FCC and Net NEutrality

[waywardgs]

Just a friendly PSA- if you like the internet, drop the FCC a line and tell em not to gut net neutrality. Super easy, takes 2 minutes.

https://www.dearfcc.org

[Parkbandit]

Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that Net "Neutrality" is from the same type of people that gave us the "Affordable" Care Act?

[Dwaar]

I really hope the Government stays out of regulating the internet.

One thing I fully agree with though is regulating the internet to stop human trafficking, child abuse/porn, illegal drug transactions, and other criminal activities.

The best way to ensure things like that are stopped, while leaving the free flow of ideas and thoughts to occur.... and the Government stay out of it.... I'm not sure how that would occur, or avoid abuse by the powers that be.

[Warriorbird]

Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that Net "Neutrality" is from the same type of people that gave us the "Affordable" Care Act?

This can very much be in support of the free market. There's prominent Republican supporters, including Darrell Issa.

Lots of the battle is actually Democrats versus Harry Reid and the administration.

[waywardgs]

Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that Net "Neutrality" is from the same type of people that gave us the "Affordable" Care Act?

This is probably why: http://www.vox.com/2014/4/6/5556462/brain-dead-how-politics-makes-us-stupid

(It's actually a great article. Probably deserves it's own thread.)

[Thondalar]

This is probably why: http://www.vox.com/2014/4/6/5556462/brain-dead-how-politics-makes-us-stupid

(It's actually a great article. Probably deserves it's own thread.)

Lol @ an ultra-liberal lawyer doing a study about people being wrong about climate change. That article was so obviously biased it's ridiculous.

[waywardgs]

Lol @ an ultra-liberal lawyer doing a study about people being wrong about climate change. That article was so obviously biased it's ridiculous.

Climate change was just an example. Wasn't really pertinent to the study.

[waywardgs]

Haha, whatever about rep, but I really am kind of curious who our resident fecophiliac/eproctophiliac is. Some rep examples:

you could always poop

your farts reek

i poop when i feel like it

those boobs give me gas

your turds are exploiting your underwear

I pharted

Are you having a bowel movement?

ew, you farted

Wrong. Turd snifferholic.

[Parkbandit]

This can very much be in support of the free market. There's prominent Republican supporters, including Darrell Issa.

Lots of the battle is actually Democrats versus Harry Reid and the administration.

Just because a Republican supports this doesn't mean I do. Seems to me that if the Government wants to regulate (i.e. "save") the Internet... I'm probably against it.

I like the Internet just the way it is currently... Mostly free and open.

[Thondalar]

Climate change was just an example. Wasn't really pertinent to the study.

Yet they brought it up several times. Not to mention quotes from a Mother Jones contributor talking shit about Fox News, a whole paragraph designated to talking shit about Antonin Scalia, and ultimately blaming things on "big money"...

No surprise it's sponsored by GE. I love how "big money" is only a bad thing when it's the Koch brothers or Wal-Mart...nobody has a problem with GE and George Soros.

[waywardgs]

Just because a Republican supports this doesn't mean I do. Seems to me that if the Government wants to regulate (i.e. "save") the Internet... I'm probably against it.

I like the Internet just the way it is currently... Mostly free and open.

Then you should tell your government not to change it! :)

[waywardgs]

Yet they brought it up several times. Not to mention quotes from a Mother Jones contributor talking shit about Fox News, a whole paragraph designated to talking shit about Antonin Scalia, and ultimately blaming things on "big money"...

No surprise it's sponsored by GE. I love how "big money" is only a bad thing when it's the Koch brothers or Wal-Mart...nobody has a problem with GE and George Soros.

Sure, the article was written by a liberal. But a conservative could have written about the study with their own examples and the results of the study would still be interesting to me.

[Warriorbird]

Just because a Republican supports this doesn't mean I do. Seems to me that if the Government wants to regulate (i.e. "save") the Internet... I'm probably against it.

I like the Internet just the way it is currently... Mostly free and open.

It's free and open because we haven't allowed larger companies to hold it hostage and crush out smaller competitors. Most of the bills would reduce freedom and openness and the Obama FCC does a lot of shady bullshit related to that. Besides, when have you ever wanted to stand with Harry Reid on an issue?

[Parkbandit]

Then you should tell your government not to change it! :)

When I hear someone plead "Save the {insert bullshit here}", I tend to think those people are idiots and not at all interested in "saving the {insert bullshit here}" at all, but more interested in furthering their own political agenda by creating a cute law name and having their ignorant sheep swallow and espouse it.

I know nothing about Net Neutrality.. but if you and your ilk are for it, then chances are I'm probably against it.

I know, I must be a {insert any 'ist du jour}

[waywardgs]

When I hear someone plead "Save the {insert bullshit here}", I tend to think those people are idiots and not at all interested in "saving the {insert bullshit here}" at all, but more interested in furthering their own political agenda by creating a cute law name and having their ignorant sheep swallow and espouse it.

I know nothing about Net Neutrality.. but if you and your ilk are for it, then chances are I'm probably against it.

I know, I must be a {insert any 'ist du jour}

Yeah yeah but as wb pointed out there are plenty of repubs who stand with me on this! Go learn about it! (Ps I'm not for passing a new law; this is opposition to proposed changes to a system you already claimed to like.)

[Thondalar]

Sure, the article was written by a liberal. But a conservative could have written about the study with their own examples and the results of the study would still be interesting to me.

His results aren't that revolutionary...I believe the University of Michigan did an even better study a while back, where people were asked questions about their opinions on certain topics, and then given factual evidence that disproved their beliefs...the people in the study would more vehemently back their beliefs, even after being proven wrong.

I mostly agree with his results, and his reasoning behind them. I think the article writer did the study author a disservice by weaving in all of the biased political BS, because it will cause people who are on the other side to likely miss his message, and cause people who agree with it to feel like he's only talking to them, giving them a sort of false feeling of intellectual superiority...something neither side will benefit from.

[Tgo01]

To me it seems the debate over net neutrality is just fear mongering. Comcast et al wants content providers, like Netflix (who uses something like 30% of all internet data in the US) to pay more because they use more, or to charge Netflix more if they want a "faster" connection.

The fear is that Comcast will just start blocking or slowing down connections to competitors or they will stifle websites they don't agree with. The thing is...Comcast can already do this. They have that power. Seems like to me the solution would be to allow Comcast to to charge different people different amounts and make it illegal to stifle competitors and websites they disagree with.

But Democrats, as usual, think it's too hard to actually like, enforce laws, so their idea is to just "legalize it!"

[waywardgs]

As an aside, PB, it's generally helpful to learn about a thing before forming a knee-jerk reactionary opinion. Just sayin'.

[Warriorbird]

To me it seems the debate over net neutrality is just fear mongering. Comcast et al wants content providers, like Netflix (who uses something like 30% of all internet data in the US) to pay more because they use more, or to charge Netflix more if they want a "faster" connection.

The fear is that Comcast will just start blocking or slowing down connections to competitors or they will stifle websites they don't agree with. The thing is...Comcast can already do this. They have that power. Seems like to me the solution would be to allow Comcast to to charge different people different amounts and make it illegal to stifle competitors and websites they disagree with.

But Democrats, as usual, think it's too hard to actually like, enforce laws, so their idea is to just "legalize it!"

You miss the forest for the trees. This is hardly a Comcast only issue either. The issue isn't just big content providers, it is all of them. You also totally falsely attribute positions. This is a liberty vs. authority issue. Harry Reid and Obama are on the changing the rules to make it suck worse side with a whole slew of establishment Republicans. The opposition are Internet users everywhere, liberty focused Democrats, Libertarians, and Tea Party types.

[Tgo01]

The issue isn't just big content providers, it is all of them.

I don't think I said just big content providers?


You also totally falsely attribute positions...Democrats

Hmm...that's what I said :/

Just because "internet users everywhere" are against it doesn't mean they are right or somehow have more knowledge of what's going on? That's silly.

I'll bet you 100 bucks if it was up to drivers they would eliminate toll roads and parking meters everywhere and gasoline taxes. Since they're drivers they know more and should have more say, right?

Edit to comment on your edit:


This is hardly a Comcast only issue either.

I don't think I said that either...are you taking my schtick and focusing more on what I didn't say instead of what I did say? I'll have none of that, sir!

[Archigeek]

My prediction is and has been for a while, that the internet as we know it will go the way of the CB radio. We will lose anonymity, because taking it away protects the powers that be. That said, let's keep net neutrality for as long as we can.

[Warriorbird]

I don't think I said just big content providers?



Hmm...that's what I said :/

Just because "internet users everywhere" are against it doesn't mean they are right or somehow have more knowledge of what's going on? That's silly.

I'll bet you 100 bucks if it was up to drivers they would eliminate toll roads and parking meters everywhere and gasoline taxes. Since they're drivers they know more and should have more say, right?

You minimized the threat by making it out like only Netflix would pay extra under this scheme.

Just because you want to fuck over small business doesn't mean you're more right than the Internet users either.

Your description of positions, as stated, was quite wrong.

I'm glad that you and Harry Reid are finding common ground though.

[Tgo01]

You minimized the threat by making it out like only Netflix would pay extra under this scheme.

I said content providers and used Netflix as an example because they are by far the most recognizable and use the most bandwidth.

Calm down. Relax. And any other comments people say to others to calm them down but just aggravates them more.


Just because you want to fuck over small business

Please. Small businesses will be fine.


Your description of positions, as stated, was quite wrong.

Yet you said I was right so...I dunno what to say.

[Warriorbird]

I said content providers and used Netflix as an example because they are by far the most recognizable and use the most bandwidth.

Calm down. Relax. And any other comments people say to others to calm them down but just aggravates them more.



Please. Small businesses will be fine.



Yet you said I was right so...I dunno what to say.

What exactly is the reassurance here? There is none. ISPs are the most trustworthy companies ever.

http://gizmodo.com/its-completely-absurd-how-hard-it-is-to-cancel-comcast-1605040001

I didn't say you were right at all. I pointed out that you totally had the positions mixed up. You do.

You probably just hate streaming media like you hate people who drive over 55.

[Parkbandit]

It's free and open because we haven't allowed larger companies to hold it hostage and crush out smaller competitors.

Really? How many options do you have for an ISP? I think I have maybe 3... and not one is a smaller competitor. They have all been crushed out of existence years ago.


Most of the bills would reduce freedom and openness

Then instead of creating a new bill, why not just vote against these bills and leave the Internet alone.

All too often, Government sticks it's nose into something that it doesn't need to be, albeit with good intentions.. and they ultimately fuck it up. More Government isn't always the answer.


and the Obama FCC does a lot of shady bullshit related to that.

THANKS OBAMA!

I am surprised you didn't somehow blame Bush here though...


Besides, when have you ever wanted to stand with Harry Reid on an issue?

The same time you wanted to oppose him and side with Darrell Issa?

[waywardgs]

Really? How many options do you have for an ISP? I think I have maybe 3... and not one is a smaller competitor. They have all been crushed out of existence years ago.



Then instead of creating a new bill, why not just vote against these bills and leave the Internet alone.

All too often, Government sticks it's nose into something that it doesn't need to be, albeit with good intentions.. and they ultimately fuck it up. More Government isn't always the answer.



THANKS OBAMA!

I am surprised you didn't somehow blame Bush here though...



The same time you wanted to oppose him and side with Darrell Issa?

Jesus dude, you really have no idea what you're talking about here. It's highly amusing.

[Warriorbird]

Really? How many options do you have for an ISP? I think I have maybe 3... and not one is a smaller competitor. They have all been crushed out of existence years ago.

Then instead of creating a new bill, why not just vote against these bills and leave the Internet alone.

All too often, Government sticks it's nose into something that it doesn't need to be, albeit with good intentions.. and they ultimately fuck it up. More Government isn't always the answer.

THANKS OBAMA!

I am surprised you didn't somehow blame Bush here though...

The same time you wanted to oppose him and side with Darrell Issa?

It's true. We only have four options for Internet. Only two of them are small-ish businesses.

I tend to agree with you about new bills not being needed. The issue is the Obama FCC, shockingly enough, is using executive power to get around Congress and make these changes without bills now. Romney's FCC would probably have tried similar. Hillary's would too. Jeb Bush's would too. Probably the only potential candidates that wouldn't would be Warren and Paul.

I totally blame Obama, just like I do with education.

Fair point on me agreeing with Darrell Issa though.

[Parkbandit]

As an aside, PB, it's generally helpful to learn about a thing before forming a knee-jerk reactionary opinion. Just sayin'.

Like I said before.. if someone like you are for it, using "save the Internet" as a rally cry.. I'm already against it.

[Tgo01]

What exactly is the reassurance here? There is none. ISPs are the most trustworthy companies ever.

I dunno? As I said before Comcast and whoever can already do the shit people are worried will happen. Comcast could tomorrow slow service to Netflix down to a screeching halt if they wanted to. They could totally block access to certain websites from their servers. Why do people think this law would encourage this type behavior when they can already do it?


I didn't say you were right at all. I pointed out that you totally had the positions mixed up. You do.

I said Democrats are for net neutrality and you came back with a list of people for net neutrality which included Democrats...I'm not sure how that's saying I'm wrong.


You probably just hate streaming media like you hate people who drive over 55.

Darn young whippersnappers! Back in my day cars couldn't even go over 55 MPH!

Also I don't understand your analogy. You calling me old? Saying I'm slow and I hate fast people?

[Parkbandit]

You minimized the threat by making it out like only Netflix would pay extra under this scheme.

Just because you want to fuck over small business doesn't mean you're more right than the Internet users either.

Your description of positions, as stated, was quite wrong.

I'm glad that you and Harry Reid are finding common ground though.

IF YOU ARE AGAINST THIS BILL, YOU ARE AGAINST SMALL BUSINESS!

Let the hysteria commence.

[waywardgs]

Like I said before.. if someone like you are for it, using "save the Internet" as a rally cry.. I'm already against it.

It's fun watching you devolve into crotchety senility. I hope you stick around for a long time :)

[Warriorbird]

I dunno? As I said before Comcast and whoever can already do the shit people are worried will happen. Comcast could tomorrow slow service to Netflix down to a screeching halt if they wanted to. They could totally block access to certain websites from their servers. Why do people think this law would encourage this type behavior when they can already do it?

It's not related to a law at this point (though in the past it was) but regulation. Prior to a bunch of Obama FCC fuckery it didn't actually work like you think it does. People don't like that. It's quite natural when you consider the history of the net. Gatekeepering is a tremendous fear. Just because it could happen right now certainly doesn't calm people down.


I said Democrats are for net neutrality and you came back with a list of people for net neutrality which included Democrats...I'm not sure how that's saying I'm wrong.

When you paint a bipartisan for and against issue as solely one side, especially when the push is actually against a seated administration you're maybe doing everybody a disservice.


Darn young whippersnappers! Back in my day cars couldn't even go over 55 MPH!

Also I don't understand your analogy. You calling me old? Saying I'm slow and I hate fast people?

You're lining up with Latrin in the authority versus liberty camp right now, boosting massive corporations against everybody else. The free market needs support to stay that way.

[Parkbandit]

It's true. We only have four options for Internet. Only two of them are small-ish businesses.

What are the 2 small ones?


I tend to agree with you about new bills not being needed. The issue is the Obama FCC, shockingly enough, is using executive power to get around Congress and make these changes without bills now.

Wait.. I thought Obama going it alone was a good idea since the evil Republicans are the party of NO!? Bush had more executive orders, so there is no way this is a bad thing.


Romney's FCC would probably have tried similar. Hillary's would too. Jeb Bush's would too. Probably the only potential candidates that wouldn't would be Warren and Paul.

I'll look into it later.. so far though I haven't read anything here that leads me to believe the sky is falling... even if Obama is behind it.

[Tgo01]

In fact, isn't this the type of thing that encourages businesses/people to be more efficient?

Again, let's look at evil Netflix again (which accounts for about 33% of internet usage in the US.) Maybe if Comcast was allowed to charge them more because they use more data then Netflix would seek ways to be more efficient so they wouldn't have to pay as much. In fact I'm pretty sure I even read a story once where Comcast wanted to start charging Netflix more but Netflix made a deal with Comcast promising to become more efficient.

It's just like if we made electricity free for everyone then no one would have any need to become more energy efficient so we just keep building more and more coal power plants. Netflix doesn't give a shit how inefficient they are because they aren't charged more for using more.

Let's just do away with all efficiency standards. Let's bring back the cars that get 9 miles per gallon. California in a drought? Simple solution. Make water free for everyone!

Obama! Obama! Obama!

[Tgo01]

It's not related to a law at this point (though in the past it was) but regulation. Prior to a bunch of Obama FCC fuckery it didn't actually work like you think it does.

How did it work then?

[Parkbandit]

It's fun watching you devolve into crotchety senility. I hope you stick around for a long time :)

I just know the type of person you are... and it's very unlikely we would be on the same side of a political issue.

You know that you are opposing President Obama, right? You might want to rethink your position... I would hate it if the IRS were to pay you a visit. Or the DOJ...

[Warriorbird]

Like I said before.. if someone like you are for it, using "save the Internet" as a rally cry.. I'm already against it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHash5takWU


IF YOU ARE AGAINST THIS BILL, YOU ARE AGAINST SMALL BUSINESS!

Let the hysteria commence.

It's funny when we've heard that how many Democratic bills are "against small business"?

[Parkbandit]

You're lining up with Latrin in the authority versus liberty camp right now, boosting massive corporations against everybody else. The free market needs support to stay that way.

TGO01 IS FOR WALL STREET NOT MAIN STREET!!!

[waywardgs]

I just know the type of person you are... and it's very unlikely we would be on the same side of a political issue.

You know that you are opposing President Obama, right? You might want to rethink your position... I would hate it if the IRS were to pay you a visit. Or the DOJ...

I absolutely understand that Obama is on the wrong side of this. Why are you all of a sudden his biggest fan? Just because you don't like a stranger on the internet? Is it because I'm mean to you? I'm sorry. Do you need a hanky to try your tears?

[Parkbandit]

It's funny when we've heard that how many Democratic bills are "against small business"?

Incorrect. I don't believe any politician is necessarily "against small business", it's just that they don't understand economics and that their legislation does have consequences down the line... normally that it hurts small businesses.

[Warriorbird]

TGO01 IS FOR WALL STREET NOT MAIN STREET!!!

Main street was meant to be people rather than small businesses. Good try though.

It's funny. The first Progressive Movement actually developed out of the government stupidly allowing too many corporations to crush out all competition.


Incorrect. I don't believe any politician is necessarily "against small business", it's just that they don't understand economics and that their legislation does have consequences down the line... normally that it hurts small businesses.

So you mean kind of like this regulatory action or lack of it?


What are the 2 small ones?

http://www.stewartcomputerservices.com/

Small

https://www.shentel.com/shentel

Smallish

[Parkbandit]

I absolutely understand that Obama is on the wrong side of this.

Racist.


Why are you all of a sudden his biggest fan?

Because a broken watch is right twice a day? He might actually have done SOMETHING right in 5 1/2 years.


Just because you don't like a stranger on the internet? Is it because I'm mean to you? I'm sorry. Do you need a hanky to try your tears?

What? I think you are over exaggerating your importance in anyone's life. No one cares about you. Stop posting tomorrow and no one would notice.

You are nothing to me at all but entertainment.

[Parkbandit]

Main street was meant to be people rather than small businesses. Good try though.

It's funny. The first Progressive Movement actually developed out of the government stupidly allowing too many corporations to crush out all competition.

Then I find it curious why someone with your Progressive lean would not welcome this.

It makes me believe that it's not what it seems to be...


So you mean kind of like this regulatory action or lack of it?

You are suddenly the small business knight in shining armor, ready to stand opposed to the Progressive government?

I must be on Bizzaro's home world...

[Warriorbird]

In fact, isn't this the type of thing that encourages businesses/people to be more efficient?

Again, let's look at evil Netflix again (which accounts for about 33% of internet usage in the US.) Maybe if Comcast was allowed to charge them more because they use more data then Netflix would seek ways to be more efficient so they wouldn't have to pay as much. In fact I'm pretty sure I even read a story once where Comcast wanted to start charging Netflix more but Netflix made a deal with Comcast promising to become more efficient.

It's just like if we made electricity free for everyone then no one would have any need to become more energy efficient so we just keep building more and more coal power plants. Netflix doesn't give a shit how inefficient they are because they aren't charged more for using more.

Let's just do away with all efficiency standards. Let's bring back the cars that get 9 miles per gallon. California in a drought? Simple solution. Make water free for everyone!

Obama! Obama! Obama!

I love it when I catch you guys using liberal authoritarian arguments. Way to Democrat it up, yo.


Then I find it curious why someone with your Progressive lean would not welcome this.

It makes me believe that it's not what it seems to be...

You are suddenly the small business knight in shining armor, ready to stand opposed to the Progressive government?

I must be on Bizzaro's home world...

This is an authoritarian pro big business action by the Obama Administration. Hardly Progressive.

While I think the complaining about ACA was overblown I certainly have enough skin in the game to care about small business and businesses that have to distribute content on the Internet. You might be surprised but not all Democrats want to squelch innovation and the free market. Shocking, right?

[Latrinsorm]

Like I said before.. if someone like you are for it, using "save the Internet" as a rally cry.. I'm already against it.Your position agrees with waywardgs', but because he's the one saying it you claim to disagree with him... as you agree with him.

It's like a Möbius strip of being absurd.

[waywardgs]

Racist.



Because a broken watch is right twice a day? He might actually have done SOMETHING right in 5 1/2 years.



What? I think you are over exaggerating your importance in anyone's life. No one cares about you. Stop posting tomorrow and no one would notice.

You are nothing to me at all but entertainment.
Apparently I'm important enough that you form opinions on things based solely on mine. Lol.

[Parkbandit]

Apparently I'm important enough that you form opinions on things based solely on mine. Lol.

If that stops the tears.. keep on thinking it.

[Parkbandit]

While I think the complaining about ACA was overblown I certainly have enough skin in the game to care about small business and businesses that have to distribute content on the Internet. You might be surprised but not all Democrats want to squelch innovation and the free market. Shocking, right?

My "affordable" care just went up 23% this past month... the biggest increase in the 9 years I've had this insurance.

[Tgo01]

I love it when I catch you guys using liberal authoritarian arguments. Way to Democrat it up, yo.

You keep saying things like that in this thread...in every political thread. "Obama is for this, you know?", "Republican are against this, you know?"

I form my own opinions. I don't rush out to see how a particular political figure feels then base my opinion on that. Obama and I happen to agree? Then maybe Obama finally got something right after almost 6 years, it was bound to happen eventually.

[waywardgs]

If that stops the tears.. keep on thinking it.



Like I said before.. if someone like you are for it, using "save the Internet" as a rally cry.. I'm already against it.


Tears of laughter :)

[Warriorbird]

You keep saying things like that in this thread...in every political thread. "Obama is for this, you know?", "Republican are against this, you know?"

I form my own opinions. I don't rush out to see how a particular political figure feels then base my opinion on that. Obama and I happen to agree? Then maybe Obama finally got something right after almost 6 years, it was bound to happen eventually.

So 'independent'! Saved for the next time you fail to.

[Tgo01]

So 'independent'! Saved for the next time you fail to.

"Next" time I fail to form my own opinion? That implies I've done it before. Examples, please!

[Warriorbird]

"Next" time I fail to form my own opinion? That implies I've done it before. Examples, please!

Linking all your conservative media does your thinking for you produced threads would be too tedious.

Consider this a bridge to the future.

[Tgo01]

Linking all your conservative media does your thinking for you produced threads would be too tedious.

Consider this a bridge to the future.

So...because I post a news story automatically means the news story made up my mind for me? That's deep, man.

[Warriorbird]

So...because I post a news story automatically means the news story made up my mind for me? That's deep, man.

You're sourcing your thinking to somebody else in this medium. Or Matt Drudge.

[Tgo01]

You're sourcing your thinking to somebody else in this medium.

Ohhhh....you're just making this up then :D

[Warriorbird]

Ohhhh....you're just making this up then :D

Am I? What we have to judge on is what you give.

[Tgo01]

Am I? What we have to judge on is what you give.

Well it's kind of hard to defend myself against "Any time you agree with a Republican it's because you base your opinions on what that Republican said."

I guess we could look at times when I agree with Democrats to counter your assertion...hey! I found the perfect thread.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?91331-FCC-and-Net-NEutrality

[Warriorbird]

Well it's kind of hard to defend myself against "Any time you agree with a Republican it's because you base your opinions on what that Republican said."

I guess we could look at times when I agree with Democrats to counter your assertion...hey! I found the perfect thread.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?91331-FCC-and-Net-NEutrality

Note me saying that this was you forming your own opinion. You linked no news articles to do your thinking for you. It's possible you got it from conservative talk radio or some handy talking points list from Comcast but I doubt it.

[Tgo01]

Note me saying that this was you forming your own opinion. You linked no news articles to do your thinking for you. It's possible you got it from conservative talk radio or some handy talking points list from Comcast but I doubt it.

As I said before that's pretty deep. So it's only my own opinion as long as I don't cite any news sources to back up my opinion? Or if I start the thread with a news story and base my opinion on that I've already lost because I'm the one who started the discussion?

This is impossible to win :(

[Warriorbird]

As I said before that's pretty deep. So it's only my own opinion as long as I don't cite any news sources to back up my opinion? Or if I start the thread with a news story and base my opinion on that I've already lost because I'm the one who started the discussion?

This is impossible to win :(

You could just state your own opinions rather than a news story link with no thought attached. Daring. Edgy.

[Tgo01]

You could just state your own opinions rather than a news story link with no thought attached. Daring. Edgy.

This is bordering absurd. So I can't post anything to back up my thoughts and opinions?

I think I'm going to start using your method of attack though.


This is probably why: http://www.vox.com/2014/4/6/5556462/brain-dead-how-politics-makes-us-stupid

(It's actually a great article. Probably deserves it's own thread.)

WHAT?! You linked to an article? I'm too lazy to read it so I'm just going to assume it's laced with liberal bias and say you only formed your opinion based on what that article told you to think.

[Warriorbird]

This is bordering absurd. So I can't post anything to back up my thoughts and opinions?

I think I'm going to start using your method of attack though.



WHAT?! You linked to an article? I'm too lazy to read it so I'm just going to assume it's laced with liberal bias and say you only formed your opinion based on what that article told you to think.

You start with an article and you're not backing up your thoughts and opinions. You're giving somebody else's.

Multiple people already went OMG LIBERAL BIAS related to that link in this thread too.

[Tgo01]

Multiple people already went OMG LIBERAL BIAS related to that link in this thread too.

So I was right?

Damn I'm good.

[Warriorbird]

So I was right?

Damn I'm good.

Thanks for making my point for me.

[Tgo01]

Thanks for making my point for me.

What point do you think I made for you?

There is a world of difference between someone linking to an obviously biased article and saying someone is incapable of forming their own opinion and instead let an article form their opinion for them.

[Warriorbird]

What point do you think I made for you?

There is a world of difference between someone linking to an obviously biased article and saying someone is incapable of forming their own opinion and instead let an article form their opinion for them.

Really? So what would you say about somebody linking to a biased article with minimal discussion or explanation of their POV? This is not "post(ing) anything to back up (your) thoughts and opinions."

[Tgo01]

Really? So what would you say about somebody linking to a biased article with minimal discussion or explanation of their POV? This is not "post(ing) anything to back up (your) thoughts and opinions."

This is pretty amusing because 99% of my news links are to HuffPost, quite possibly the biggest liberal "news" organization the planet has ever known, yet I'm getting all of my opinions from news articles.

We are also still in the "what if" zone because you have yet to provide any examples to anything you are claiming I do.

[Warriorbird]

This is pretty amusing because 99% of my news links are to HuffPost, quite possibly the biggest liberal "news" organization the planet has ever known, yet I'm getting all of my opinions from news articles.

We are also still in the "what if" zone because you have yet to provide any examples to anything you are claiming I do.

You really don't want to go that route. A number of the non obviously conservative one could be the result of aggregators (or you really do enjoy AOL and Huffington Post, which'd make you the Antrichrist). I politely excluded those ones and threads where you seemed to have some sort of original contribution, though a lot appear to be linked in conservative media. It'd be even funnier if one could Google the titles and find the aggregator posts.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?91301-Parade-float&highlight=
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?91163-Obama-administration-sues-company-for-English-requirement&highlight=
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?90994-Supreme-Court-unanimously-votes-that-Obama-is-an-ass&highlight=
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?90283-Black-GOP-delegate-putting-smack-down-on-white-racist-Democrat&highlight=
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?87733-Mocking-black-children-in-white-families-is-funny!&highlight=

Here's an example of you not failing it up

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?77814-14th-amendment-and-the-debt-ceiling

Funny in retrospect, seeing how much you go there

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?65842-Obama-owned-by-Huffington-Post&highlight=

[Tgo01]

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?91301-Parade-float&highlight=

There was no opinion made in that article. The article was about as unbiased as you can get; it was just stating the facts of the case. Not only that I made several posts in that thread talking about the issue at hand.


http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?90994-Supreme-Court-unanimously-votes-that-Obama-is-an-ass&highlight=

A) AOL/Huffington Post link. B) All I did was state facts. Holy heck. Stating facts now is biased?


http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?90283-Black-GOP-delegate-putting-smack-down-on-white-racist-Democrat&highlight=

How am I supposed to have an opinion on such an isolated incident without providing the news story?

This is like me trying to explain to everyone about what happened to a neighbor of mine and expecting everyone to know what I'm talking about.


http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?87733-Mocking-black-children-in-white-families-is-funny!&highlight=

Same as above. Did you literally just find threads of mine where I linked to stories not from HuffPost sources and you think this made your case? :/

[Warriorbird]

There was no opinion made in that article. The article was about as unbiased as you can get; it was just stating the facts of the case. Not only that I made several posts in that thread talking about the issue at hand.



A) AOL/Huffington Post link. B) All I did was state facts. Holy heck. Stating facts now is biased?



How am I supposed to have an opinion on such an isolated incident without providing the news story?

This is like me trying to explain to everyone about what happened to a neighbor of mine and expecting everyone to know what I'm talking about.



Same as above. Did you literally just find threads of mine where I linked to stories not from HuffPost sources and you think this made your case? :/

1. Washington Times. Lol. I note you downplaying the video link which is hardly opinion free.
2. You used no thought. None. I carefully looked for some actual thoughts from you. There were none.
3. Daily Caller? Lol. You're sourcing a political blog for ginned up outrage. No thought.
4. Fox News. Lol. No thought at all.

I still haven't found what aggregator you use for Huffington Post/AOL. I don't believe you honestly enjoy either.

[Tgo01]

1. Washington Times. Lol. I note you downplaying the video link which is hardly opinion free.

I didn't watch nor link to the video.

Also what I said was there was no opinion provided in the article I provided; and there wasn't.

Here is the article I quoted again; please point out the opinion provided in the article:


The U.S. Department of Justice has sent a member of its Community Relations Service team to investigate a Nebraska parade float that criticized President Obama.

A Fourth of July parade float featured at the annual Independence Day parade in Norfolk sparked criticism when it depicted a zombie-like figure resembling Mr. Obama standing outside an outhouse, which was labeled the “Obama Presidential Library.”
The Nebraska Democratic Party called the float one of the “worst shows of racism and disrespect for the office of the presidency that Nebraska has ever seen.”

The Omaha World-Herald reported Friday that the Department of Justice sent a CRS member who handles discrimination disputes to a Thursday meeting about the issue.

Also at the meeting were the NAACP, Norfolk mayor Sue Fuchtman and the Norfolk Odd Fellows, which coordinated the parade.

The float’s creator, Dale Remmich, has said the mannequin depicted himself, not President Obama. He said he is upset with the president’s handling of the Veterans Affairs Department, the World-Herald reported.

“Looking at the float, that message absolutely did not come through,” said NAACP chapter president Betty C. Andrews.


2. You used no thought. None. I carefully looked for some actual thoughts from you. There were none.

There was no thought required. Obama thought he made the law. SCOTUS said "No you don't." What more is there to be said?


3. Daily Caller? Lol. You're sourcing a political blog for ginned up outrage. No thought.

Uh? It happened. You can pretend it didn't happen, that seems to be what you do best when Democrats make asses of themselves, but it still happened. Does it matter where I sourced it from? That's a nifty Catch 22 you got going there. If a liberal media source didn't report on it then it didn't happen.


4. Fox News. Lol. No thought at all.

Same as above. "Well MSNBC didn't report on what a bunch of racist assholes those people on MSNBC were so it never happened!"


I still haven't found what aggregator you use for Huffington Post/AOL. I don't believe you honestly enjoy either.

Actually I purposefully get most of my news from HuffPost. I like to get my news from a site that usually holds views opposite of my own. I know! Crazy, huh? I should just build my own echo chamber in my house so I never have to hear dissenting opinions ever again!

Also, I would like to point out that I'm 99.99% sure I got that Fox news link from HuffPost. Believe it or not HuffPost sometimes links to Fox News.

[Tenlaar]

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/42/4256614c1f092b8e5818bf6d0459407c7c8ec357b2be4aad61 c1157b427638b0.jpg

[Warriorbird]

Sadly I'm just sort of put off by somebody honestly liking Huffington Post and AOL News.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/bb1ef5d2fd0d47c4c5e6fc4a5474a345/tumblr_mpsd1oCp1C1qix8i5o1_500.gif

[Parkbandit]

In a surprise move late Friday, a key Democrat on the Federal Election Commission called for burdensome new rules on Internet-based campaigning, prompting the Republican chairman to warn that Democrats want to regulate online political sites and even news media like the Drudge Report.


Democratic FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel announced plans to begin the process to win regulations on Internet-based campaigns and videos, currently free from most of the FEC’s rules. “A reexamination of the commission’s approach to the internet and other emerging technologies is long over due,” she said.


The power play followed a deadlocked 3-3 vote on whether an Ohio anti-President Obama Internet campaign featuring two videos violated FEC rules when it did not report its finances or offer a disclosure on the ads. The ads were placed for free on YouTube and were not paid advertising.

Under a 2006 FEC rule, free political videos and advocacy sites have been free of regulation in a bid to boost voter participation in politics. Only Internet videos that are placed for a fee on websites, such as the Washington Examiner, are regulated just like normal TV ads.


Ravel’s statement suggests that she would regulate right-leaning groups like America Rising that posts anti-Democrat YouTube videos on its website.


FEC Chairman Lee E. Goodman, a Republican, said if regulation extends that far, then anybody who writes a political blog, runs a politically active news site or even chat room could be regulated. He added that funny internet campaigns like “Obama Girl,” and “Jib Jab” would also face regulations.


“I told you this was coming,” he told Secrets. Earlier this year he warned that Democrats on the panel were gunning for conservative Internet sites like the Drudge Report.


RELATED: FEC chair warns that conservative media face regulation-like PACs


Ravel plans to hold meetings next year to discuss regulating the internet. She charged that groups placing paid TV ads use the FEC exemption to disseminate similar messages on the internet, regulation free. But Goodman says that Ravel misconceives the exemption. If the same message that is run on TV also is posted online, it is regulated, he said. The Internet exemption applies only to videos posted for free, solely on the Internet.


Blasting the exemption, she said, “Since its inception this effort to protect individual bloggers and online commentators has been stretched to cover slickly-produced ads aired solely on the Internet but paid for by the same organizations and the same large contributors as the actual ads aired on TV,” Ravel argued.


Goodman and the two other Republicans on the evenly split agency argued in a statement that regulations would chill politics on the Internet.


The trio noted that the goal of setting aside regulations to let the Internet blossom is working and shouldn’t be tampered with.


“This freedom has gained wide acceptance, as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands of political videos, websites, blogs and other social media posted on the Internet without so much as an inquiry by the Commission,” they wrote.


“Regrettably, the 3-to-3 vote in this matter suggests a desire to retreat from these important protections for online political speech — a shift in course that could threaten the continued development of the Internet's virtual free marketplace of political ideas and democratic debate,” they concluded.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dems-on-fec-move-to-regulate-internet-campaigns-blogs-drudge/article/2555270

Just the first step... and yes, I realize it's the FEC not the FCC.. but it's a process.

[Latrinsorm]

Just the first step... and yes, I realize it's the FEC not the FCC.. but it's a process.First step towards what? The whole reason people are talking to the FCC about net neutrality is because it has nothing to do with political parties but access and price. That communication specific to politics is already regulated in other media, Vice Chair Ravel is merely suggesting that same political speech be regulated on the Internet.

[Warriorbird]

This should be a different thread.

[Parkbandit]

This should be a different thread.

I disagree.. which is why I put it in this thread.

[Warriorbird]

I disagree.. which is why I put it in this thread.

A dispute (involving the FCC) over whether ISPs should be able to charge companies for priority (which features both parties on both sides) is a lot different than a dispute between Democrats and Republicans about the FEC. Sort of baffling that you can't see that, but I guess it shows a lack of a real grasp of the first issue for more "OBAMA!111!!"

[Gelston]

A dispute (involving the FCC) over whether ISPs should be able to charge companies for priority (which features both parties on both sides) is a lot different than a dispute between Democrats and Republicans about the FEC. Sort of baffling that you can't see that, but I guess it shows a lack of a real grasp of the first issue for more "OBAMA!111!!"

Obama created Ebola to try and look like a President who led the nation through a deadly disaster. Where is his dad from? AFRICA.

Conspiracy exposed.

[Vorpos]

Sadly I'm just sort of put off by somebody honestly liking Huffington Post and AOL News.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/bb1ef5d2fd0d47c4c5e6fc4a5474a345/tumblr_mpsd1oCp1C1qix8i5o1_500.gif

That's hilarious coming from a daily kossack.

[Warriorbird]

That's hilarious coming from a daily kossack.

Been quite a while since I posted there/read there. With that said, there's a big difference between sites that create original content (yet have a particular political bias) and sites that shamelessly function off other people's work and redirects. I think even you can understand that.

[Parkbandit]

he Federal Communications Commission is in the middle of a high-stakes decision that could raise taxes for close to 90 percent of Americans. The commission is considering whether to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service and, in doing so, Washington would trigger new taxes and fees at the state and local level.


The agency would like to make Internet service a public utility, placing broadband under Title II regulation of the Communications Act of 1934. This move would make broadband subject to New Deal-era regulation, and have significant consequences for U.S. taxpayers.


Under this decision to reclassify broadband, Americans would face a host of new state and local taxes and fees that apply to public utilities. These new levies, according to the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), would total $15 billion annually. On average, consumers would pay an additional $67 for landline broadband, and $72 for mobile broadband each year, according to PPI’s calculations, with charges varying from state to state.

Proponents of broadband reclassification, including the left-of-center organization Free Press, claim that it would not result in higher taxes or fees. The recently extended Internet Tax Freedom Act, they assert, prohibits state and local taxation of Internet service. This is incorrect, however. The act does not apply to telecom-related fees.


Free Press and other broadband reclassification proponents also say the new taxes and fees can be prevented if the FCC designates broadband as an interstate service. A Progressive Policy Institute report explains why this also is incorrect:


“When the Commission previously considered the jurisdiction of Internet traffic, it determined that such traffic was ‘largely interstate,’ but ‘jurisdictionally mixed.’ States routinely tax jurisdictionally mixed services that are classified as ‘interstate’ for purposes of regulation. For example, wireless services may not be regulated by state public utility commissions, but they are subject to a host of state and local taxes and fees. In several states, interstate wireless revenues are subject to taxation.”


Late last year, President Barack Obama waded into this contentious debate. He called for the Internet to be treated like a public utility. Critics of Obama’s position point out this would reduce investment in infrastructure and lead to inferior service for consumers. Reclassifying broadband as a telecommunications service would also stifle innovation and restrict the openness of the Internet.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/01/05/treating-internet-like-a-public-utility-brings-a-new-tax-for-the-new-year/

[Parkbandit]

Been quite a while since I posted there/read there. With that said, there's a big difference between sites that create original content (yet have a particular political bias) and sites that shamelessly function off other people's work and redirects. I think even you can understand that.

I don't think you understand how Internet links work. "Shamelessly function off other people's work and redirects" is the way those sites get most of their traffic. More traffic = more ad revenue.

[Wrathbringer]

he Federal Communications Commission is in the middle of a high-stakes decision that could raise taxes for close to 90 percent of Americans. The commission is considering whether to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service and, in doing so, Washington would trigger new taxes and fees at the state and local level.


The agency would like to make Internet service a public utility, placing broadband under Title II regulation of the Communications Act of 1934. This move would make broadband subject to New Deal-era regulation, and have significant consequences for U.S. taxpayers.


Under this decision to reclassify broadband, Americans would face a host of new state and local taxes and fees that apply to public utilities. These new levies, according to the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), would total $15 billion annually. On average, consumers would pay an additional $67 for landline broadband, and $72 for mobile broadband each year, according to PPI’s calculations, with charges varying from state to state.

Proponents of broadband reclassification, including the left-of-center organization Free Press, claim that it would not result in higher taxes or fees. The recently extended Internet Tax Freedom Act, they assert, prohibits state and local taxation of Internet service. This is incorrect, however. The act does not apply to telecom-related fees.


Free Press and other broadband reclassification proponents also say the new taxes and fees can be prevented if the FCC designates broadband as an interstate service. A Progressive Policy Institute report explains why this also is incorrect:


“When the Commission previously considered the jurisdiction of Internet traffic, it determined that such traffic was ‘largely interstate,’ but ‘jurisdictionally mixed.’ States routinely tax jurisdictionally mixed services that are classified as ‘interstate’ for purposes of regulation. For example, wireless services may not be regulated by state public utility commissions, but they are subject to a host of state and local taxes and fees. In several states, interstate wireless revenues are subject to taxation.”


Late last year, President Barack Obama waded into this contentious debate. He called for the Internet to be treated like a public utility. Critics of Obama’s position point out this would reduce investment in infrastructure and lead to inferior service for consumers. Reclassifying broadband as a telecommunications service would also stifle innovation and restrict the openness of the Internet.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/01/05/treating-internet-like-a-public-utility-brings-a-new-tax-for-the-new-year/

Nickel and dimeing us to the poor house. Well, not me, of course. I'll just go back to piggybacking my neighbors and save $50 a month. Thanks obummer!

[Latrinsorm]

he Federal Communications Commission is in the middle of a high-stakes decision that could raise taxes for close to 90 percent of Americans. The commission is considering whether to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service and, in doing so, Washington would trigger new taxes and fees at the state and local level.


The agency would like to make Internet service a public utility, placing broadband under Title II regulation of the Communications Act of 1934. This move would make broadband subject to New Deal-era regulation, and have significant consequences for U.S. taxpayers.


Under this decision to reclassify broadband, Americans would face a host of new state and local taxes and fees that apply to public utilities. These new levies, according to the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), would total $15 billion annually. On average, consumers would pay an additional $67 for landline broadband, and $72 for mobile broadband each year, according to PPI’s calculations, with charges varying from state to state.

Proponents of broadband reclassification, including the left-of-center organization Free Press, claim that it would not result in higher taxes or fees. The recently extended Internet Tax Freedom Act, they assert, prohibits state and local taxation of Internet service. This is incorrect, however. The act does not apply to telecom-related fees.


Free Press and other broadband reclassification proponents also say the new taxes and fees can be prevented if the FCC designates broadband as an interstate service. A Progressive Policy Institute report explains why this also is incorrect:


“When the Commission previously considered the jurisdiction of Internet traffic, it determined that such traffic was ‘largely interstate,’ but ‘jurisdictionally mixed.’ States routinely tax jurisdictionally mixed services that are classified as ‘interstate’ for purposes of regulation. For example, wireless services may not be regulated by state public utility commissions, but they are subject to a host of state and local taxes and fees. In several states, interstate wireless revenues are subject to taxation.”


Late last year, President Barack Obama waded into this contentious debate. He called for the Internet to be treated like a public utility. Critics of Obama’s position point out this would reduce investment in infrastructure and lead to inferior service for consumers. Reclassifying broadband as a telecommunications service would also stifle innovation and restrict the openness of the Internet.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/01/05/treating-internet-like-a-public-utility-brings-a-new-tax-for-the-new-year/That's great, except the actual law (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105publ277/pdf/PLAW-105publ277.pdf) says "No State or political subdivision thereof shall impose any taxes on Internet access", and goes on to state Internet access means "a service that enables users to access content, information, electronic mail, or other services offered over the Internet". Do you check up on this stuff at all? Doesn't it bother you to get led around by the nose?

[Daragon]

That's great, except the actual law (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105publ277/pdf/PLAW-105publ277.pdf) says "No State or political subdivision thereof shall impose any taxes on Internet access", and goes on to state Internet access means "a service that enables users to access content, information, electronic mail, or other services offered over the Internet". Do you check up on this stuff at all? Doesn't it bother you to get led around by the nose?

What she said. Bigger point is that Net Neutrality is something this country needs it helps to keep the internet free flowing with information. On top of that it ensures that all people get equal access rather than just a select few rich bastards getting the most access.

[Tgo01]

Doesn't it bother you to get led around by the nose?

Says Mr. Psychosis.

[Daragon]

Says Mr. Psychosis.

You get your GM position yet Tgo?
Just wondering how long til we can troll you like you do the GMs :)

[Tgo01]

You get your GM position yet Tgo?
Just wondering how long til we can troll you like you do the GMs :)

Soon young one. Soon.

[Jeril]

You get your GM position yet Tgo?
Just wondering how long til we can troll you like you do the GMs :)

If you aren't trolling Tgo yet anyway, you are doing it wrong.

[Tgo01]

If you aren't trolling Tgo yet anyway, you are doing it wrong.

Exactly.

Hey wait :(

[Gelston]

What she said. Bigger point is that Net Neutrality is something this country needs it helps to keep the internet free flowing with information. On top of that it ensures that all people get equal access rather than just a select few rich bastards getting the most access.

I bet you just made Latrin's penis hard by calling him a she.

[Tgo01]

There has to be a reason everyone thinks Latrin is a chick. Have you been leading men on, Latrin?

[Androidpk]

It's the socks and mascara.

[Showal]

Or his involvement in the princess tryouts

[waywardgs]

http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/4/7977569/its-official-the-fcc-will-seek-to-reclassify-the-internet-as-a-utility

Net neutrality wins: the FCC will propose strong Title II regulation


Today, in a statement given to Wired, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler revealed his plan to reclassify ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Telcommunications Act. It's a striking victory for net neutrality advocates who have been fighting for years to solidify internet protections using Title II authority — and it's the first time the FCC has shown enough backbone to draw a line in the sand against companies like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon, who are sure to fight viciously in courts to reverse this action.

"I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC," Wheeler wrote. "These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services."

""My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want.""

The biggest revelation from the proposal is the decision to lump wireless networks in with wired broadband, something the FCC has avoided doing for years thanks to enormous pressure from Verizon and AT&T. "I propose to fully apply — for the first time ever — those bright-line rules to mobile broadband," Wheeler wrote. "My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone's permission." Including wireless providers in the rules is a hugely important move, since we've seen that the biggest players have been willing and able to abuse internet openness. AT&T once blocked FaceTime for completely arbitrary reasons, and most recently, T-Mobile has disregarded the principles of net neutrality by giving some music companies special exemptions from data caps.

Wheeler specifically calls out AT&T in his statement as justification for the kind of regulation the FCC now seeks, noting that the internet as we know it wouldn't exist if the commission had not established open access rules in the 1960s. "Before then, AT&T prohibited anyone from attaching non-AT&T equipment to the network," Wheeler wrote. "The modems that enabled the internet were usable only because the FCC required the network to be open."

""The modems that enabled the internet were usable only because the FCC required the network to be open.""

The FCC has tried to establish rules for net neutrality for more than a decade. In 2002, instead of using the strong authority granted under Title II of the revised Telecommunications Act, the FCC caved to the ISPs and instead classified them as Title I "information service providers." Then, the FCC tried to regulate ISPs like Title II common carriers anyway, forcing federal courts to side with ISPs who accused the FCC of going beyond its authority.

But even though the FCC has been shot down in court for shoehorning open internet rules under Title I, the government has shown sympathy for net neutrality regulation; the judge in the Verizon case noted that "broadband providers represent a threat to internet openness." With the death of net neutrality in that ruling, it also appeared the FCC would be a threat to internet openness. As it began to consider a new plan after its defeat, Wheeler suggested last year that the commission would consider allowing ISPs to sell "fast lanes." But after a huge public outcry that included a total of 3.7 million comments sent to the FCC on net neutrality, the commission is set to seek stronger protections.

The chairman's proposal was expected to be circulated to commissioners tomorrow, but Wheeler got ahead of it today by detailing his plan. "After more than a decade of debate and a record-setting proceeding that attracted nearly 4 million public comments," Wheeler wrote, "the time to settle the net neutrality question has arrived."

"Welcome to World War III"

The proposal still needs to be voted on by the FCC on February 26th, but with only two Republican opponents on the five member commission it faces no serious threat of failure internally. Congress, on the other hand, may attempt to undermine the FCC's authority with legislation.

There's also still a lot of important information we don't have yet about how Title II will be implemented, though the proposal is still likely to be leaked soon. When it does, we'll find out exactly how the FCC plans to "modernize" use of the authority, including which provisions it will forbear — a necessary step to make sure ISPs aren't saddled with rules that make no sense for the internet.

So that's it. After more than a decade of using the wrong words to protect net neutrality, the FCC is using the right ones. And with the telecommunications giants already revealing their legal strategy to fight it, former FCC Chairman Michael Powell's warning that reclassification would result in "World War III" is looking prescient. A new battle begins.

[Gelston]

Hooray. Lawsuit time.

[ClydeR]

If Obama regulates the internet as a utility, then Google and other fiber network providers will be able to use existing utility poles. I think they should have to put up their own separate utility poles.


In part, that silence reflects Google’s growing portfolio of businesses, which have given the Internet giant conflicting interests in the debate over “net neutrality.” In particular, Google is now a broadband provider itself, through its Fiber service in Kansas City, and plans to offer its own wireless service.

Google has supported the equal treatment of Internet traffic, but has been quieter on whether broadband providers should be regulated under Title II as telecommunications utilities. Wednesday, a Google spokeswoman declined to comment on Wheeler’s proposal.

Google did offer a rare public comment in late December, when the company said that if Google Fiber is regulated as a telecom service, it should get access to utility poles and other infrastructure owned by utilities.

On this point, Google got what it wanted. Wheeler said his proposal “ensures fair access” to utility poles and other infrastructure, “which would boost the deployment of new broadband networks.”

More... (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/02/05/google-and-net-neutrality-its-complicated/)

[Gelston]

If Obama regulates the internet as a utility, then Google and other fiber network providers will be able to use existing utility poles. I think they should have to put up their own separate utility poles.

No you don't.

[ClydeR]

No you don't.

You don't really understand what you're arguing for. Those poles belong to private companies, not to the public. Utility companies spent lots of money to put up those poles. Forcing them to let Google use poles owned by the utility company is just stealing. Stealing poles!

[Gelston]

You don't really understand what you're arguing for. Those poles belong to private companies, not to the public. Utility companies spent lots of money to put up those poles. Forcing them to let Google use poles owned by the utility company is just stealing. Stealing poles!

No.

[~Rocktar~]

Now see, I would be against more crap hanging from poles and being more vulnerable to weather damage, vandalism and accidents. Also, public utility poles are shared access, it's why the phone company, cable company and power company can all use the same pole in almost all circumstances.

[Parkbandit]

I wish to educate myself on this bill called "Net Neutrality". Does anyone have a site where I can view all 332 pages of this new government takeover of the Internet? I can only seem to get like a 4 page "summary", which really doesn't tell me much.

[Warriorbird]

If only that were actually true.

[Parkbandit]

If only that were actually true.


I don't get it. I thought my request was a simple one... didn't realize it was that difficult to understand.

[Gelston]

It will be released after the commission votes. Not that it matters, it is a commission vote, not a Congressional one.

[Latrinsorm]

I wish to educate myself on this bill called "Net Neutrality". Does anyone have a site where I can view all 332 pages of this new government takeover of the Internet? I can only seem to get like a 4 page "summary", which really doesn't tell me much.All bills are publicly available on Internet (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/Browse.php?n=bills&c=114). What you are referring to is a plan proposed by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. Like many (most? all?) proposals of the executive branch, the details are not made available to the public as a matter of course, but once the proposal is enacted it is available for your perusal in the Code of Federal Regulations (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR).

[Parkbandit]

Billionaire investor and ABC “Shark Tank” star Mark Cuban unloaded on the Federal Communications Commission’s plan to fundamentally change how it oversees the open Internet.


“That will fuck everything up,” said the voluble Cuban in remarks Wednesday at the Code/Media conference at The Ritz-Carlton, Laguna Niguel, Calif.


In early February, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler proposed tough new rules for Internet lines that would prohibit wired and wireless broadband providers from collecting payment to cut to the front of the line, or blocking and throttling lawful content and services.


Cuban said this bid to significantly expand the agency’s authority to regulate broadband providers is nothing more than an attack on giant media companies like Comcast*.


“Net neutrality is just a demonization of big companies,” Cuban said.


Cuban, who parlayed his windfall from the 1999 sale of Broadcast.com to Yahoo into an array of ventures that include the NBA’s Dallas Mavericks, AXS TV and the Landmark Theatres chain, said there is no evidence (beyond an isolated 2008 case) that Internet providers have throttled access to certain websites.


The executive dismissed Netflix’s claims that subscribers endured slower speeds until the company paid Comcast for direct access to the Internet provider’s broadband network. Comcast claimed that Netflix had used an inferior middleman to deliver video to Comcast’s network.


“It’s a battle between two fairly large companies,” Cuban said. “[They] worked it out, just like happens in business every day.”


Cuban said he does not want a group of political appointees at the FCC regulating the Internet.


“Having them overseeing the Internet scares the shit out of me,” Cuban said.


However, he said he would have no objection to Congress passing a law specifying that Internet providers can’t discriminate against or block legal websites.


http://recode.net/2015/02/18/billionaire-mark-cuban-says-net-neutrality-will-fuck-everything-up/

[Androidpk]

What a tool.

[Fallen]

Well if Mark Cuban is saying Net Neutrality is unfair to Comcast than that just changes everything.

[Parkbandit]

Well if Mark Cuban is saying Net Neutrality is unfair to Comcast than that just changes everything.

That's not what he is saying. At all.

He's saying that the reason this is even an "issue" is because of the dispute between Netflix and Comcast... and it eventually got squared away.. like most disputes between 2 big companies.

He also said "However, he said he would have no objection to Congress passing a law specifying that Internet providers can’t discriminate against or block legal websites.", which is the basis for "Net Neutrality" to begin with, isn't it?

[Parkbandit]

What a tool.

I will defer to your expertise and experience on the subject.

[Parkbandit]

Last Wednesday, a number of popular websites including Reddit, Netflix, and Twitter participated in Internet Slowdown Day, intentionally slowing down service on their platforms to protest the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) proposed draft of their new “open Internet” rules. The companies feel that the proposed regulations abandon the FCC’s former resolution to enforce net neutrality — leaving millions of Americans asking one question: “What is net neutrality again?”

Let’s break down this wonky issue down.

What is net neturality?

Net neutrality is the principle that all traffic on the internet should be treated equally, and internet service provers (ISP) should give no preference to certain traffic over the others.
That sounds reasonable. So, why do libertarians and conservatives oppose it?

We oppose it because, quite frankly, not all traffic is created equal. In fact, treating traffic differently could be extremely beneficial for consumers. Netflix and YouTube account for half of all peak-hour download traffic in the United States, for example, often leading to slow buffering speeds. Remember how bad House of Cards lagged when its second season debuted? In a world without net neutrality, ISPs can strike deals with heavy bandwidth consumers for customers to gain faster access to their websites — a win for all parties involved.

Has the government ever tried to enforce net neutrality?

Yes. The FCC imposed an Open Internet Order in December 2010, requiring ISP’s to abide by net neutrality, but the order was struck down by the DC Circut Court of Appeals in January of this year. Here’s where it gets wonky. The FCC lost its case because the Open Internet order saddled many of the same regulations that other telecommunication services such as landlines have to abide by — what are called “common carriers” in tech policy lingo. The problem is that the Communications Act of 1934 expressly states that a “telecommunications carrier shall be treated as a common carrier… only to the extent that it is engaged in providing telecommunications services.” Since the internet is not a telephone or telegraph, the court ruled that it cannot be subject ISPs to the same regulations as the phone company, thereby ending net neutrality in the US.

So, is that what all this Internet Slowdown Day fuss is all about?

Yes. Since the court ruling, the FCC has proposed a new, modified Open Internet rule that it claims complies with the court ruling while enforcing some of the principles of net neutrality. In short, the proposed new rule allows for ISPs to strike deals with companies like Netflix to provide customers with faster streaming but simultaneously bans ISPs from slowing down service to other websites. So, ISPs can provide faster service than normal but not slower service.

Isn’t that still picking winners and losers?

That’s certainly the talking point that the Left is pushing, and it’s true to the extent that the proposed rule would not actually be net neutrality. However, enforcing a one-size-fits-all policy on an internet service market with ever-increasing customers is a recipe for regulatory disaster. ISPs should compete to provide their customers the fastest connection possible to their favorite websites, not be saddled down with government regulation. Sine when has government regulation made anything more efficient?

But, couldn’t a lack of net neutrality lead to ISPs charging customers more for the amount of data they use like cell phone plans?

Perhaps, but probably not. Most ISPs, like AT&T and Verizon, have already pledged not to since doing so would be wildly unpopular. Even if an ISP chose charge-by-data usage, it wouldn’t be the end of the world. In fact, it could be beneficial for people who barely use the Internet — like the elderly — by saving them money. Meanwhile, people who choose to stick to a single-price monthly plan with unlimited data would still have options with ISPs willing to provide the service. That’s how markets work, and that’s why the Internet has remained so cheap, deregulated, and awesome since its foundation. Indeed, if there’s one example in modern times that unquestionably proves that freedom works, it’s the World Wide Web.

That’s true, the Internet works pretty well as is.

Precisely, which is why the government shouldn’t try to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. Please sign the petition at www.StopInternetRegulation.org to send public comments to the FCC before the September 15th deadline.


Read more at http://rare.us/story/what-the-government-wants-to-do-with-the-internet-may-kill-whats-great-about-it/#BzhitgdcIO280Wds.99

[Warriorbird]

Well if Mark Cuban is saying Net Neutrality is unfair to Comcast than that just changes everything.

I always feel that people with conflicts of interest in a situation are exactly the ones to trust.

[Parkbandit]

http://www.pageonekentucky.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/paulinternet.jpg

[Parkbandit]

I always feel that people with conflicts of interest in a situation are exactly the ones to trust.

What's Cuban's conflict of interest?

What's Rand Paul's conflict of interest?

[Parkbandit]

"Let me be clear: I support net neutrality," Reid wrote in a letter Monday (http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Reid-Letter.pdf) to progressive online groups. "I will lead the fight to protect any Open Internet rules promulgated by the FCC against the inevitable Republican attack against such rules."

I thought Dirty Harry was against it?

[Warriorbird]

He has been for a while. Lot of powerful digital media interests have their hands on him. Curious.

[Parkbandit]

He has been for a while. Lot of powerful digital media interests have their hands on him. Curious.

So.. the players are the players as usual. Big government liberals want this and conservatives don't.

I knew it would end up like this.. months ago. Looks like I knew which side to fall on, despite "OMG U R SIDING WITH HARRY REID AND OBAMA!"

[Warriorbird]

I understand it's very important to you that ISPs be able to selectively throttle content. I bet this will be a huge benefit for small business owners everywhere.

[Thondalar]

If it's not broken, why fix it?

[Warriorbird]

If it's not broken, why fix it?

Do you like your non huge websites?

[Thondalar]

Do you like your non huge websites?

My what?

[Warriorbird]

My what?

Websites that aren't owned by major corporations. Do you enjoy them?

[Parkbandit]

I understand it's very important to you that ISPs be able to selectively throttle content. I bet this will be a huge benefit for small business owners everywhere.

So, your contention is that suddenly.. after 20 years of operation.. ISPs will suddenly start selectively throttling content on small businesses?

You're funny.

[Gelston]

So, your contention is that suddenly.. after 20 years of operation.. ISPs will suddenly start selectively throttling content on small businesses?

You're funny.

In the past, ISPs weren't making competing services.

[Warriorbird]

So, your contention is that suddenly.. after 20 years of operation.. ISPs will suddenly start selectively throttling content on small businesses?

You're funny.

With a bunch of Republicans to help out, anything is possible. They really care about small business.

[Thondalar]

Websites that aren't owned by major corporations. Do you enjoy them?

I've never bothered to look up who owns the websites I visit.

[Thondalar]

So, your contention is that suddenly.. after 20 years of operation.. ISPs will suddenly start selectively throttling content on small businesses?

You're funny.

That's how reform policy works. We don't wait for something to become a problem before we fix it. If we inadvertently create problems with such legislation, we'll just pass more legislation to fix those problems. It's worked great so far.

[Warriorbird]

That's how reform policy works. We don't wait for something to become a problem before we fix it. If we inadvertently create problems with such legislation, we'll just pass more legislation to fix those problems. It's worked great so far.

What usually happens is that people make some self serving decisions and mess stuff up for everyone. Sometimes it'd be nice to get there ahead of them.

[Wrathbringer]

With a bunch of Republicans to help out, anything is possible. They really care about small business.

So your view is based on paranoia. Very good. Anyone here with a valid pro legislation perspective, by chance?

[Warriorbird]

So your view is based on paranoia. Very good. Anyone here with a valid pro legislation perspective, by chance?

No. My view is based on the existing actions of the ISPs. As opposed to the very solid and super valid "Oh, that's already resolved, there's no problem here!" theory.

[Wrathbringer]

No. My view is based on the existing actions of the ISPs. As opposed to the very solid and super valid "Oh, that's already resolved, there's no problem here!" theory.

So point me to an unresolved problem that requires this legislation to fix, if you can?

[Warriorbird]

So point me to an unresolved problem that requires this legislation to fix, if you can?

There are quite a few. What establishment Republicans (and Harry Reid till he switched sides) were standing up for supporting is this.

Broadband providers blocking access to content, applications, and services.
Broadband providers imparing or degrading access to content, applications, and services.
Broadband providers favoring some traffic over others for cash or other considerations.

A lot of this is the product of prior deregulation. This is something that certain people fail to understand when they want to deregulate everything. It gets taken advantage of and people do self centered dumb stuff that damages us all.

Why Harry Reid may support it now is that these rules don't block these actions to "unlawful" content. So this would still allow people to shut down the Pirate Bay, porn sites, Wikileaks, and the like.

I think the Internet should be completely open still... but it'd be tough getting that supported by Congress and all the lobbyists.

The FCC has said they won't put creepy taxes and fees on, which is a good thing... but they also won't do unbundling, which helped make the early dialup Internet work so well.

I'd love to see the full set of rules. Lots of people would. The FCC isn't required to share, though, which makes any requests to "see the bill" kind of silly. It'd be great if they did before doing something so major though. They could do more.

[Parkbandit]

There are quite a few. What establishment Republicans (and Harry Reid till he switched sides) were standing up for supporting is this.

Broadband providers blocking access to content, applications, and services.
Broadband providers imparing or degrading access to content, applications, and services.
Broadband providers favoring some traffic over others for cash or other considerations.

I think he was talking about specifics.. not just "it could happen" type of talking points. Comcast and Netflix is the one I have found... and they figured it out on their own.


A lot of this is the product of prior deregulation. This is something that certain people fail to understand when they want to deregulate everything. It gets taken advantage of and people do self centered dumb stuff that damages us all.

Why Harry Reid may support it now is that these rules don't block these actions to "unlawful" content. So this would still allow people to shut down the Pirate Bay, porn sites, Wikileaks, and the like.

I think the Internet should be completely open still... but it'd be tough getting that supported by Congress and all the lobbyists.

The FCC has said they won't put creepy taxes and fees on, which is a good thing... but they also won't do unbundling, which helped make the early dialup Internet work so well.

I'd love to see the full set of rules. Lots of people would. The FCC isn't required to share, though, which makes any requests to "see the bill" kind of silly. It'd be great if they did before doing something so major though. They could do more.

So, the Internet is completely open still.. and this regulation will keep it so.. and won't have any additional fees or taxes put in place?

Hey, I found this fantastic piece of property in Florida I would like to sell you.

[Warriorbird]

So, the Internet is completely open still.. and this regulation will keep it so.. and won't have any additional fees or taxes put in place?

Hey, I found this fantastic piece of property in Florida I would like to sell you.

Extra money is extra money, whether it's paid towards ISPs or the government.

I do think that we agree that the text of the proposals should all be released beforehand. The Obama FCC has indeed proposed some horrible messes before (though largely the sort of thing you'd support.)

[Wrathbringer]

There are quite a few. What establishment Republicans (and Harry Reid till he switched sides) were standing up for supporting is this.

Broadband providers blocking access to content, applications, and services.
Broadband providers imparing or degrading access to content, applications, and services.
Broadband providers favoring some traffic over others for cash or other considerations.

A lot of this is the product of prior deregulation. This is something that certain people fail to understand when they want to deregulate everything. It gets taken advantage of and people do self centered dumb stuff that damages us all.

Why Harry Reid may support it now is that these rules don't block these actions to "unlawful" content. So this would still allow people to shut down the Pirate Bay, porn sites, Wikileaks, and the like.

I think the Internet should be completely open still... but it'd be tough getting that supported by Congress and all the lobbyists.

The FCC has said they won't put creepy taxes and fees on, which is a good thing... but they also won't do unbundling, which helped make the early dialup Internet work so well.

I'd love to see the full set of rules. Lots of people would. The FCC isn't required to share, though, which makes any requests to "see the bill" kind of silly. It'd be great if they did before doing something so major though. They could do more.

Not one? Okay. Anyone else?

[Warriorbird]

Not one? Okay. Anyone else?

Less than a second of Googling and you can find more.

[Wrathbringer]

Less than a second of Googling and you can find more.

More what? Shadows to jump at?

[Parkbandit]

Extra money is extra money, whether it's paid towards ISPs or the government.

I do think that we agree that the text of the proposals should all be released beforehand.

Absolutely.


The Obama FCC has indeed proposed some horrible messes before (though largely the sort of thing you'd support.)

You know me.. I'm a gigantic Obama fanboy. He's been awesome. Really.

[Androidpk]

I disagree with Rand Paul and that letter. Sometimes government regulation is needed and this is one of those times. It is also foolish of him to bring the free market into this. Comcast colluding with TWC and forming an oligopoly so they can keep rates high isn't a free market. Telecommunications companies lobbying against and fighting tooth and nail to keep competition away isn't a free market.

[Parkbandit]

Not one? Okay. Anyone else?

Comcast vs. Netflix. Netflix said Comcast was intentionally throttling them down and Comcast said it was the middleman that Netflix was using that was causing the lag. They worked it out.

BUT NOW WE NEED TO PUT GOVERNMENT IN CHARGE SO THIS WON'T EVER HAPPEN AGAIN EVER!!!!

[Androidpk]

Comcast vs. Netflix. Netflix said Comcast was intentionally throttling them down and Comcast said it was the middleman that Netflix was using that was causing the lag. They worked it out.

BUT NOW WE NEED TO PUT GOVERNMENT IN CHARGE SO THIS WON'T EVER HAPPEN AGAIN EVER!!!!

Except Comcast WAS throttling Netflix and it was proven by multiple people.

[Parkbandit]

I disagree with Rand Paul and that letter. Sometimes government regulation is needed and this is one of those times. It is also foolish of him to bring the free market into this. Comcast colluding with TWC and forming an oligopoly so they can keep rates high isn't a free market. Telecommunications companies lobbying against and fighting tooth and nail to keep competition away isn't a free market.

It's not a free market?

Here are the cable offerings I have at my house currently:

TimeWarner
Verizon
Dish
Directv

Given the enormous infrastructure costs, that's not too bad. These 4 companies compete in my area for each customer.

If monopolies are what you are attempting to avoid.. isn't that exactly what utilities are? Why would we want to turn the Internet into a utility?

And my favorite part is... the FCC won't start adding additional taxes on the Internet once they take it over..... right....

[Parkbandit]

Except Comcast WAS throttling Netflix and it was proven by multiple people.

And yet, they were able to work out their differences without government telling them what to do.

PS - Netflix and Youtube account for 50% of all traffic during peak times. I don't have a problem with them having to pay a little extra, given their enormous use of resources.

[Androidpk]

It's not a free market?

Here are the cable offerings I have at my house currently:

TimeWarner
Verizon
Dish
Directv

Given the enormous infrastructure costs, that's not too bad. These 4 companies compete in my area for each customer.

If monopolies are what you are attempting to avoid.. isn't that exactly what utilities are? Why would we want to turn the Internet into a utility?

And my favorite part is... the FCC won't start adding additional taxes on the Internet once they take it over..... right....

You have choices in your area. Good for you. You are in the minority.

[Parkbandit]

You have choices in your area. Good for you. You are in the minority.

You are 100% incorrect as usual.

Please tell me a spot in the US that there is only 1 choice.

Just one.

[Androidpk]

And yet, they were able to work out their differences without government telling them what to do.

PS - Netflix and Youtube account for 50% of all traffic during peak times. I don't have a problem with them having to pay a little extra, given their enormous use of resources.

Netflix paid because they were having their customers held hostage. Netflix is still for net neutrality for this very reason.

[Androidpk]

You are 100% incorrect as usual.

Please tell me a spot in the US that there is only 1 choice.

Just one.


http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20141207005344/ssb/images/thumb/6/60/Facepalm.png/479px-Facepalm.png

[Wrathbringer]

Netflix paid because they were having their customers held hostage. Netflix is still for net neutrality for this very reason.

They're for it because they know they're hogging resources and don't want to pay for that, I imagine.

[Parkbandit]

Netflix paid because they were having their customers held hostage. Netflix is still for net neutrality for this very reason.

Why wouldn't they be? They want to pay the same amount that everyone else does... but still using an enormous amounts of the same resources.

If I were them, I would be lobbying hard for Net Neutrality... oh wait, they are.

[Parkbandit]

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20141207005344/ssb/images/thumb/6/60/Facepalm.png/479px-Facepalm.png

As I thought.. you can't name a single spot.

It's ok. No one expected you to.

So, we can agree that ISPs can't be monopolies, just because there is always a competitor they have to deal with.

[Androidpk]

As I thought.. you can't name a single spot.

It's ok. No one expected you to.

So, we can agree that ISPs can't be monopolies, just because there is always a competitor they have to deal with.


No one expected me to? Who does that consist of beyond you and your imaginary friends. There are many places throughout the US where there is only 1 choice for broadband access. I can get comcast cable where I live. If I want another choice I can move.

[Parkbandit]

Oh wait.. I forgot to add some additional competitors in my area:

Hughesnet
Exede
Wildblue

[Parkbandit]

No one expected me to? Who does that consist of beyond you and your imaginary friends. There are many places throughout the US where there is only 1 choice for broadband access. I can get comcast cable where I live. If I want another choice I can move.

Sorry, I meant anyone intelligent that has heard about satellite broadband and knows how it works.

I just assumed that would be most people (except you) but you know there are equally ignorant people all over the place. How about I go back and edit that to say "no one intelligent"? Would that make you feel better?

[Androidpk]

Satellite "broadband"... :lol:

[Parkbandit]

Satellite "broadband"... :lol:

Hughesnet offers 15/2 currently.
Dish 10/2
Excede 12/3


I'm sorry if that isn't considered "broadband" enough for you.. but it actually is. Granted, if I spent 80% of my life in my room on the Internet.. I'd want something faster too.

[Androidpk]

Hughesnet offers 15/2 currently.
Dish 10/2
Excede 12/3


I'm sorry if that isn't considered "broadband" enough for you.. but it actually is. Granted, if I spent 80% of my life in my room on the Internet.. I'd want something faster too.

The definition of broadband is 25Mbps, Grandpa. Keep up with your amusing insults though. Lord knows they're the only thing going for you.

[Wrathbringer]

Satellite "broadband"... :lol:

Have to agree. Twc is the only horse in this town for cable bb, and every year they try to raise rates. I call, say no, they say okay, and my rates remain unchanged year after year. What a scam. Dsl sucks, directv sucks, Hughes sucks...cable is best, imo.

[Wrathbringer]

Have to agree. Twc is the only horse in this town for cable bb, and every year they try to raise rates. I call, say no, they say okay, and my rates remain unchanged year after year. What a scam. Dsl sucks, directv sucks, Hughes sucks...cable is best, imo.

pretty sure they're throttling pc, too.

[Parkbandit]

The definition of broadband is 25Mbps, Grandpa. Keep up with your amusing insults though. Lord knows they're the only thing going for you.

Yes, this just changed in January. So prior to January, you had multiple competitors and now you only have one.

And Net Neutrality will magically fix this? What happens when the satellite companies go up to 25Mbps? Oh, you'll once again have multiple vendors to choose from.

And where was the insult, little child? I was referring to your 80% bedroom/18% kitchen/2% out lifestyle, given to us by your ex-roommate.

[Androidpk]

Yes, this just changed in January. So prior to January, you had multiple competitors and now you only have one.

And Net Neutrality will magically fix this? What happens when the satellite companies go up to 25Mbps? Oh, you'll once again have multiple vendors to choose from.

And where was the insult, little child? I was referring to your 80% bedroom/18% kitchen/2% out lifestyle, given to us by your ex-roommate.

Wow, not even Latrin shifts goalposts that fast.

[Parkbandit]

Wow, not even Latrin shifts goalposts that fast.

Fact: Prior to 50 days ago, you had multiple vendors to select broadband ISP from.

Fact: Net Neutrality does nothing (that we have heard, given the FCC silence on the subject except they are going to save the Internet from big mean companies) to create competition.

Fact: You still have multiple vendors to select an Internet provider in your area.

[Wrathbringer]

Wow, not even Latrin shifts goalposts that fast.

Are you in favor of the bill, pk?

[AnticorRifling]

You are 100% incorrect as usual.

Please tell me a spot in the US that there is only 1 choice.

Just one.

My options are CenturyLink DSL. That's it. Satellite is not an option because of connectivity during bad weather. In order for me cover my on call support for customers I have to have up time so the only single option is CenturyLink.

[Wrathbringer]

My options are CenturyLink DSL. That's it. Satellite is not an option because of connectivity during bad weather. In order for me cover my on call support for customers I have to have up time so the only single option is CenturyLink.

You have other options, they just don't meet your self imposed business needs.

[Androidpk]

My options are CenturyLink DSL. That's it. Satellite is not an option because of connectivity during bad weather. In order for me cover my on call support for customers I have to have up time so the only single option is CenturyLink.

Even if satellite connectivity was reliable there is still the issue of piss poor latency.

[Parkbandit]

By Ajit Pai, Joshua Wright

If you like your wireless plan, you should be able to keep it. But new federal regulations may take away your freedom to choose the best broadband plan for you. It's all part of the federal government's 332-page plan to regulate the Internet like a public utility — a plan President Barack Obama asked the Federal Communications Commission to implement in November and that is coming up for a vote Feb. 26.


While the plan contains no shortage of regulations, the most problematic may be the new "Internet conduct" rule. It's a vague rule that gives the FCC almost unfettered discretion to micromanage virtually every aspect of the Internet, including the choices that consumers have for accessing it. If a company doesn't want to offer an expensive, unlimited data plan, it could find itself in the FCC's cross hairs.


But restricting service plan options is inherently anti-competitive and anti-consumer. The inevitable results will be higher prices and less service for consumers along with an especially adverse impact on small providers and upstart competitors trying to differentiate themselves in a crowded market.


Consider that activists promoting this rule had previously targeted neither AT&T nor Verizon with their first net-neutrality complaint but MetroPCS — an upstart competitor with a single-digit market share and not an ounce of market power. Its crime? Unlimited YouTube. MetroPCS offered a $40-per-month plan with unlimited talk, text, Web browsing and YouTube streaming. The company's strategy was to entice customers to switch from the four national carriers or to upgrade to its newly built 4G Long Term Evolution network.


Or take T-Mobile's Music Freedom program, which the Internet conduct rule puts on the chopping block. The "Un-carrier" allows consumers to stream as much online music as they want without charging it against their monthly data allowance. And consumers love it; T-Mobile has been growing fast and may soon overtake Sprint as the third-largest wireless operator.


Low-price, prepaid voice plans are now also suspect. These plans brought mobile service to millions of low-income households, and because carriers have upgraded these plans to include data, they're the chief reason why such households now have mobile Internet access. But because these plans aren't the all-you-can-eat plans endorsed by the FCC, they, too, may violate the Internet conduct rule.


Economists have long understood innovative business models and product offerings like these are good for consumers because they give them more choices and lower prices. Well-established regulatory economics has long rejected arguments to the contrary. To apply outmoded economic thinking to the Internet marketplace would just hurt consumers, especially the middle-class and low-income Americans who are the biggest beneficiaries of these plans.


And allowing new business models is critical to promote competition, particularly from smaller providers and new entrants. These entrepreneurs need the flexibility to experiment with different service plans so they can stand out from their larger competitors. Imposing a one-size-fits-all mandate from Washington would burden them, help the larger incumbents, reduce competition and stifle innovation.


The great irony here is that the Internet isn't broken, and we don't need the president's plan to "fix" it. Quite the opposite.


The Internet is an unparalleled success story. It is a free, open and thriving platform for civic and political engagement, economic growth, educational opportunity, entertainment and much more. It has made the United States the epicenter of innovation. It is why Internet entrepreneur Mark Cuban has observed, "There is no better platform in the world to start a new business than the Internet in the United States."


And here's another irony: Federal law already protects competition and consumers online — and the president's plan would strip away those protections. Indeed, the Federal Trade Commission has the authority to quickly address any anti-competitive exercise of market power, protect consumer privacy, and prevent deceptive and unfair practices that harm consumers. And it uses its authority aggressively to police market power and fraud in the Internet economy.


But regulating broadband service like a public utility denies the FTC these powers and denies consumers the protections that come with them. That's because the law makes clear that the FTC doesn't have jurisdiction over "common carriers," which is what broadband providers would become under the president's plan.


Why would we want to neuter the FTC when the Internet has flourished under the current regulatory model?


If all of this comes as a surprise, you're not alone. The plan has not been made public. And the FCC has made it clear that it won't be released until after the agency's commissioners vote on it. This is not right. We should have an open, transparent debate about whether the president's plan for Internet regulation is right for America's consumers. In our view, it most certainly is not.


Ajit Pai is a member of the Federal Communications Commission. Joshua Wright is a member of the Federal Trade Commission.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-internet-regulations-fcc-ftc-obama-broadband-perspec-0219-20150218-story.html

Most transparent administration in history!

[Androidpk]

Da gubamint is coming to take are internets away!

[Parkbandit]

If we da gubamint dont protect us, we gonna lose are internets!

[Latrinsorm]

If it's not broken, why fix it?An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

[Thondalar]

Da gubamint is coming to take are internets away!

It would be funny if it wasn't true.

[Thondalar]

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Except that you don't know that what you're going to do will prevent anything. No studies have been done.

[waywardgs]

Yeah... I'm not entirely comfortable with the plan not being public...

[Parkbandit]

Yeah... I'm not entirely comfortable with the plan not being public...

But it's called Net NEUTRALITY which means it can't be bad, it is neutral!

Come on, how bad could it be? They probably don't want us to worry about the details.. or have to worry about the little things.

I say let's give it a shot! What's the worst thing that could happen!?

[Gelston]

Yeah... I'm not entirely comfortable with the plan not being public...

It will be. This isn't a change in how they've ever operated.

[Latrinsorm]

Except that you don't know that what you're going to do will prevent anything. No studies have been done.Yes, that's how the future works. I don't know that treating a wound with antibiotic will prevent infection. I don't know that treating a market with regulation will prevent general tomfoolery. That's how it has worked in the past, though, so I'm pretty confident. Call it p < .05. :)

[Thondalar]

Yes, that's how the future works. I don't know that treating a wound with antibiotic will prevent infection. I don't know that treating a market with regulation will prevent general tomfoolery. That's how it has worked in the past, though, so I'm pretty confident. Call it p < .05. :)

lol. So it's your contention that every regulation ever put on a market gave a positive result? That would be the only way your statement makes sense.

[~Rocktar~]

lol. So it's your contention that every regulation ever put on a market gave a positive result? There is no way your statement makes sense.

ftfy

[Tgo01]

This topic always confuses me because first Democrats were like, against it, right? Then Obama and Reid were for it?

Anyways, Net Neutrality makes it so providers can't discriminate against any internet traffic for any reason, right?

Doesn't really seem to make sense. You charge people who use a lot of electricity more than those who use less to encourage them to conserve. You charge those who use more water more than those who use less to encourage them to conserve. Doesn't it stand to reason you charge those who use a lot of bandwidth (like...oh...Netflix?) more to encourage them to conserve?

It worked with oil: people started buying smart cars and hybrids and more fuel efficient cars to conserve oil then lawmakers started tossing around the idea of charging those customers based on how many miles they drive...wait a minute...

[Latrinsorm]

lol. So it's your contention that every regulation ever put on a market gave a positive result? That would be the only way your statement makes sense.Every [] ever would be p = .00, or p < .00 if you're feeling puckish.

[Parkbandit]

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/233626-fcc-dem-wants-last-minute-changes-to-net-neutrality-rules

[Androidpk]

I'm loving the right wing fear mongering going on.

The end of the internet as we know it!

Obamanet!

Speeds slower than European broadband!

More expensive!


All fucking hilarious, especially considering how Comcast is in the process of rolling out monthly data caps and overage charges. Not to mention a number of European countries have faster speeds than the US.

[Fallen]

Reality check on net neutrality rhetoric

Both sides in the debate are using bombastic slogans to make their case.

Net neutrality is a government takeover of the Internet and a threat to online freedom. Or it’s the best way to stop cable companies from breaking websites and creating an online world of haves and have-nots.

The escalating fight over the Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality rules is sprouting a classic fixture of Washington political battles — bombastic rhetoric designed to stir up partisan passions. Both supporters and opponents of Chairman Tom Wheeler’s proposal have turned to dramatic language to shape the debate, painting ominous pictures about the future of the Internet and turning a wonky regulatory issue into a full-blown D.C. brawl.

The messaging war, which is heating up as the FCC prepares to vote on the Wheeler plan Thursday, reflects the stakes involved, with the agency poised to enact the biggest change to broadband policy in years. But the overheated slogans don’t always stand up to scrutiny — often obscuring, rather than illuminating, the issues at hand.
Here’s a look at some of the sensationalized arguments from both sides.

A federal takeover of the Internet
Wheeler’s plan to regulate broadband like a utility to prevent Internet service providers from blocking or slowing Web traffic has drawn intense fire from conservative groups.
One of those groups, American Commitment — led by Phil Kerpen, a former top aide at Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity — has called the net neutrality proposal a “federal takeover of the Internet” that will put “unaccountable bureaucrats in control” of the Web. Kerpen said that’s the goal of some online activists.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has tapped into that anti-government message as well, memorably tweeting in November that “‘Net Neutrality’ is Obamacare for the Internet.”
But while Wheeler’s proposal would give the FCC more authority to regulate ISPs, it wouldn’t actually put the government in charge of running broadband networks.
Under the new rules, Verizon, Comcast and AT&T would still be fully in control of their own systems and services.

Cable companies want to break websites
The most aggressive net neutrality advocates have warned that cable companies want to “break your favorite sites, for profit.”

Asked for an example, Holmes Wilson, the co-director of Fight For The Future — an activist group that’s been heavily involved in the debate — said Internet service providers could force movie services like Netflix to pay up for smooth streaming to their customers.

He’s referring to a series of events last year, when Netflix complained of slowdowns and signed “peering” agreements with ISPs like Comcast and Verizon to improve network connections deep inside the Internet. Wheeler’s proposal would let the FCC police such deals if there’s a complaint.

But the language about breaking websites is still a rhetorical stretch. The idea that cable companies would actively try to disable individual sites — and risk angering customers already upset over service issues and growing cable bills — seems an unlikely prospect.

The death of Internet freedom
The conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute has called the FCC’s proposal tantamount to the “death of Internet freedom.”

Roslyn Layton, a visiting fellow at AEI, framed the issue as broadband providers having less liberty to run their networks or contract with other businesses as they see fit. That tracks with arguments from AT&T and Verizon that the Wheeler plan would impose a burden on industry and chill investment.

But the net neutrality proposal wouldn’t restrict what most people understand as “Internet freedom.” Consumers would still be free to browse the Web for whatever content they want.
Layton conceded that groups on both sides are deploying slogans “concocted to speak to the respective bases of support.”

“It is hyperbole, but it resonates with the respective audience,” she said.

A tiered Internet
A graphic that’s been widely circulated among net neutrality supporters depicts what the Internet could look like without new net neutrality rules, suggesting broadband providers would start charging people fees for access to different kinds of websites. Imagine paying $5 if you want to read a news site and another $5 if you want to access social media, for example.

Wheeler’s plan would ban providers from blocking traffic and make that kind of tiered service improbable on a wide scale. But even if ISPs were to install such a system, it would spark a public outcry and backlash.

The cable industry’s main trade group calls the idea outlandish.

“It’s hard to respond to because it’s so ridiculous,” said Brian Dietz, spokesman for the National Cable and Telecommunications Association. “No one has ever remotely considered doing something like that, and the notion they would belies common sense.”

Putin and Obama in charge of the Web
Protect Internet Freedom, a new but obscure group rallying opposition to the FCC plan, sent an email to supporters — signed by Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) — with a subject line comparing the proposal to putting Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Barack Obama in charge of the Internet.

That message taps into a recurring Republican argument that giving the federal government any new authority to regulate Internet service will make it hard for the U.S. to denounce countries like Russia and China that it accuses of online censorship and curbs on freedom of speech.

But the FCC’s plan would hardly put Obama in charge of the Internet, much less Putin. It would tighten FCC regulations, not hand control to the White House or Kremlin.
Sasse spokesman James Wegmann referred questions about the subject line to Protect Internet Freedom, which did not respond to a request for comment.

“Net neutrality to an unusual extent pushes the hot buttons of both sides,” said Kevin Werbach, a University of Pennsylvania professor and former adviser to Democratic FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. “The Internet is a Rorschach blot and both sides are seeing what they want to see.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/reality-check-on-net-neutrality-rhetoric-115460.html#ixzz3SiqKRlAZ

[Gelston]

This topic always confuses me because first Democrats were like, against it, right? Then Obama and Reid were for it?

Anyways, Net Neutrality makes it so providers can't discriminate against any internet traffic for any reason, right?

Doesn't really seem to make sense. You charge people who use a lot of electricity more than those who use less to encourage them to conserve. You charge those who use more water more than those who use less to encourage them to conserve. Doesn't it stand to reason you charge those who use a lot of bandwidth (like...oh...Netflix?) more to encourage them to conserve?

It worked with oil: people started buying smart cars and hybrids and more fuel efficient cars to conserve oil then lawmakers started tossing around the idea of charging those customers based on how many miles they drive...wait a minute...

Yes, but you don't charge people more for using their electricity to power a lightbulb versus a TV. Amount of consumption is a completely different issue and has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. If I go over my data plan on my mobile device, you damn well better believe they'll charge me for going over it, regardless of my viewing history.

ISPs have been looking at doing that, and it is the future regardless of what happens with net neutrality.

[Parkbandit]

"We are all going to have to rethink how we deal with this, because there are all these competing values ... Without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function, what does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation?"


"I don't have any clue about what we're going to do legally, regulatory, technologically -- I don't have a clue. But I do think we always have to keep competing interests in balance. I'm a big pro-balance person. That's why I love the founders -- checks and balances; accountable power. Anytime an individual or an institution or an invention leaps so far out ahead of that balance and throws a system, whatever it might be -- political, economic, technological --out of balance, you've got a problem, because then it can lead to the oppression people's rights, it can lead to the manipulation of information, it can lead to all kinds of bad outcomes which we have seen historically. So we're going to have to deal with that. And I hope a lot of smart people are going to --"

Hillary Clinton 1995, talking about the Internet after Drudge dropped the Lewinsky bombshell.

THIS is my worry about "Net Neutrality". Not the cable companies, not the taxes, not the speed... the way the Government will start to regulate what can be put there.. who they can write about.. and making sure it's "balanced" so not to give one side too much power or voice.

[Viekn]

Yes, but you don't charge people more for using their electricity to power a lightbulb versus a TV. Amount of consumption is a completely different issue and has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. If I go over my data plan on my mobile device, you damn well better believe they'll charge me for going over it, regardless of my viewing history.

ISPs have been looking at doing that, and it is the future regardless of what happens with net neutrality.

But with the way EVERYTHING is starting to go online now (movies/tv, managing finances, saving media/files to the cloud, gaming, etc., etc., etc.), our society/industry is pushing us to use more bandwidth. If you say that the ISP's can control bandwidth and charge something like Netflix more because it's users take up more bandwidth, and they pass those extra costs on to the consumer, you are putting the responsibility on the consumer to change how they consume the product when they are more or less being slowing forced (by evolution of the way we consume data) to use the product more. That just doesn't make sense to me. However, if you don't allow the ISP's that control to charge more for the high bandwidth user (Netflix the company or any other type of company), then you're putting the responsibility on the ISP's to innovate or expand so that they are able to meet the demand that is naturally increasing within our society just because of the way things are changing. That to me seems like the more logical choice. Then in order to keep profits where they need to be, the ISP's are forced to compete better by offering a better product or price to expand their user base. I mean, in this day and age, what are you going to do, penalize Netflix (and therefore it's subscribers) for offering too good of a product?

Am I wrong in that line of thinking?

[Tgo01]

But with the way EVERYTHING is starting to go online now (movies/tv, managing finances, saving media/files to the cloud, gaming, etc., etc., etc.), our society/industry is pushing us to use more bandwidth. If you say that the ISP's can control bandwidth and charge something like Netflix more because it's users take up more bandwidth, and they pass those extra costs on to the consumer, you are putting the responsibility on the consumer to change how they consume the product when they are more or less being slowing forced (by evolution of the way we consume data) to use the product more. That just doesn't make sense to me. However, if you don't allow the ISP's that control to charge more for the high bandwidth user (Netflix the company or any other type of company), then you're putting the responsibility on the ISP's to innovate or expand so that they are able to meet the demand that is naturally increasing within our society just because of the way things are changing. That to me seems like the more logical choice. Then in order to keep profits where they need to be, the ISP's are forced to compete better by offering a better product or price to expand their user base. I mean, in this day and age, what are you going to do, penalize Netflix (and therefore it's subscribers) for offering too good of a product?

Am I wrong in that line of thinking?

I don't know if you're wrong but I don't understand why you feel if Netflix were forced to account for the data they use they would just pass the cost on to the consumer and that is bad yet if we force the ISPs to deal with the increased usage the ISPs will just have to expand and offer better prices and services if they want to keep our business. Seems to me in both situations the costs are going to be passed onto the consumer. For all we know it's already happening as to why cable prices keep going up.

Going back to my electricity scenario; imagine if everyone just paid a flat fee for electricity, consumers would have no incentive to cut back on their energy costs. This also serves the dual purpose of applying pressure to electronic makers to make better and more efficient products so consumers can but back on their energy usage. If it was all up to the electric company to just keep pumping out power plants then nothing would really get solved because no one involved has any incentive to become more efficient.

I'm sure Netflix could come up with ways to make their streaming services use less bandwidth but they have zero reason to do that so they aren't going to.

[Thondalar]

THIS is my worry about "Net Neutrality". Not the cable companies, not the taxes, not the speed... the way the Government will start to regulate what can be put there.. who they can write about.. and making sure it's "balanced" so not to give one side too much power or voice.

My primary concern as well. Naturally, we'll be accused of tinfoil hat fear mongering, but so be it.

My enemy is not an obvious one. It does not approach my gates with loud fanfare and the beating of drums. It is a patient, insidious foe, slowly working its way beneath my walls.

[~Rocktar~]

I don't know if you're wrong but I don't understand why you feel if Netflix were forced to account for the data they use they would just pass the cost on to the consumer and that is bad yet if we force the ISPs to deal with the increased usage the ISPs will just have to expand and offer better prices and services if they want to keep our business. Seems to me in both situations the costs are going to be passed onto the consumer. For all we know it's already happening as to why cable prices keep going up.

Going back to my electricity scenario; imagine if everyone just paid a flat fee for electricity, consumers would have no incentive to cut back on their energy costs. This also serves the dual purpose of applying pressure to electronic makers to make better and more efficient products so consumers can but back on their energy usage. If it was all up to the electric company to just keep pumping out power plants then nothing would really get solved because no one involved has any incentive to become more efficient.

I'm sure Netflix could come up with ways to make their streaming services use less bandwidth but they have zero reason to do that so they aren't going to.

Ummmm, actually, they use some of the best compression on the planet to do what they do already.

My issue, along with what PB pointed out as a major concern of the government control of content and who gets what where, is the double dip. They charge the consumer for a service then want to turn around and charge the content provider for the same service. That would be like a toll road charging you to drive on it and then charging the mall, your company or your aunt the toll as well since that is where you went on the road. That is bullshit.

[Androidpk]

My whole issue with all of this is the vulture capitalism methods of TWC and Comcast. People champion the free market concept but that isn't what is going on here. Then there is the issue of telecoms receiving hundreds of billions of dollars to roll out broadband and fiber nationwide. Tax payers money that they took and basically did nothing with. I'd rather see government regulations in play than to continue trusting these corporations.

[Wrathbringer]

My whole issue with all of this is the vulture capitalism methods of TWC and Comcast. People champion the free market concept but that isn't what is going on here. Then there is the issue of telecoms receiving hundreds of billions of dollars to roll out broadband and fiber nationwide. Tax payers money that they took and basically did nothing with. I'd rather see government regulations in play than to continue trusting these corporations.

:gawk:

[Gelston]

But with the way EVERYTHING is starting to go online now (movies/tv, managing finances, saving media/files to the cloud, gaming, etc., etc., etc.), our society/industry is pushing us to use more bandwidth. If you say that the ISP's can control bandwidth and charge something like Netflix more because it's users take up more bandwidth, and they pass those extra costs on to the consumer, you are putting the responsibility on the consumer to change how they consume the product when they are more or less being slowing forced (by evolution of the way we consume data) to use the product more. That just doesn't make sense to me. However, if you don't allow the ISP's that control to charge more for the high bandwidth user (Netflix the company or any other type of company), then you're putting the responsibility on the ISP's to innovate or expand so that they are able to meet the demand that is naturally increasing within our society just because of the way things are changing. That to me seems like the more logical choice. Then in order to keep profits where they need to be, the ISP's are forced to compete better by offering a better product or price to expand their user base. I mean, in this day and age, what are you going to do, penalize Netflix (and therefore it's subscribers) for offering too good of a product?

Am I wrong in that line of thinking?

No. I don't think the ISP should charge the website. I think the ISP should charge the consumer for their consumption. Like everything else. Electricity, water, etc.

I find it pretty fucking amazing that unlimited internet consumption even exists. I think it is just a hang over from dial up.

[Jarvan]

No. I don't think the ISP should charge the website. I think the ISP should charge the consumer for their consumption. Like everything else. Electricity, water, etc.

I find it pretty fucking amazing that unlimited internet consumption even exists. I think it is just a hang over from dial up.

Where I live, when two way cable really came on the scene, there wasn't unlimited internet really. I had 2-way, and I got an email one month that said I used 5 GB of bandwidth, and if I did that again, I would have to purchase a business account. Which at the time was like 1k a month.

Course.. this was before netflix and such.

[Warriorbird]

Neither companies or the government should be throttling content. Sadly nobody seems to address both.

[Latrinsorm]

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/reality-check-on-net-neutrality-rhetoric-115460.html#ixzz3SiqKRlAZ

If they're not going to give control of the internet to the Kremlin, why won't they let us read the plan? Answer me that one, Sassy James Wegmann.
I find it pretty fucking amazing that unlimited internet consumption even exists.It doesn't. Every company says they offer it, and then when you go over a certain threshold they throttle you way down.

[Androidpk]

Gotta love that kind of marketing. Unlimited data!*


*​as long as you don't go over X amount per month.

[Ashliana]

If they're not going to give control of the internet to the Kremlin, why won't they let us read the plan?

Should be pretty obvious. Politicians want to pander to voters with their public face, but behind the scenes, do the bidding of special interests.


Every company says they offer it, and then when you go over a certain threshold they throttle you way down.

Gotta love that kind of marketing. Unlimited data!*
*​as long as you don't go over X amount per month.

Really depends on the ISP. On paper, Cox gives "unlimited" users in the NOVA/DC area 300GB of data, but there's a lot of wiggle room. In reality, they don't closely monitor bandwidth usage--those policies are only paper as a justification to terminate the truly astounding users of bandwidth. Like, terabytes and terabytes a month. There's a tiny minority of people that, for whatever reason, use an order of magnitude more bandwidth than even the typical heavy user. Like, people hosting servers for other people to download/upload stuff, and not paying for those kind of services. That's why they track it.

FIOS, in our area, goes out of their way to say there is no limit. But again, it's the truly insane users that put the asterisk in "Unlimited*," like this guy who got warned after using 77 terabytes of bandwidth in a month. Totally insane.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/05/fios-customer-discovers-the-limits-of-unlimited-data-77-tb-in-month/

The only arena where throttling is common is in the mobile space, where bandwidth is (supposedly) much less available and much more expensive. Not sure I buy the argument, but that's the telecom's stance.

[Androidpk]

77 TB a month is insane.

[JackWhisper]

He runs servers. Not particularly insane for an entire family and friends. But still pretty high. Wonder what his uptime percentage was.

[Fallen]

The measure passed, BTW.

[Androidpk]

Tentatively happy.

[Parkbandit]

We saved the Internet!!

USA

USA

USA!!

[Jarvan]

There will likely be lawsuits filed and injunctions for years to come.

Actually, ISP's already won two prior lawsuits in regards to this.

Does anyone else think that it is a bit fucked up that an Agency, can decide such broad things such as this? I mean.. ~I~ didn't vote for anyone on the FCC. And they don't listen to what the people have to say, they just listen to the President, who (pretty much all of them) doesn't listen to what the people have to say. I mean.. Obama basically just told the FCC "Make Net Neutrality happen, I can't get a bill passed". Just like when he tried to do carbon tax with the EPA.

[Velfi]

There will likely be lawsuits filed and injunctions for years to come.

Actually, ISP's already won two prior lawsuits in regards to this.

Does anyone else think that it is a bit fucked up that an Agency, can decide such broad things such as this? I mean.. ~I~ didn't vote for anyone on the FCC. And they don't listen to what the people have to say, they just listen to the President, who (pretty much all of them) doesn't listen to what the people have to say. I mean.. Obama basically just told the FCC "Make Net Neutrality happen, I can't get a bill passed". Just like when he tried to do carbon tax with the EPA.

http://i.imgur.com/JcDp8Gl.jpg

[waywardgs]

There will likely be lawsuits filed and injunctions for years to come.

Actually, ISP's already won two prior lawsuits in regards to this.

Does anyone else think that it is a bit fucked up that an Agency, can decide such broad things such as this? I mean.. ~I~ didn't vote for anyone on the FCC. And they don't listen to what the people have to say, they just listen to the President, who (pretty much all of them) doesn't listen to what the people have to say. I mean.. Obama basically just told the FCC "Make Net Neutrality happen, I can't get a bill passed". Just like when he tried to do carbon tax with the EPA.

They also got 3.7m comments.

And agencies make rules all the time. It would be a ridiculous system if we had to vote on every single one, or for every government position.

[Androidpk]

http://i.imgur.com/JcDp8Gl.jpg


Velfi.

[JackWhisper]

So did we win? Is the internet still what it was? Because I don't wanna move to Canada, god dammit.

[Gnome Rage]

Really funny, I had two friends post on FB about this. One is a hard-core conservative girl who wants to be the next Ann Coulter and one is a kinda hippie dippie girl.

I don't understand how people don't realize that this is a good thing, can any one explain this to me?
Our internet costs are extremely expensive for what little we are actually getting, no? People in other countries have access to much faster and cheaper internet... right? Shouldn't this measure make us more in line with appropriate pricing and not throttling speeds etc?

[JackWhisper]

Ann Coulter scares me. She looks like Cher with straight blonde hair.

[Viekn]

Really funny, I had two friends post on FB about this. One is a hard-core conservative girl who wants to be the next Ann Coulter and one is a kinda hippie dippie girl.

I don't understand how people don't realize that this is a good thing, can any one explain this to me?
Our internet costs are extremely expensive for what little we are actually getting, no? People in other countries have access to much faster and cheaper internet... right? Shouldn't this measure make us more in line with appropriate pricing and not throttling speeds etc?

It should put us on that path, yes. And being on that path at least, no matter how many lawsuits and speedbumps along the way, should be better than the path we were on.

I understand some people have legitimate concerns about the government overstepping it's bounds when it comes to regulation, but it doesn't help their cause when I'm listening to the guy on the radio and he's comparing Net Neutrality to the government run postal system and suggesting that's what we're going to get with Net Neutrality. In what world does an expensive human capital driven system that has had demand drop exponentially over the past 10 years compare even remotely to a much more cost effective technology driven system that has had demand increase exponentially over the past 10 years. This guy works at the American Enterprise Institute and even I could have come up with a better comparison than that.

[Parkbandit]

Really funny, I had two friends post on FB about this. One is a hard-core conservative girl who wants to be the next Ann Coulter and one is a kinda hippie dippie girl.

I don't understand how people don't realize that this is a good thing, can any one explain this to me?
Our internet costs are extremely expensive for what little we are actually getting, no? People in other countries have access to much faster and cheaper internet... right? Shouldn't this measure make us more in line with appropriate pricing and not throttling speeds etc?

Wait... there are people that actually believe that Net Neutrality will lower our internet cost?

LOL...

[Jarvan]

Wait... there are people that actually believe that Net Neutrality will lower our internet cost?

LOL...

Generally the same people that believe ACA will reduce their healthcare costs.

[Androidpk]

Wait... there are people that actually believe that Net Neutrality will lower our internet cost?

LOL...

It's partly true. States, lobbied by telecom companies, cannot block municipal fiber broadband any more. So far places in the US with these gigabit connections have far faster download/upload speeds (obviously) at cheaper prices.

[Parkbandit]

It's partly true. States, lobbied by telecom companies, cannot block municipal fiber broadband any more. So far places in the US with these gigabit connections have far faster download/upload speeds (obviously) at cheaper prices.

I'm glad I was never, ever this naive.

[Fallen]

Actually, I really have no idea what the specifics are in this measure. An odd way of doing things, but apparently this non-disclosure is how they typically operate.

[Androidpk]

Actually, I really have no idea what the specifics are in this measure. An odd way of doing things, but apparently this non-disclosure is how they typically operate.

Correct.

[Parkbandit]

Actually, I really have no idea what the specifics are in this measure. An odd way of doing things, but apparently this non-disclosure is how they typically operate.

It's all speculation at this point, given the 300+ pages haven't been released yet.

[Androidpk]

I'm glad I was never, ever this naive.

What exactly is naive about this if it's actually happening?

[Fallen]

It's all speculation at this point, given the 300+ pages haven't been released yet.

Well hopefully there can be a move to achieve some transparency in the process moving forward. I've read they handle all of their business in such a fashion, which is a stupid way of going about things. My guess is everyone will stop caring about that particular part of the process as the fight moves to the courts.

[Parkbandit]

What exactly is naive about this if it's actually happening?

Since it just passed today, it's not "actually happening" quite yet due to this legislation.

Let me know when your ISP suddenly drops their rates because of these new rulings.

[Androidpk]

One other thing, title II reclassification would also mean Google would have access to telephone lines/poles and would be able to roll out their fiber services much faster. THAT is what really scares companies like Comcast and TWC. As of now they're charging $70/month for a 1Gbps connection. I'm paying comcast more than that and getting 15Mbps (which as of January isn't even considered broadband.

[Latrinsorm]

Actually, I really have no idea what the specifics are in this measure. An odd way of doing things, but apparently this non-disclosure is how they typically operate.You can get a printed copy of (the relevant sections of) the new Code of Federal Regulations on October 1st, or you can keep tabs on the Federal Register (https://www.federalregister.gov/), even signing up for email notifications! You can also go directly to the FCC (https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/federal-communications-commission#public_inspection) section, which is probably the easiest.

[Tgo01]

Really funny, I had two friends post on FB about this. One is a hard-core conservative girl who wants to be the next Ann Coulter and one is a kinda hippie dippie girl.

I don't understand how people don't realize that this is a good thing, can any one explain this to me?
Our internet costs are extremely expensive for what little we are actually getting, no? People in other countries have access to much faster and cheaper internet... right? Shouldn't this measure make us more in line with appropriate pricing and not throttling speeds etc?

I don't think there is anything in this bill about making the internet faster or cheaper for consumers.

As far as our internet speed and costs compared to other countries, it depends. Some countries certainly have it better but we are far from having the worst. There are a lot of countries where there are data caps placed upon internet users. I don't mean the 200GB data caps that most people in the US have and 99% of people never even reach, I mean data caps like 20-50GBs and they have to pay a lot more for better options.

Couple of sites I found said Canadians have to pay anywhere from 42 dollars a month for 20GB cap to 123 dollars a month for 250GB.

[JackWhisper]

Check out Alaska if you're into this conversation.

The entire state's internet commodity is owned by a private family company who keeps it barebones for high prices, and refuses to let Comcast or anyone else in, so that they can make billions.

THAT needs to stop.

Edit: They also have satellite, but if you've ever lived in Alaska.... you'd realize how bullshit that is. Over 80% signal drop due to weather conditions.

[Tgo01]

Check out Alaska if you're into this conversation.

The entire state's internet commodity is owned by a private family company who keeps it barebones for high prices, and refuses to let Comcast or anyone else in, so that they can make billions.

THAT needs to stop.

But Alaskans are rich because they get part of the state's oil revenues.

[Fallen]

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/70717000/gif/_70717869_countries_with_high_speed_broadband.gif


This research echoes the findings of another report earlier in the summer by the OECD, which compared countries in terms of their broadband-only prices. Across all 10 download speeds and capacities, it consistently ranked the US near the bottom.

For instance, at high speeds of 45 Mbps and over, the OECD report has the US ranked 30th out of 33 countries, with an average price of $90 a month. With phone and TV thrown in, plus some premium channels, these packages often cost $200.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24528383

[JackWhisper]

But Alaskans are rich because they get part of the state's oil revenues.


You have to live there for like a year+ to start getting that check. And it's like... 1,332 dollars or something per person per year. Altogether, that's a fuckload. Singularly? Not so much.

[JackWhisper]

I was 500 off.

JUNEAU Alaska (Reuters) - Nearly every Alaska resident will soon be $1,884 richer, thanks to an annual payout from an oil wealth trust fund that has been credited with keeping many low-income families out of poverty, state officials said on Wednesday.Sep 17, 2014

[Tgo01]

You have to live there for like a year+ to start getting that check. And it's like... 1,332 dollars or something per person per year. Altogether, that's a fuckload. Singularly? Not so much.

Rich I tell you!

[Fallen]

I'm not quite sure how that has anything to do with the price of broadband in Alaska, but yeah, that's pretty nice.

[Warriorbird]

Check out Alaska if you're into this conversation.

The entire state's internet commodity is owned by a private family company who keeps it barebones for high prices, and refuses to let Comcast or anyone else in, so that they can make billions.

THAT needs to stop.

Edit: They also have satellite, but if you've ever lived in Alaska.... you'd realize how bullshit that is. Over 80% signal drop due to weather conditions.

My best friend works in Alaska. You're completely right. It's bad when he sometimes works extra hours so he can use the Internet from his job.

[JackWhisper]

My best friend works in Alaska. You're completely right. It's bad when he sometimes works extra hours so he can use the Internet from his job.

Yeah. My friend was stationed in Alaska *Air Force* for a few years and even the MILITARY internet was shit. He nearly lost his mind. He's moved since then, but let me tell you, he is NEVER going back there.

[Thondalar]

You have to live there for like a year+ to start getting that check. And it's like... 1,332 dollars or something per person per year. Altogether, that's a fuckload. Singularly? Not so much.

Oh, kinda like the people that bitch about a CEO getting a 20m bonus, but don't understand that if they gave everyone in the company a bonus instead, they would get like 10 bucks.

[JackWhisper]

736,732 (2014)

Alaska, Population

The only company that has that many employees and more in the US is.... Walmart.


Just saying. That's a little different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_employers_in_the_United_States

[Jarvan]

["This research echoes the findings of another report earlier in the summer by the OECD, which compared countries in terms of their broadband-only prices. Across all 10 download speeds and capacities, it consistently ranked the US near the bottom.

For instance, at high speeds of 45 Mbps and over, the OECD report has the US ranked 30th out of 33 countries, with an average price of $90 a month. With phone and TV thrown in, plus some premium channels, these packages often cost $200. "

What I always found funny about this is the fact that comparing costs from one country to another is stupid. Hell, there are DRAMATIC differences in cities in the US. Not to mention, my city offers 110 mbps. Granted, it's not even close to 20 bucks... Then again.. our average salary is 50% higher then Korea's.

I have 3 Broadband providers in my area, there really isn't any price competition, because they don't really need to. People will pay what they have to if they want it. Which is frankly how the market should work. If the Fed walks in and says it has to be cheaper, while I won't have to spend as much, they will likely not improve services as much.

[BigWorm]

It is very unlikely that this will directly lower the cost of broadband; although the internet is now classified under Title II, the ISPs are exempt from the onerous rate regulation and universal access fees. Prices may come down, or much more likely we will get better service for what we already pay, but this is merely a side effect of Net Neutrality and its primary purpose has nothing to do with regulating the cost of consumer internet service. The biggest win from Title II IMHO classification is the common carrier provision which forces ISPs to treat all traffic the same just like the phone companies or shipping companies do already.

IMHO it is clear that Net Neutrality incentivizes innovation. Net neutrality protects the incentive for third parties to create new services for ISP customers because it disallows the ISPs from prioritizing their own services over the third party competitor. For example, if an ISP decided to offer a streaming music service it is now illegal for them to hamstring competitors like Spotify and Rdio and they are forced instead to compete directly on features and quality. This significantly reduces the potential risk of new entrants into the market which is great for both competition and innovation.

[Fallen]

What I always found funny about this is the fact that comparing costs from one country to another is stupid. Hell, there are DRAMATIC differences in cities in the US. Not to mention, my city offers 110 mbps. Granted, it's not even close to 20 bucks... Then again.. our average salary is 50% higher then Korea's.

I have 3 Broadband providers in my area, there really isn't any price competition, because they don't really need to. People will pay what they have to if they want it. Which is frankly how the market should work. If the Fed walks in and says it has to be cheaper, while I won't have to spend as much, they will likely not improve services as much.

http://www.netindex.com/value/allcountries/

We're 18th for relative cost per mbs. I don't think that should be the case for the greatest country in the world.

This chart takes into account nation-to-nation wealth disparity:


The median cost per Megabit per second (download) divided by the Gross Domestic Product per Capita.



It is very unlikely that this will directly lower the cost of broadband

Just to be clear, I agree with this statement.

[BigWorm]

I have 3 Broadband providers in my area, there really isn't any price competition, because they don't really need to. People will pay what they have to if they want it. Which is frankly how the market should work. If the Fed walks in and says it has to be cheaper, while I won't have to spend as much, they will likely not improve services as much.

If you really have three viable options for real broadband internet access, you are lucky as that is far from the case for most people in the US. Typically the options available are a single cable company and a single DSL provider (phone company), and until the phone companies finish expanding their fiber to the neighbor/home programs the DSL option is usually significantly less bandwidth. Many people who live in apartments have a single, take-it-or-leave it option for internet access and people in rural areas also suffer from a lack of viable broadband options.

Also I don't understand how you can say that "there really isn't any price competition" which is "frankly how the market should work". That is the opposite of a market and is instead an oligopoly.

If you want to see how real competition drives down the cost of internet access, you just need to look at the market for hosting services. As more entrants enter the market, it has forced the price down and encouraged providers to offer innovative solutions that set them apart from the other commodity hosting services. Now you can rent a powerful server on AWS for pennies an hour or $5 a month on Digital Ocean.

[Fallen]

I'm not sure if this link has been provided yet: http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-rules-protect-open-internet

Best source I can find so far in terms of actual information.


FCC ADOPTS STRONG, SUSTAINABLE RULES TO PROTECT THE OPEN INTERNET

Rules Will Preserve the Internet as a Platform for Innovation, Free Expression and Economic Growth

Washington, D.C. – Ending lingering uncertainty about the future of the Open Internet, the Federal Communications Commission today set sustainable rules of the roads that will protect free expression and innovation on the Internet and promote investment in the nation’s broadband networks.

The FCC has long been committed to protecting and promoting an Internet that nurtures freedom of speech and expression, supports innovation and commerce, and incentivizes expansion and investment by America’s broadband providers. But the agency’s attempts to implement enforceable, sustainable rules to protect the Open Internet have been twice struck down by the courts.

Today, the Commission—once and for all—enacts strong, sustainable rules, grounded in multiple sources of legal authority, to ensure that Americans reap the economic, social, and civic benefits of an Open Internet today and into the future. These new rules are guided by three principles: America’s broadband networks must be fast, fair and open—principles shared by the overwhelming majority of the nearly 4 million commenters who participated in the FCC’s Open Internet proceeding.

Absent action by the FCC, Internet openness is at risk, as recognized by the very court that struck down the FCC’s 2010 Open Internet rules last year in Verizon v. FCC.
Broadband providers have economic incentives that “represent a threat to Internet openness and could act in ways that would ultimately inhibit the speed and extent of future broadband deployment,” as affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The court upheld the Commission’s finding that Internet openness drives a “virtuous cycle” in which innovations at the edges of the network enhance consumer demand, leading to expanded investments in broadband infrastructure that, in turn, spark new innovations at the edge.

However, the court observed that nearly 15 years ago, the Commission constrained its ability to protect against threats to the open Internet by a regulatory classification of broadband that precluded use of statutory protections that historically ensured the openness of telephone networks. The Order finds that the nature of broadband Internet access service has not only changed since that initial classification decision, but that broadband providers have even more incentives to interfere with Internet openness today. To respond to this changed landscape, the new Open Internet Order restores the FCC’s legal authority to fully address threats to openness on today’s networks by following a template for sustainability laid out in the D.C. Circuit Opinion itself, including reclassification of broadband Internet access as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act.

With a firm legal foundation established, the Order sets three “bright-line” rules of the road for behavior known to harm the Open Internet, adopts an additional, flexible standard to future-proof Internet openness rules, and protects mobile broadband users with the full array of Open Internet rules. It does so while preserving incentives for investment and innovation by broadband providers by affording them an even more tailored version of the light-touch regulatory treatment that fostered tremendous growth in the mobile wireless industry.

Following are the key provisions and rules of the FCC’s Open Internet Order:

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 fixed and mobile broadband alike, recognizing advances in technology and the growing significance of wireless broadband access in recent years (while recognizing the importance of reasonable network management and its specific application to mobile and unlicensed Wi-Fi networks). The Order protects consumers no matter how they access the Internet, whether on a desktop computer or a mobile device.


Bright Line Rules: The first three rules 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 of any kind—in other words, no “fast lanes.” This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates.

The bright-line rules against blocking and throttling will prohibit harmful practices that target specific applications or classes of applications. And the ban on paid prioritization ensures that there will be no fast lanes.

A Standard for Future Conduct: Because the Internet is always growing and changing, there must be a known standard by which to address any concerns that arise with new practices. The Order establishes that ISPs cannot “unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage” the ability of consumers to select, access, and use the lawful content, applications, services, or devices of their choosing; or of edge providers to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to consumers. Today’s Order ensures that the Commission will have authority to address questionable practices on a case-by-case basis, and provides guidance in the form of factors on how the Commission will apply the standard in practice.

Greater Transparency: The rules described above will restore the tools necessary to address specific conduct by broadband providers that might harm the Open Internet. But the Order recognizes the critical role of transparency in a well-functioning broadband ecosystem. In addition to the existing transparency rule, which was not struck down by the court, the Order requires that broadband providers disclose, in a consistent format, promotional rates, fees and surcharges and data caps. Disclosures must also include packet loss as a measure of network performance, and provide notice of network management practices that can affect service. To further consider the concerns of small ISPs, the Order adopts a temporary exemption from the transparency enhancements for fixed and mobile providers with 100,000 or fewer subscribers, and delegates authority to our Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau to determine whether to retain the exception and, if so, at what level.
The Order also creates for all providers a “safe harbor” process for the format and nature of the required disclosure to consumers, which the Commission believes will lead to more effective presentation of consumer-focused information by broadband providers.

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 standard takes account of the particular engineering attributes of the technology involved—whether it be fiber, DSL, cable, unlicensed Wi-Fi, mobile, or another network medium.

However, the network practice must be primarily used for and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management—and not business—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 (VoIP from a cable system is an example, as is a dedicated heart-monitoring service). The Order ensures that these services do not undermine the effectiveness of the Open Internet rules. Moreover, all broadband providers’ transparency disclosures will continue to cover any offering of such non-Internet access data services—ensuring that the public and the Commission can keep a close eye on any tactics that could undermine the Open Internet rules.


Interconnection: New Authority to Address Concerns

For the first time the Commission can address issues that may arise in the exchange of traffic between mass-market broadband providers and other networks and services. Under the authority provided by the Order, the Commission can hear complaints and take appropriate enforcement action if it determines the interconnection activities of ISPs are not just and reasonable.

Legal Authority: Reclassifying Broadband Internet Access under Title II

The Order provides the strongest possible legal foundation for the Open Internet rules by relying on multiple sources of authority including both Title II of the Communications Act and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. At the same time, the Order refrains – or forbears – from enforcing 27 provisions of Title II and over 700 associated regulations 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, while not burdening broadband providers with anachronistic utility-style regulations such as rate regulation, tariffs or network sharing requirements.

First, the Order reclassifies “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. This decision is fundamentally a factual one. It recognizes that today broadband Internet access service is understood by the public as a transmission platform through which consumers can access third-party content, applications, and services of their choosing. Reclassification of broadband Internet access service also addresses any limitations that past classification decisions placed on the ability to adopt strong open Internet rules, as interpreted by the D.C. Circuit in the Verizon case. And it supports the Commission’s authority to address interconnection disputes on a case-by-case basis, because the promise to consumers that they will be able to travel the Internet encompasses the duty to make the necessary arrangements that allow consumers to use the Internet as they wish.


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 the “information service” classification—bolsters the Commission’s authority.

Third, the Order’s provisions on mobile broadband also are based on Title III of the Communications Act. The Order finds that mobile broadband access service is best viewed as a commercial mobile service or its functional equivalent.


Forbearance: A modernized, light-touch approach

Congress requires the FCC to refrain from enforcing – forbear from – provisions of the Communications Act that are not in the public interest. The Order applies some key provisions of Title II, and forbears from most others. Indeed, the Order ensures that some 27 provisions of Title II and over 700 regulations adopted under Title II will not apply to broadband. 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:

The proposed Order applies “core” provisions of Title II: Sections 201 and 202 (e.g., no unjust or unreasonable practices or discrimination)
Allows investigation of consumer complaints under section 208 and related enforcement provisions, specifically sections 206, 207, 209, 216 and 217
Protects consumer privacy under Section 222

Ensures fair access to poles and conduits under Section 224, which would boost the deployment of new broadband networks

Protects people with disabilities under Sections 225 and 255

Bolsters universal service fund support for broadband service in the future through partial application of Section 254.

Major Provisions Subject to Forbearance:

Rate regulation: the Order makes clear that broadband providers shall not be subject to utility-style rate regulation, including rate regulation, tariffs, and last-mile unbundling.

Universal Service Contributions: the Order DOES NOT require broadband providers to contribute to the Universal Service Fund under Section 254. The question of how best to fund the nation’s universal service programs is being considered in a separate, unrelated proceeding that was already underway.

Broadband service will remain exempt from state and local taxation under the Internet Tax Freedom Act. This law, recently renewed by Congress and signed by the President, bans state and local taxation on Internet access regardless of its FCC regulatory classification.

Effective Enforcement

The FCC will enforce the Open Internet rules through investigation and processing of formal and informal complaints

Enforcement advisories, advisory opinions and a newly-created ombudsman will provide guidance

The Enforcement Bureau can request objective written opinions on technical matters from outside technical organizations, industry standards-setting bodies and other organizations.

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, the Order will modernize Title II using the forbearance authority granted to the Commission by Congress—tailoring the application of Title II for the 21st century, encouraging Internet Service Providers to invest in the networks on which Americans increasingly rely.

The Order forbears from applying utility-style rate regulation, including rate regulation or tariffs, last-mile unbundling, and burdensome administrative filing requirements or accounting standards.

Mobile voice services have been regulated under a similar light-touch Title II approach, and investment and usage boomed.

Investment analysts have concluded that Title II with appropriate forbearance is unlikely to have any negative on the value or future profitability of broadband providers. Providers such as Sprint, Frontier, as well as representatives of hundreds of smaller carriers that have voluntarily adopted Title II regulation, have likewise said that a light-touch, Title II classification of broadband will not depress investment.

Action by the Commission February 26, 2015, by Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order (FCC 15-24). Chairman Wheeler, Commissioners Clyburn and Rosenworcel with Commissioners Pai and O’Rielly dissenting. Chairman Wheeler, Commissioners Clyburn, Rosenworcel, Pai and O’Rielly issuing statements.
Docket No.: 14-28

[Fallen]

This document thoroughly conveys what the ATTEMPT was of the ruling that was passed, but without actually reading the substance of what was actually voted on i'm not sure one can come to any definitive conclusion. Not that i'd read a 500+ page document, but at the same time, the "spirit of the law" often greatly differs from the "letter of the law".

For now, I think the attempt of this ruling is and will be for the betterment of the internet, but i'll reserve judgement until the full document has been released.

[Jarvan]

http://www.netindex.com/value/allcountries/

We're 18th for relative cost per mbs. I don't think that should be the case for the greatest country in the world.

This chart takes into account nation-to-nation wealth disparity:

[/B]




Just to be clear, I agree with this statement.

So.. because we are the greatest country in the world.. our internet should be cheaper.

Not really, no.

[Jarvan]

If you really have three viable options for real broadband internet access, you are lucky as that is far from the case for most people in the US. Typically the options available are a single cable company and a single DSL provider (phone company), and until the phone companies finish expanding their fiber to the neighbor/home programs the DSL option is usually significantly less bandwidth. Many people who live in apartments have a single, take-it-or-leave it option for internet access and people in rural areas also suffer from a lack of viable broadband options.

Also I don't understand how you can say that "there really isn't any price competition" which is "frankly how the market should work". That is the opposite of a market and is instead an oligopoly.

If you want to see how real competition drives down the cost of internet access, you just need to look at the market for hosting services. As more entrants enter the market, it has forced the price down and encouraged providers to offer innovative solutions that set them apart from the other commodity hosting services. Now you can rent a powerful server on AWS for pennies an hour or $5 a month on Digital Ocean.

Sometimes there is a benefit to being in the birthplace of Cable. While also living in a semi Rural area.

[Fallen]

So.. because we are the greatest country in the world.. our internet should be cheaper.

Not really, no.

So because the free market works (which Big Worm demonstrated how it doesn't) to give us 18th place overall ...we should be happy.

Is that your counter argument?

This whole line of conversation seems off-topic. Net neutrality will not directly change costs.

The only aspect of the ruling which seems remotely applicable is this, "Major Provisions of Title II that the Order WILL APPLY: Ensures fair access to poles and conduits under Section 224, which would boost the deployment of new broadband networks"

[Jarvan]

So because the free market works (which Big Worm demonstrated how it doesn't) to give us 18th place overall ...we should be happy.

Is that your counter argument?

This whole line of conversation seems off-topic. Net neutrality will not directly change costs.

The only aspect of the ruling which seems remotely applicable is this, "Major Provisions of Title II that the Order WILL APPLY: Ensures fair access to poles and conduits under Section 224, which would boost the deployment of new broadband networks"

Never said we should be happy. But expecting us to pay less for something then say South Korea, just because we are the greatest country in the world, is rather childish.

I am sure there are A LOT of reasons why South Korea has cheaper service then us. One thing I would like to point out.. South Korea.. 38,691 Sq miles... US.. 3.08 Million Sq miles.

[Androidpk]

Never said we should be happy. But expecting us to pay less for something then say South Korea, just because we are the greatest country in the world, is rather childish.

I am sure there are A LOT of reasons why South Korea has cheaper service then us. One thing I would like to point out.. South Korea.. 38,691 Sq miles... US.. 3.08 Million Sq miles.

Or American corporations content with providing subpar service at a ridiculous price simply because competition sucks.

[Fallen]

Never said we should be happy. But expecting us to pay less for something then say South Korea, just because we are the greatest country in the world, is rather childish.

I am sure there are A LOT of reasons why South Korea has cheaper service then us. One thing I would like to point out.. South Korea.. 38,691 Sq miles... US.. 3.08 Million Sq miles.

I would also say it is childish to state that we should be happy with the status quo because reasons.

Russia: 6,592,800 sq mi - 8th place

I think having fast, affordable internet is important to drive innovation in this country. We should foster means of improving our competitiveness with the rest of the world, not simply say "Good enough" and hope for the best.

[Tgo01]

Russia: 6,592,800 sq mi - 8th place

Russia also has like a fifth of the number of broadband subscribers that the US does and a much smaller percent of their total population.

[Latrinsorm]

Sometimes there is a benefit to being in the birthplace of Cable. While also living in a semi Rural area.The birthplace of Cable is by far the least interesting part of his story.