FCC Approves Net Neutrality

[hollohas]

Once again, the Admin bypasses Congress. The government now controls the internet with nothing more than 3 Dems voting to pass a 300+ page plan that was not open for public review. 3 people vote yes = new rules for one of the providers most important of modern technologies. We all know how great government regulations are for the public...


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/26/fcc-formally-approves-net-neutrality-proposal-in-straight-party-line-vote/


In what one Republican called a “monumental shift toward government control of the Internet,” the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday approved a proposal granting the federal government the authority to regulate Internet broadband providers under the same law as public utilities.

This is NOT a representative government any longer.

[Dave_L]

Most of my nerd friends are all for this. I don't see how the government getting involved in anything is a good thing. Especially the internet where anyone could voice their thoughts/opinions uncensored.

[hollohas]

Hard to be all for something that nobody has read. Brings back memories...

"You must pass the bill before we can know what's in it."

[Jamnanc]

Where's hound? He was explaining to me that it would be terrible if the government didn't maintain this as the big guys would buy up all the bandwidth and leave all small sites hanging out to dry.

[speedysst]

Ah, fixing a problem that didnt exist.

[Rooskibar03]

Obamacare for the Internet.

[JohnnyEgo]

It's an interesting issue that is more nuanced than the talking points on either side. Not that it matters much, but I've decided I'm against it by the narrowest of philosophical margins in the sense that I would rather have my ability to use the internet impaired by a private monopoly as opposed to a government one.

Last-mile issues are a very small part of the debate, but the one I am most interested in. I want to see fiber to my curb, but it isn't going to happen because the large cable companies function in a manipulated market instead of a free one, and Google and it's ilk aren't prepared to launch a local lobbying war over my small rural community. So my internet bandwidth is controlled by a defacto single carrier without much vested interest in swapping in fiber when they already have RG9 and other Coax strung through my entire neighborhood. I like my cable television just fine and wish the many Comcast employees on here long and continued employment, but I'd rather have fiber for my internet consumption. I don't want the government manipulating private industry, but that does not preclude me from desiring private industry to quit using contract negotiation and local legislation to stop other players from entering the fiber market. I simply think private industry is the slightly lesser of two evils.

I'm also a little irate that I can't get an email response back from Cory Gardner on the M855/SS109 issue, but I am being spammed to death by a half dozen Senators with emails written by the cable lobby about how my world is going to end. Meanwhile, my set-top Comcast box went nuts and arbitrarily started ordering movies for me. Comcast and Verizon are willing to spend on Title II, and that has gotten our legislature's attention in a way that the M855/SS109 reg changes have not.

[Hound]

Wether anybody here knows it, we all had a win today with this. They also made it so the States cannot ban municipalities from competing in broadband. It is a good day. Who knows how it will be twisted by the ISP's but I think we can all agree that a level playing field is American. That is what this did. The ISP's can't play favorites with Internet traffic. This is not the Man/Gov taking over, it is actually keeping it the way it was always supposed to work. The Internet should not care if a packet comes from Google, a Mom&Pop shop or just a kid at home. That is the simplified answer to what 'Net Neutrality' really is.

[trlcavscout]

Their will be a couple positives and a couple negatives, depends on what you frequent on the net I guess. Everybody wants fiber but nobody wants to pay for it. Fiber has speed benefit that is only useful if you have the equipment to handle it and the sever you are useing to get what ever it is you want can handle it. You can still get buffering when streaming netflix when you are on fiber to your home, especially now.

[sniper7]

I don't know enough about it and since I can't read it I have no opinion other than if the government is involved I probably don't want it.

[hollohas]

Wether anybody here knows it, we all had a win today with this. They also made it so the States cannot ban municipalities from competing in broadband. It is a good day. Who knows how it will be twisted by the ISP's but I think we can all agree that a level playing field is American. That is what this did. The ISP's can't play favorites with Internet traffic. This is not the Man/Gov taking over, it is actually keeping it the way it was always supposed to work. The Internet should not care if a packet comes from Google, a Mom&Pop shop or just a kid at home. That is the simplified answer to what 'Net Neutrality' really is.
How do you know? If you have a source for the 330 page regulation, please pass along. Every single report I have read from a dozen different sources, both for and against it, say it hasn't been published for public review.

[Big E3]

I can't wait this should be great stuff. Soon they'll propose the "Fairness Act" on the internet, too many "right winger" sites. Also need to add that shopping list of taxes we have on our phone bills. I'm sure nobody minds paying extra taxes each month so all those people living in Bumfuck Egypt can have internet. I guess they will need to reduce the number of internet providers to match the list of public utility providers Wow, this will be great.




[Sarcasm2]

[roberth]

I can't wait this should be great stuff. Soon they'll propose the "Fairness Act" on the internet, too many "right winger" sites. Also need to add that shopping list of taxes we have on our phone bills. I'm sure nobody minds paying extra taxes each month so all those people living in Bumfuck Egypt can have internet. I guess they will need to reduce the number of internet providers to match the list of public utility providers Wow, this will be great.




[Sarcasm2]

I love it. Alright!! This is gonna be great! NOT!!!!!

All the idiots, totalitarians, communists, morons, halfwits, rocket surgeons, scholars, and other assorted mental defectives that are for Net Neutrality are going to be crying in their milk in a couple of years.

[hollohas]

Soon they'll propose the "Fairness Act" on the internet, too many "right winger" sites.

It's been done before (with TV and radio) and there were reports last year that the FCC was considering doing it again.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/before-net-neutrality-the-surprising-1940s-battle-for-radio-freedom/384924/


http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/is-the-fcc-trying-to-revive-the-fairness-doctrine-20140212


Is the FCC Trying to Revive the ‘Fairness Doctrine’?


The controversy stems from a study the agency plans to conduct on "critical information needs." The FCC is required by law to study ways to eliminate barriers to entry for small media businesses.
Among other things, the agency plans to ask TV journalists about their "news philosophy" and "the process by which stories are selected." The study will gather data on "perceived station bias" and "perceived responsiveness to underserved populations." The FCC also wants to examine how local TV stations cover "critical information" such as "economic opportunities" and the "environment."

[trlcavscout]

How do you know? If you have a source for the 330 page regulation, please pass along. Every single report I have read from a dozen different sources, both for and against it, say it hasn't been published for public review.

That is a big part of it, when Netflix and other streaming video suppliers couldn't make their customers happy and they could no longer blame it on the "last mile" ISP they struck deals to prioritize their stuff so end users could watch movies without buffering. Now it is going to be a level playing field again, so if you are getting your advertised internet speeds (while plugged directly into a GOOD modem not the Wally special and not wireless) and you can't stream your netflix or direc tv or Hulu or whatever you need to complain to that company and not your ISP. Direc tv customers, this still won't fix your streaming video stuff haha

their are other unknown deals being made in this new legislation as we all know, when the gobment gets involved unknown stuff gets signed.

[Rooskibar03]

We the people had no access to view the bill yet special interest groups, Google as the biggest name, were able to make "tweaks" to the law prior to final vote today?

yeah this is great for the little guy.

[HoneyBadger]

Well, the internet is still here, and I have enough food in my house to make it to the weekend without dying, so I guess I'm okay. [facepalm]

[Zundfolge]

Wether anybody here knows it, we all had a win today with this. They also made it so the States cannot ban municipalities from competing in broadband. It is a good day. Who knows how it will be twisted by the ISP's but I think we can all agree that a level playing field is American. That is what this did. The ISP's can't play favorites with Internet traffic. This is not the Man/Gov taking over, it is actually keeping it the way it was always supposed to work. The Internet should not care if a packet comes from Google, a Mom&Pop shop or just a kid at home. That is the simplified answer to what 'Net Neutrality' really is.

You have no idea if the 332 pages of new regulations are indeed anything like what you think "Net Neutrality" is just because it has the words "Net" and "Neutrality" on the cover ... being happy over this at this point is foolishness.

I could say I was going to toss a "fluffy kitten" into your lap, but you had to close your eyes first ... of course you want a fluffy kitten ... they're warm, cute, fluffy ... so when I toss a rabid bobcat into your lap you're going to be pissed.

Hey, maybe it'll be the panicia of free and open internet we all keep hearing that "Net Neutrality" will bring. But knowing the Obama administration and Democrats track record forever ... I suspect we just got a rabid bobcat tossed into our lap.

[sellersm]

This won't end well... IBTIL (in before the internet lock)

[HoneyBadger]

You have no idea if the 332 pages of new regulations are indeed anything like what you think "Net Neutrality" is just because it has the words "Net" and "Neutrality" on the cover ... being happy over this at this point is foolishness.

But ObamaCare said "Affordable Care Act" on the cover, right? [facepalm][facepalm][facepalm]

[SuperiorDG]

But ObamaCare said "Affordable Care Act" on the cover, right? [facepalm][facepalm][facepalm]

I was going to say that the name of the bill sounds like it's a good thing.

[HoneyBadger]

I was going to say that the name of the bill sounds like it's a good thing.
Of course it does! "Department of Homeland Security" sound like a good thing too, right?

[Hound]

http://www.fcc.gov/document/protecting-and-promoting-open-internet-nprm


How do you know? If you have a source for the 330 page regulation, please pass along. Every single report I have read from a dozen different sources, both for and against it, say it hasn't been published for public review.

[trlcavscout]

But ObamaCare said "Affordable Care Act" on the cover, right? [facepalm][facepalm][facepalm]

if they limit what private companies can charge for products they are limiting what private companies will spend to develop better products and services. Why spend millions of dollars if their is no return on the investment.

[Zundfolge]

http://www.fcc.gov/document/protecting-and-promoting-open-internet-nprm

That's not the document they just voted to pass.

[Hound]

No, but it is the meat of what was proposed. They did not rewrite the whole thing. We do still need to see the details to see any twists, that was in my original post, but this is what we have to go on till we get more.


That's not the document they just voted to pass.

[Zundfolge]

No, but it is the meat of what was proposed. They did not rewrite the whole thing. We do still need to see the details to see any twists, that was in my original post, but this is what we have to go on till we get more.

That document is nowhere near 332 pages ... They have clearly added a TON of stuff to it. I still suspect we've got a suckerpunch coming that will knock the wind out of the Internet (and by extension the 1st Amendment). I know many left of center techies are all in love with the idea of "Net Neutrality" but I believe your zeal for an ideal has been used to gain support for something that will end up being nothing like what you think you want.


Keep in mind that based only on that smaller document from May you linked, Anonymous was adamantly opposed to this deal. They're not exactly on the side of Republicans or large corporations.

[roberth]

if they limit what private companies can charge for products they are limiting what private companies will spend to develop better products and services. Why spend millions of dollars if their is no return on the investment.

That is what government does via regulation and taxation...destroys innovation by destroying the profit motive. Command economies do not work at any level on any product.

This is way bigger than just "fairness" or whatever horsepuckey we're being fed that NN is "good" for us. NN is another Trojan horse.

[hollohas]

No, but it is the meat of what was proposed. They did not rewrite the whole thing. We do still need to see the details to see any twists, that was in my original post, but this is what we have to go on till we get more.
We had about that much to go on when they were discussing Bama care too. At the time it was enough for me to say, "this is going to suck." along with a lot of other not so nice things. Then they added a bunch of shit that we had to "pass the bill to know what's in it" that the people of this country to this very day are just finding out.

The most transparent government ever. Isn't that what he told us?

Don't read a book by its cover....especially when it comes to the feds. They mismanage everything they touch no matter their original intentions and this will be no different.

[Irving]

That is what government does via regulation and taxation...destroys innovation by destroying the profit motive. Command economies do not work at any level on any product.

This is way bigger than just "fairness" or whatever horsepuckey we're being fed that NN is "good" for us. NN is another Trojan horse.

This seems to be the issue. "Net Neutrality" on its face is something I agree with and feel strongly about. However, i have a feeling that this is something much more, and just named "Net Neutrality."

[theGinsue]

but I think we can all agree that a level playing field is American.

No, I strongly disagree. A "level playing field" has NEVER been part of America. America is about opportunities to challenge yourself to excel above your own station, and those of others. It's neither level nor fair. A "level playing field" is another version of the "redistribution of wealth" - it can only succeed by taking from one and giving to another. It can only be done by government forced compliance. And, when it's done by the government it's communism/socialism, not American.

You may have drank the Kool-Aid here, but the .gov getting involved bodes poorly for us.

ETA: Haven't you learned by now than any time this administration fails to provide the transparency in the process, as was promised during the original election campaign, it's always bad for us?


Also need to add that shopping list of taxes we have on our phone bills.

Yep. Welcome to a host of new internet regulatory fees. But at least, with these new .gov fees, you'll get to see the poor underprivileged in your community getting their new ObamaNet for free.


if they limit what private companies can charge for products they are limiting what private companies will spend to develop better products and services. Why spend millions of dollars if their is no return on the investment.

BINGO! This (IMHO) is the second worst thing about this.

[TFOGGER]

*NSFW*

but funny as hell...

Mostly because it's true.


http://youtu.be/0ilMx7k7mso

[Hound]

Ya... Not so big on the Robber Baron days. Never is a big word and you are flat wrong on that one..... Just ask Morgan, Rockafeller, AT&T, etc.

I believe history shows America does believe in a fair playing field not an Aristocracy. That is what Net Neutrality gets us (if they implement it correctly).


No, I strongly disagree. A "level playing field" has NEVER been part of America. America is about opportunities to challenge yourself to excel above your own station, and those of others. It's neither level nor fair. A "level playing field" is another version of the "redistribution of wealth" - it can only succeed by taking from one and giving to another. It can only be done by government forced compliance. And, when it's done by the government it's communism/socialism, not American.

You may have drank the Kool-Aid here, but the .gov getting involved bodes poorly for us.

ETA: Haven't you learned by now than any time this administration fails to provide the transparency in the process, as was promised during the original election campaign, it's always bad for us.

[jslo]

Ya... Not so big on the Robber Baron days. Never is a big word and you are flat wrong on that one..... Just ask Morgan, Rockafeller, AT&T, etc.

I believe history shows America does believe in a fair playing field not an Aristocracy. That is what Net Neutrality gets us (if they implement it correctly).

A "fair" playing field is one thing. A "level" playing field is another. Your original comment was the latter.

[trlcavscout]

*NSFW*

but funny as hell...

Mostly because it's true.


http://youtu.be/0ilMx7k7mso


It may be true if you don't know how the FCC and city contracts work I guess. But it is funny. The customer service part is true with any company of any size though!

[Hound]

Fair enough... but I think it is symantics. I also don't think it is worth an argument over the point.


A "fair" playing field is one thing. A "level" playing field is another. Your original comment was the latter.

[Bailey Guns]

If you're for government getting involved in this, no fair bitching when government gets involved in anything else...and fucks it up. Like gun bans, "armor-piercing" ammo bans, magazine capacity limits, health insurance, etc.

[DAL357]

If you're for government getting involved in this, no fair bitching when government gets involved in anything else...and fucks it up. Like gun bans, "armor-piercing" ammo bans, magazine capacity limits, health insurance, etc.

+1

Years ago, I read a book named the "Myth of the Robber Barrons" by an author whose name I've forgotten; I still have that book somewhere and I'll have to dig it out and peruse it again, it's definitely worth a re-read. You should make an effort to find and read a copy, Hound.

The mere fact that something like this can pass without an open and clear airing of all of its contents shows just how dead the republic is, and how little pols. respect their electorate. The fact that Americans aren't up in arms about this and a thousand other transgressions usurping their precious liberty shows how little respect they deserve. Every successful outrage that passes emboldens the next one; I'm afraid we're much too far down the road to stop the inevitable conclusion of all this.

[68Charger]

(if they implement it correctly).

And there is the problem... I don't trust that government has my best interests in mind when they create laws or rulings... And I trust this administration much less than typical government.

[Zundfolge]

Years ago, I read a book named the "Myth of the Robber Barrons" by an author whose name I've forgotten; I still have that book somewhere and I'll have to dig it out and peruse it again, it's definitely worth a re-read. You should make an effort to find and read a copy, Hound.

Burton Folsom. An excellent book all around. Here's a lecture he gave on the subject (a little over an hour ... but quicker than reading the book).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Vw6uF2LdZw

[Ridge]

Ah, fixing a problem that didnt exist.

It definitely existed. http://jointhefastlane.com/

[Ridge]

*NSFW*

but funny as hell...

Mostly because it's true.


http://youtu.be/0ilMx7k7mso

The barely trained installer thing hit hard. I work for an ISP, and I work with those guys. Some of them can't spell the name of our company. Some have trouble remembering how to spell their name.

[DAL357]

Burton Folsom. An excellent book all around. Here's a lecture he gave on the subject (a little over an hour ... but quicker than reading the book).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Vw6uF2LdZw

Cool, thanks!

[davsel]

http://comicincorrect.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Net-Regs-NRD-600.jpg

[Gman]

Whatever the question, more government is usually not the answer. It certainly doesn't take 300 pages to tell ISPs to play fair.

China has government regulated Internet. The .gov getting involved is a slippery slope.

Sent from my electronic leash.

[68Charger]

It definitely existed. http://jointhefastlane.com/

I'm going to go ahead and call that BS marketing and a proxy caching service...
It looks to me that they're not giving you priority access to places like youtube.com and foxnews.com,etc... they have "videotube.com" and "foxynews.com"

so it looks to me like they cache content from websites on their own premium servers, and serve it up to their customers at premium prices.
There are lots of factors that can affect your speed to download anything- and it's the lowest common denominator (the bottleneck) when Millions of people hit the same server farm at say foxnews.com after a big news event occurs, their servers are heavily utilized, or their internet connection gets overloaded...

So I'd say the link you provided is free market at work, not a provider deciding what content is at work, unless you can prove that jointhefastlane is a subsidiary of a core internet provider...

[68Charger]

Whatever the question, more government is usually not the answer. It certainly doesn't take 300 pages to tell ISPs to play fair.

China has government regulated Internet. The .gov getting involved is a slippery slope.

Sent from my electronic leash.

Congratulations! we just graduated to the standards created by the "People's republic of China"!!
but we still can't buy their ammo...

[Rabid]

I did not see this come up already so for a little better understanding on the issue:
1. The reason you get a much better deal on your internet when you include a phone line is because a land line phone is under section 2 and these companies get government subsidies (tax dollars) on it.
2. These companies have been subsidized to upgrade their networks so even rural areas could have fiber optic internet by now, again that is millions of tax payers dollars, but they have not. The FCC has brought at least one of these companies to court (IIRR its two). The judge pretty much said we can not do anything if these companies pocket the tax payers money under section 1 like they currently are but rather under section 2 you would have a viable case.
3. The government made these oligopolies by giving these companies our hard earned money on promises they did not fulfill and still have a 90 something percent profit margin on top of that.
4. The government has not allowed a free market, look up what happened to Falcon Broadband in the springs if you do not believe me.

How does the government fix this problem they created? I have no idea but i have provided some facts and it deserves as much attention, if not more because it is our tax dollars, as the current ammo ban that looms over us does.

[clublights]

*NSFW*

but funny as hell...

Mostly because it's true.


http://youtu.be/0ilMx7k7mso


Along those same lines...

also NSFW

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c38fb80a0d/comcast-doesn-t-give-a-f-ck