allocate bandwidth resources protects against innovations that would disrupt the status quo.



What’s being sold as economic fairness and a wonderful favor to consumers is actually a sop to industrial giants who are seeking untrammeled access to your wallet and an end to competitive threats to market power. One person I know compared the move to the creation of the Federal Reserve itself: the creation of an industrial cartel in the name of improving the macroeconomic environment. That’s a good comparison.



Let’s back up and grasp the position of the large content providers. Here we see the obvious special interests at work. Netflix, Amazon, and the rest don’t want ISPs to charge either them or their consumers for their high-bandwidth content. They would rather the ISPs themselves absorb the higher costs of such provision. It’s very clear how getting the government to make price discrimination illegal is in their interest. It means no threats to their business model.



By analogy, let’s imagine that a retailer furniture company were in a position to offload all their shipping costs to the trucking industry. By government decree, the truckers were not permitted to charge any more or less whether they were shipping one chair or a whole houseful of furniture. Would the furniture sellers favor such a deal? Absolutely. They could call this “furniture neutrality” and fob it off on the public as preventing control of furniture by the shipping industry.



But that leaves the question about why the opposition from the ISPs themselves (the truckers by analogy) would either be silent or quietly in favor of such a rule change. Here is where matters get complicated. After many years of experimentation in the provision of Internet services — times when we went from telephone dial-up to landlines to T1 connections to experimenting with 4G data coverage — the winner in the market (for now) has been the cable companies. Consumers prefer the speed and bandwidth over all existing options.



But what about the future? What kind of services are going to replace the cable services, which are by-and-large monopolies due to special privileges from states and localities? It’s hard to know for sure but there are some impressive ideas out there. Costs are falling for all kinds of wireless and even distributed systems.



If you are a dominant player in the market — an incumbent firm like Comcast and Verizon — you really face two threats to your business model. You have to keep your existing consumer base onboard and you have to protect against upstarts seeking to poach consumers from you. A rule like net neutrality can raise the costs of doing business but there is a wonderful upside to this: your future potential competitors face the same costs. As an established player in the market, you are in a much better position to absorb higher costs than those barking at your heels. This means that you can slow down development, cool it on your investments in fiber optics, and generally rest on your laurels more.



But how can you sell such a nefarious plan? You get in good with the regulators. You support the idea in general, with some reservations, while tweaking the legislation in your favor. You know full well that this raises the costs to new competitors. When it passes, call it a vote for the “open internet” that will “preserve the right to communicate freely online.”
But when you look closely at the effects, the reality is exactly the opposite. It closes down market competition by generally putting government and its corporate backers in charge of deciding who can and cannot play in the market. It erects massive new barriers to entry for upstart firms while hugely subsidizing the largest and most well-heeled content providers.



So what are the costs to the rest of us? It means absolutely no price reductions in internet service. It could mean the opposite. Watch your bills. I predict that it is not going to be pretty. It also means a slowing down in the pace of technological development due to the reduction in competition that will immediately follow the imposition of this rule. In other words, it will be like all government regulation: most of the costs will be unseen but the benefits will be concentrated in the hands of the ruling class.



There is an additional threat to how to the FCC has reclassified the internet as a public utility. It means a blank check for government control across the board. Think of the medical marketplace, which is now entirely owned by a non competitive cartel of industry insiders. This is the future of the internet under net neutrality.



If you look at how all this shakes out, this is really no different from how most every other sector in life has come to be regulated by the state, from food to money to medicine to education. It always shakes out this way, with a sleepy public believing the propaganda, an elite group of insiders manipulating the regulations for their own benefits, a left-wing intelligentsia that is naive enough to believe platitudes about fairness, and a right wing that is mostly ignorant and for sale to the highest bidder.



No, I don’t believe that this ruling means the end of times for the internet. But it does mean that progress going forward in the digital age will be slowed compared with what it would otherwise be. Future generations will laugh in bemusement: it was the dawn of a new age and yet they believed it could be controlled the same as all that came before. Fools.



http://tucker.liberty.me/2015/02/26/net-neutrality-triumph-of-the-ruling-class/?utm_source=Liberty.me&utm_campaign=b0c6c07ca5-20150227_Article_Feature_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ecad00b597-b0c6c07ca5-139723837

:popcorn:

[Bearcat]

The analogies in that article and saying the content providers want someone else to pay for "high costs" don't really hold up when the new ISP in town is offering the current basic service for free and a product that's 100 times faster for the same price as a standard cable/internet package. "forcing" the current ISPs to take their foot off the hose.