Net Nuetrality, the Obama version

[TheSanityAnnex]

This should concern EVERYONE regardless of political leanings. He's already pulled off the pass it before you read it with Obamacare, the same can not happen again.

http://www.fcc.gov/document/pai-and-orielly-request-release-internet-reg-plan-delay-vote

[TheSanityAnnex]

Related Snowden quote from reddit AMA

This is a good question, and there are some good traditional answers here. Organizing is important. Activism is important.
At the same time, we should remember that governments don’t often reform themselves. One of the arguments in a book I read recently (Bruce Schneier, “Data and Goliath”), is that perfect enforcement of the law sounds like a good thing, but that may not always be the case. The end of crime sounds pretty compelling, right, so how can that be?
Well, when we look back on history, the progress of Western civilization and human rights is actually founded on the violation of law. America was of course born out of a violent revolution that was an outrageous treason against the crown and established order of the day. History shows that the righting of historical wrongs is often born from acts of unrepentant criminality. Slavery. The protection of persecuted Jews.
But even on less extremist topics, we can find similar examples. How about the prohibition of alcohol? Gay marriage? Marijuana?
Where would we be today if the government, enjoying powers of perfect surveillance and enforcement, had — entirely within the law — rounded up, imprisoned, and shamed all of these lawbreakers?
Ultimately, if people lose their willingness to recognize that there are times in our history when legality becomes distinct from morality, we aren’t just ceding control of our rights to government, but our agency in determing thour [sic] futures.
How does this relate to politics? Well, I suspect that governments today are more concerned with the loss of their ability to control and regulate the behavior of their citizens than they are with their citizens’ discontent.
How do we make that work for us? We can devise means, through the application and sophistication of science, to remind governments that if they will not be responsible stewards of our rights, we the people will implement systems that provide for a means of not just enforcing our rights, but removing from governments the ability to interfere with those rights.
You can see the beginnings of this dynamic today in the statements of government officials complaining about the adoption of encryption by major technology providers. The idea here isn’t to fling ourselves into anarchy and do away with government, but to remind the government that there must always be a balance of power between the governing and the governed, and that as the progress of science increasingly empowers communities and individuals, there will be more and more areas of our lives where — if government insists on behaving poorly and with a callous disregard for the citizen — we can find ways to reduce or remove their powers on a new — and permanent — basis.
Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it’s entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy.
We haven’t had to think about that much in the last few decades because quality of life has been increasing across almost all measures in a significant way, and that has led to a comfortable complacency. But here and there throughout history, we’ll occasionally come across these periods where governments think more about what they “can” do rather than what they “should” do, and what is lawful will become increasingly distinct from what is moral.
In such times, we’d do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn’t defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends.

[boutons_deux]

This should concern EVERYONE regardless of political leanings. He's already pulled off the pass it before you read it with Obamacare, the same can not happen again.

http://www.fcc.gov/document/pai-and-orielly-request-release-internet-reg-plan-delay-vote

The 2 Repug "we want to screw up Internet for corporate profits, cartelization" commissioners will be outvoted, 2-3. Public comments are so far OVERWHELMINGLY pro regulation and Title II.

[Spurminator]

No argument here. Releasing details would hopefully ease concerns of government overreach and privacy violations, and would pressure the Ted Cruzes of the congress to argue specific issues with the plan instead of opposing it on "all government is bad" philosophical grounds.

[boutons_deux]

Net Fix: 8 burning questions about Net neutrality


1. What is Net neutrality?

Net neutrality is the principle that all traffic on the Internet should be treated equally. And the new rules will ensure that whether you're checking Facebook, posting pictures to Instagram, shopping on Amazon, or streaming Netflix movies, all the information traveling across the Internet to you and from you should be treated the same. That means your Internet service provider -- whether that's a broadband company like Comcast or a wireless carrier like AT&T or Verizon -- can't block or slow down your access to that content. The new rules also ensure that a broadband provider can't pick winners and losers on the Internet by creating "fast lanes" that allow them to charge certain companies for priority, or faster, access to customers.

2. Why does this matter to me?

For consumers of Internet services (which covers the majority of people here in the US), Net neutrality means there's nothing in the way of you accessing your favorite sites and getting your favorite content. If you're an entrepreneur looking to start your own streaming service, you'll be be treated the same as a deep-pocketed Netflix or Google when delivering videos to your customers.

3. What's going to change when these rules are adopted?

Nothing. That's the whole point. The Internet has always operated on this basic principle of openness or Net neutrality. But over the last year, broadband providers such as Verizon opened the door to the idea of fast lanes and toll takers by taking a more liberal interpretation of the principles, sparking the need for firmer rules.

The open nature of the Internet is critical for the fostering of new technologies and services. It's why a young Harvard student named Mark Zuckerberg was able to build the Facebook social network. It's also how two Stanford graduate students, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, were able, with their little project called Google, to change how we search for things on the Web -- and upend the advertising industry at the same time.

The decade-long debate over how to implement Net neutrality has really been a battle to make certain a level of openness is preserved. And the way to preserve it is by establishing "rules of the road" that let Internet service providers, consumers and innovators know what's allowed and what's not allowed on the Net.

4. If nothing would happen to the Internet if these new rules weren't adopted, why should I care?

It's true that for much of the Internet's history there have been no formal rules governing Net neutrality. In fact, the only time official rules existed was between 2010 and 2014. Those rules were tossed out in January 2014 by a federal appeals court, so for the past year the Internet hasn't been "officially" protected by regulation. And most people can say that they have always and continue to enjoy a free and open Internet.

So why do we need the rules? It's because it will help protect the Internet from turning into a closed system that looks like the existing cable TV model.

Remember the "I want my MTV" campaign in the 1980s? Cable networks were unwilling to put MTV in their channel lineup. So MTV started the marketing campaign to get cable subscribers to demand that their local cable operators carry the channel. Imagine if YouTube or Netflix had to get permission from your broadband provider so you could watch your favorite cat videos or the next season of Netflix's "House of Cards" on their network?

In the traditional cable TV model, cable operators decide which channels you get and how easy it is to find content. By contrast, broadband providers today have no control over which Web sites or online services you access. Most Internet users want to keep it that way. Net neutrality regulation ensures that happens.

5. If everyone agrees on the rules, why are we still talking about this?

It's not the rules per se that are controversial. In fact, just about everyone agrees on the actual rules. What today's battle over Net neutrality is really about is whether the government should reclassify broadband as a so-called Title II telecommunications service under the 1934 Communications Act. If Internet service providers are treated as a Title II service, the FCC can then regulate them using rules originally established for the old telephone network. This legal definition establishes broadband as a "common carrier," a centuries-old concept that means their network must be open to everyone.
Wheeler's proposal, which will likely be approved on Thursday, makes this change to classify broadband under Title II. (http://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-chairman-wheeler-to-use-utility-style-rules-to-enforce-net-neutrality/) It's a clear departure from the "light" regulation the broadband industry has enjoyed for nearly 20 years. This light-touch approach to regulation has encouraged billions of dollars in investment in infrastructure, like wireless networks, and has helped make the Internet the biggest growth engine in the US economy.

Critics opposed to the FCC's Title II stance say reclassification will stifle innovation and curb growth. Why? They say that in addition to keeping the Internet open, the new classification will also carry with it a set of old-style utility regulation that might let the FCC to set prices or even force companies to share their networks and infrastructure with competitors.

6. Why is the FCC taking this drastic measure to reclassify broadband?

Democrats, consumer advocates and some Internet companies like Netflix say the only way the Net neutrality rules will hold up to court challenges is to use this old legal framework. Wheeler has said repeatedly that the FCC will ignore provisions in the old regulations that don't apply to broadband -- and that includes not setting rates or forcing companies to open their networks to competitors.
The carriers, however, are worried that future FCC commissioners might take a more proactive approach on rates, and Title II would give them the legal backing to proceed.

7. Will a new classification for broadband change anything?

That's the big question. You won't see any changes immediately. But critics of the Title II approach, such as Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, argue that applying utility-like regulation to broadband is a slippery slope because it could lead to the FCC imposing new taxes on the service, which will lead to higher prices for consumers. Critics also say this new classification will discourage broadband providers from investing in their networks.

Wheeler has addressed these concerns. He has said the agency will ignore any provisions that would impose new taxes on broadband service. But it remains to be seen whether broadband providers will truly be too scared to invest in their networks. Wheeler argues that's unlikely, given the huge success of the most recent wireless spectrum auction, which generated $45 billion for the government. AT&T and Verizon, who oppose Title II reclassification, were among the top three companies bidding in the auction, spending a total of $28.2 billion.

Spectrum is critical to ensuring there is enough capacity to deliver more and more quantities of information over the air, so it's unlikely that the carriers will let hold off on utilizing their newly gained licenses because of a different regulatory environment. It also isn't stopping new broadband competitors, such as Google, from announcing plans to deploy its fiber network for providing Internet access to additional cities.

8. Will Feb. 26 mark the end of this battle?

Sadly, no. Lawsuits are sure to follow. The major broadband operators in the US, including AT&T, Verizon and some cable operators, have already said they'll likely file a legal challenge to the Title II approach.

Republicans in Congress have also already crafted legislation that codifies the basic Net neutrality rules everyone agrees on but would strip the FCC of its authority to regulate the Internet. Some experts expect the Republican legislation to pass. But if it does, that legislation will surely get vetoed by President Obama, who is a big supporter of the FCC's Net neutrality rules and reclassification of broadband as a Title II service.

But while the battle may rage on in the courts, this latest chapter in the Net neutrality debate will conclude once the FCC votes to adopt this latest set of rules.

http://www.cnet.com/news/net-fix-8-burning-questions-about-net-neutrality/?tag=nl.e404&s_cid=e404&ttag=e404&ftag=CAD1acfa04

you clowns have been suckered by the VRWC propaganda and LIE into whining and bitching about govt overreach, effectively whining about ALL govt regulation, but NEVER do you whine and bitch about the much bigger problem of BigCorp buggery into every aspect of your life.

[ElNono]

They can start by putting ISPs under Title II, then we can discuss the details.

[Winehole23]

:tu

[TheSanityAnnex]

The 2 Repug "we want to screw up Internet for corporate profits, cartelization" commissioners will be outvoted, 2-3. Public comments are so far OVERWHELMINGLY pro regulation and Title II.

For fuck's sake do you ever read anything before spouting your bullshit? This is not the same net neutrality proposal that was shown to the public last May.

[ElNono]

For fuck's sake do you ever read anything before spouting your bullshit? This is not the same net neutrality proposal that was shown to the public last May.

Have you read anything about this topic yourself since May? What the meat is of this proposal has been discussed here and elsewhere for months now.

[ElNono]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=236356

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/fcc-internet-regulations-ajit-pai-115399.html#ixzz3SadiXEIL

So why is the FCC swinging the regulatory sledgehammer? It’s not to guarantee an open Internet. Nowhere in the 332-page plan — which you won’t see until after the FCC votes on it — can one find a description of systemic harms to consumers or entrepreneurs online. And small wonder, for the Internet is open today. Consumers can easily access the content of their choice. Online entrepreneurs can and do innovate freely.

No, the purpose is control for control’s sake. Digital dysfunction must be conjured into being to justify a public-sector power grab. Aside from being a bad deal for everyone who relies on the Internet, this Beltway-centric plan also distracts the FCC from what it should be focusing on: increasing broadband competition and giving consumers better broadband choices.

While the FCC is inserting government bureaucracy into all aspects of Internet access, the FEC is debating whether to regulate Internet content, specifically political speech posted for free online.

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-regs-will-make-internet-slow-as-in-europe-warn-fcc-fec-commissioners/article/2560567 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-regs-will-make-internet-slow-as-in-europe-warn-fcc-fec-commissioners/article/2560567)

They also joined to warn about the Democrat-chaired Federal Election Commission eyeing regulation of political speech on the Internet.

Noting recent votes on the issue that ended in a political deadlock, the two wrote, “these close votes and the risk of idiosyncratic case-by-case enforcement inevitably discourage citizens and groups from speaking freely online about politics.”

Bottom line, they warned: “Internet freedom works. It is difficult to imagine where we would be today had the government micromanaged the Internet for the past two decades as it does Amtrak and the U.S. Postal Service. Neither of us wants to find out where the Internet will be two decades from now if the federal government tightens its regulatory grip. We don’t need to shift control of the Internet to bureaucracies in Washington. Let’s leave the power where it belongs — with the American people. When it comes to Americans’ ability to access online content or offer political speech online, there isn’t anything broken for the government to “fix.” To paraphrase President Ronald Reagan, Internet regulation isn’t the solution to a problem. Internet regulation is the problem.”


-------------------------------------------

I'm not worried about net neutrality slowing speeds down or raising pricing, I am worried about our constantly over reaching government censoring content.

[angrydude]

Love how the retarded techies who are so afraid of verizon and comcast ruining the internet that they have cried out for government to ruin the internet.

The irony of course is that once regulatory capture occurs, as it always does, only verizon and comcast will exist anyway.

"Net neutrality" is a trojan horse. Lol @ thinking government cares about your internet experience.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Public comments are so far OVERWHELMINGLY pro regulation and Title II.

You are full of shit like always.

AMERICAN PEOPLE OPPOSE PRESIDENT OBAMA’S PLAN TO REGULATE THE INTERNET AND SUPPORT FCC TRANSPARENCY

According to a survey conducted over the weekend by Hart Research Associates, a leading

Democratic polling firm, the American people by a wide margin oppose President Obama’s plan to
regulate the Internet. Moreover, they overwhelmingly believe that the Federal Communications
Commission should make the plan available to the public before any vote. Among the key findings:


56% of Americans do not believe that the government should take a stronger and more active
role in overseeing and regulating the Internet. Only 33% favor such government action.

53% of Americans believe that it would be harmful for the FCC to do what President Obama has
requested and regulate the Internet using the same authority it has used to regulate telephone
service. Only 32% believe taking that step would be helpful.

79% of Americans believe that the exact wording and the details of the plan to regulate the
Internet should be made public before the FCC votes on it. Only 13% of Americans oppose
making the plan’s exact language public prior to the vote.

Only 9% of Americans believe that the FCC should pass the proposed regulations as they
currently stand. 85% support either delaying the vote until the full plan is made public or oppose
any new regulations.
Reacting to the results,

[boutons_deux]

You are full of shit like always.

AMERICAN PEOPLE OPPOSE PRESIDENT OBAMA’S PLAN TO REGULATE THE INTERNET AND SUPPORT FCC TRANSPARENCY

According to a survey conducted over the weekend by Hart Research Associates, a leading

Democratic polling firm, the American people by a wide margin oppose President Obama’s plan to
regulate the Internet. Moreover, they overwhelmingly believe that the Federal Communications
Commission should make the plan available to the public before any vote. Among the key findings:


56% of Americans do not believe that the government should take a stronger and more active
role in overseeing and regulating the Internet. Only 33% favor such government action.

53% of Americans believe that it would be harmful for the FCC to do what President Obama has
requested and regulate the Internet using the same authority it has used to regulate telephone
service. Only 32% believe taking that step would be helpful.

79% of Americans believe that the exact wording and the details of the plan to regulate the
Internet should be made public before the FCC votes on it. Only 13% of Americans oppose
making the plan’s exact language public prior to the vote.

Only 9% of Americans believe that the FCC should pass the proposed regulations as they
currently stand. 85% support either delaying the vote until the full plan is made public or oppose
any new regulations.
Reacting to the results,

you are a perfect example of being duped by VRWC/BigCorp/Repug/Fox slander, lies, propanda

Most Americans don't know WTF Internet is, nor what net netrality is, nor what Title II is, etc, etc. iow, their "opinions" are "JayWalking" worthless.

and you don't give a link to your BigCorp/BigISP propaganda shit

[boutons_deux]

BigCorps want to screw up Internet to make more money.

[TheSanityAnnex]

you are a perfect example of being duped by VRWC/BigCorp/Repug/Fox slander, lies, propanda

Most Americans don't know WTF Internet is, nor what net netrality is, nor what Title II is, etc, etc. iow, their "opinions" are "JayWalking" worthless.

and you don't give a link to your BigCorp/BigISP propaganda shit

Net neutrality is great in theory, but you are naïve to think that is how it will play out in the government's hands.

And my BigCorp/BigISP propaganda is from the FCC's website http://www.fcc.gov/documents

[TheSanityAnnex]

BigCorps want to screw up Internet to make more money.BigGov wants the money. Estimating 15 billion in tax revenue.

[boutons_deux]

BigGov wants the money. Estimating 15 billion in tax revenue.

bullshit, where do you get $15B, you BigCorp dick sucker?

[boutons_deux]

Net neutrality is great in theory, but you are naïve to think that is how it will play out in the government's hands.

And my BigCorp/BigISP propaganda is from the FCC's website http://www.fcc.gov/documents

the FCC decision to reserve to itself to regulate Internet as a public utility is a defensive move against BigCorps wanting to screw us all.

[Cry Havoc]

Net neutrality is great in theory, but you are naïve to think that is how it will play out in the government's hands.

And my BigCorp/BigISP propaganda is from the FCC's website http://www.fcc.gov/documents

Yeah, that whole electricity thing and interstate system in the US were absolute, colossal failures.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Yeah, that whole electricity thing and interstate system in the US were absolute, colossal failures.
What an awful take. Care to explain how the government would abuse electricity and interstate?

After all Snowden has revealed do you really trust gov running/regulating/controlling your internet?

[TheSanityAnnex]

bullshit, where do you get $15B, you BigCorp dick sucker?
There's a lot of figures floating around. Standard USF fee would bring in billions alone.

Its shocking that you rail the NSA yet believe gov won't abuse its power when it comes to running the Internet.

[sickdsm]

Without the streaming of netflix and kodi, my internet can easily be handled in my cell data plan.

At the end of the day, isn't this about not turning the cable/dish services into the newspaper industry?

Feel bad for providers, they bare the brunt of streaming services.

[angrydude]

The silver lining in all of this is getting to laugh at all the libs for ever and ever and ever when comcast & verizon buy the regulators (like the regulators have always wanted) and use their new found power to squash all competition (like the libs have always feared)

No one cares about your netflix viewing habits.

[ElNono]

Love how the retarded techies who are so afraid of verizon and comcast ruining the internet that they have cried out for government to ruin the internet.

The irony of course is that once regulatory capture occurs, as it always does, only verizon and comcast will exist anyway.

"Net neutrality" is a trojan horse. Lol @ thinking government cares about your internet experience.


The silver lining in all of this is getting to laugh at all the libs for ever and ever and ever when comcast & verizon buy the regulators (like the regulators have always wanted) and use their new found power to squash all competition (like the libs have always feared)

No one cares about your netflix viewing habits.

:lol what does this rant even means? The government has regulated the internet for years. Heck, there's no internet without the government merging all it's networks to begin with.

This is merely a reclassification, which gives the government more regulatory power, and it's pretty clear why Verizon and Comcast hate it.

You're missing who Verizon and Comcast are afraid of. It's not the government, it's Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon... they're all companies with extensive lobbying arms and in the case of Apple, they make more in profits than Comcast and Verizon combined. Google is knee deep in this new regulatory framework. Google especially has been very aggressive against them:

- Already in half the smartphones they sell (Apple is in the other half)
- Free OS, with free messaging and free google voice killed their app, text, voice cash cow
- Google Fiber directly competing with them
- Recently associated with SpaceX to launch low-orbiting satellites to build their own cell network

Amazon already announced it will start creating exclusive video content. Microsoft, Amazon and Apple all have huge cloud system that would become pretty expensive with tiered pricing. It's not hard to see who is against who, and if SlingTV is a sign of things to come, the writing is on the wall for those companies. The government is just a mere pawn getting bought from one end or the other, but as soon as Title II classification happens, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon and all these companies will have a lot bigger tools to play with.

[ElNono]

What an awful take. Care to explain how the government would abuse electricity and interstate?

After all Snowden has revealed do you really trust gov running/regulating/controlling your internet?

You mean trusting the same government that was running/regulating/controlling your internet since the internet was created by the government?

You're not getting the government out of the internet, because the government was never out of the internet.

The fight here is between ISPs and businesses that rely heavily on the internet and that eventually want to take over the ISPs. The government is the pawn in the middle.

How it's gonna turn out? Time will tell, probably whoever has the deeper pockets and better connections will win out. That's how it has almost always worked, and this is actually another chapter in that very same story.

[Winehole23]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HpczG7yJTw8/VLv9y2BHbUI/AAAAAAAAIuU/CExO9qm08j4/s1600/Karl%2BGotch%2BAtomic%2BSuplex.jpg


You mean trusting the same government that was running/regulating/controlling your internet since the internet was created by the government?

[boutons_deux]

There's a lot of figures floating around. Standard USF fee would bring in billions alone.

Its shocking that you rail the NSA yet believe gov won't abuse its power when it comes to running the Internet.

yep, "floating around" is FACT for TSA! :lol

where does FCC says they intend to charge USF on Internet access?

btw, USF, confiscatory socialism!, pays to provide phone service to underserved rural, small town folk, the fucking solid base of the Repug party! :lol

Old, white, poor, low-education, low-wage, bitter and clinging to their Bibles, guns, screwing themselves by voting Repug, and loving their taxpayer-subsidized telephones! :lol

[boutons_deux]

You mean trusting the same government that was running/regulating/controlling your internet since the internet was created by the government?


The same govt (US taxpayers) that electrified rural America, built all the major hydropower dams (Viva Las Vegas!), built the Tennessee River Authority, subsidizes rich peoples' flood/storm/coastal home insurance, guarantees nuclear power plant meltdown coverage, etc, etc?

[TheSanityAnnex]

You mean trusting the same government that was running/regulating/controlling your internet since the internet was created by the government?


This will be no where near the same.

[boutons_deux]

This will be no where near the same.

where does FCC says they intend to charge USF on Internet access?

[Th'Pusher]

This will be no where near the same.

You're such a moron. An intellectual notch above conspiracy theorists like cosmored, Galileo and SA 210.

Can you tell us what it feels to live in constant fear from imaginary bogeymen?

And :lol at EN going balls deep in TSA and angrydude.

[ElNono]

This will be no where near the same.

You're approaching this as an emotional partisan fight, which couldn't be more disconnected from what's going on.

ISPs wanted to frame this as a free market vs gubmint takeover, but it's nothing like that. As scott aptly described on the other thread on the subject, most of these ISPs are currently enjoying a government subsidized Natural Monopoly which they don't want to lose. There's nothing "free market" about that. As I said, government has been knee deep into regulating the internet and everything surrounding it since the very beginning.

The real "free market" solution to this would be to rid the monopoly power from these companies and let everyone compete. But neither the ISPs that are crying foul nor the government are taking that route, so it's moot.

Time will tell how this all works out, but this is strictly a battle between large business interests. The politicization of all this is how you end up with "Net Neutrality Obama version" or "Al Gore invented the internet", which is a distraction.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You're approaching this as an emotional partisan fight, which couldn't be more disconnected from what's going on.

ISPs wanted to frame this as a free market vs gubmint takeover, but it's nothing like that. As scott (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=150) aptly described on the other thread on the subject, most of these ISPs are currently enjoying a government subsidized Natural Monopoly which they don't want to lose. There's nothing "free market" about that. As I said, government has been knee deep into regulating the internet and everything surrounding it since the very beginning.

The real "free market" solution to this would be to rid the monopoly power from these companies and let everyone compete. But neither the ISPs that are crying foul nor the government are taking that route, so it's moot.

Time will tell how this all works out, but this is strictly a battle between large business interests. The politicization of all this is how you end up with "Net Neutrality Obama version" or "Al Gore invented the internet", which is a distraction.

You are missing my point completely. I do not trust our government to properly run it without abusing it's power.

[ElNono]

You are missing my point completely. I do not trust our government to properly run it without abusing it's power.

:lol I'm not. You're speaking in clichés: "gubmint bad, you'll see". Well, that discussion is irrelevant in this case, the government had it's hands on this since the get go: from granting monopolies, to the DMCA, COPA, etc. The concern of government overreach is well past it's expiration date here, it's been happening for a long ass time (ie: SOPA, that was eventually beat through public outcry), and it didn't need this particular regulation to do it.

Now put into words what's your actual non-political, technological or economic concerns about this specific move.

[ElNono]

And before boutons tries to turn this into government cheerleading (again), the point here is that this was never about getting government in or out of the internet, which is probably a better and more valid discussion to be had, although entirely academic.

The ISPs don't want that, and their competing interests don't want that either. That's been painfully clear since the get go. Which is why the discussion about government intervention is moot: none of the parts in this situation want to have that conversation.

[boutons_deux]

You are missing my point completely. I do not trust our government to properly run it without abusing it's power.

Your only 2 choices to trust with Internet:

Govt: rejected

BigCorp: gotta accept this choice

:lol

[boutons_deux]

"this was never about getting government in or out of the internet"

WTF? :lol

For Repugs, VRWC, BigCorp, it's ALWAYS about getting govt out of EVERYTHING (except brown and black vaginas)

[TheSanityAnnex]

And before boutons tries to turn this into government cheerleading (again), the point here is that this was never about getting government in or out of the internet, which is probably a better and more valid discussion to be had, although entirely academic.

This is what I've been trying to discuss

[TheSanityAnnex]

Your only 2 choices to trust with Internet:

Govt: rejected

BigCorp: gotta accept this choice

:lol

Concerning the Internet yes I would trust bigcorp over gov.

[Th'Pusher]

This is what I've been trying to discuss

:lol why would you want to discuss that? As EN pointed out, neither of the competing interests want government out of the Internet regulation business.

I honestly think you have no idea what you're talking about and you should bow out gracefully (with only part of EN's load on your face)

[ElNono]

This is what I've been trying to discuss

We can have that discussion any time. There's a lot of topics to cover, including monopolies, subsidies, infrastructure, pricing, etc. Be warned though that's largely a waste of time. The parties facing each other on this want government in the middle. ISPs want the monopolies and the subsidies, but no regulation, while the other end wants the exact opposite.

It has nothing to do with this regulatory step, Barry, or Net Neutrality though. Comcast and Verizon are government-picked winners. This step is government picking different winners and losers.

[Th'Pusher]

Concerning the Internet yes I would trust bigcorp over gov.

The question is which big corp. Verizon and Comcast or Apple and Google? Which big corp do you side with?

[ElNono]

lol this is not about loads on anybody's faces... the politicization of this whole thing has made people take sides on ridiculous imaginary fronts.

There's obviously a lot of money at play, so you can't blame people for walking into this with just partial information.

[ElNono]

The question is which big corp. Verizon and Comcast or Apple and Google? Which big corp do you side with?

Exactly. This is what is lost in all the noise.

[Th'Pusher]

lol this is not about loads on anybody's faces... the politicization of this whole thing has made people take sides on ridiculous imaginary fronts.

There's obviously a lot of money at play, so you can't blame people for walking into this with just partial information.

You're too nice EN. You were right though. In typical TSA fashion he stormed in with an emotional, partisan ill informed take. Thanks for educating him and all who read.

[ElNono]

Now put into words what's your actual non-political, technological or economic concerns about this specific move.

FWIW, this is the question that rarely gets answered, which is ironic considering the claims of "ruining the internet"....

[Th'Pusher]

^TSA is incapable of answering that question.

[ElNono]

:lol I don't know what beef you have with TSA, but I want no part of it.

[Th'Pusher]

:lol I don't know what beef you have with TSA, but I want no part of it.

Fair enough.

I just don't like people who make decisions based on emotion and a political agenda as opposed to facts and logic.

You're right in that the facts of this issues has been obfuscated by the politics, but generally this is TSAs MO.

The government is gonna take my guns!!!!

Etc, etc.

[Spurminator]

Regarding the secrecy...

570270376485191680

[angrydude]

That didn't take long.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/dear-fcc-rethink-those-vague-general-conduct-rules


Dear FCC: Rethink The Vague "General Conduct" Rule

For many months, EFF has been working with a broad coalition of advocates to persuade the Federal Communications Commission to adopt new Open Internet rules that would survive legal scrutiny and actually help protect the Open Internet. Our message has been clear from the beginning: the FCC has a role to play, but its role must be firmly bounded.

Two weeks ago, we learned that we had likely managed the first goal—the FCC is going to do the right thing and reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, giving it the ability to make new, meaningful Open Internet rules. But we are deeply concerned that the FCC’s new rules will include a provision that sounds like a recipe for overreach and confusion: the so-called “general conduct rule.”

According to the FCC's own "Fact Sheet," the proposed rule will allow the FCC to review (and presumably punish) non-neutral practices that may “harm” consumers or edge providers. Late last week, as the window for public comment was closing, EFF filed a letter with the FCC urging it to clarify and sharply limit the scope of any “general conduct” provision:

[T]he Commission should use its Title II authority to engage in light-touch regulation, taking great care to adhere to clear, targeted, and transparent rules. A “general conduct rule,” applied on a case-by- case basis with the only touchstone being whether a given practice “harms” consumers or edge providers, may lead to years of expensive litigation to determine the meaning of “harm” (for those who can afford to engage in it). What is worse, it could be abused by a future Commission to target legitimate practices that offer significant benefits to the public . . .

Accordingly, if the Commission intends to adopt a “general conduct rule” it should spell out, in advance, the contours and limits of that rule, and clarify that the rule shall be applied only in specific circumstances.

Unfortunately, if a recent report from Reuters is correct, the general conduct rule will be anything but clear. The FCC will evaluate “harm” based on consideration of seven factors: impact on competition; impact on innovation; impact on free expression; impact on broadband deployment and investments; whether the actions in question are specific to some applications and not others; whether they comply with industry best standards and practices; and whether they take place without the awareness of the end-user, the Internet subscriber.

There are several problems with this approach. First, it suggests that the FCC believes it has broad authority to pursue any number of practices—hardly the narrow, light-touch approach we need to protect the open Internet. Second, we worry that this rule will be extremely expensive in practice, because anyone wanting to bring a complaint will be hard-pressed to predict whether they will succeed. For example, how will the Commission determine “industry best standards and practices”? As a practical matter, it is likely that only companies that can afford years of litigation to answer these questions will be able to rely on the rule at all. Third, a multi-factor test gives the FCC an awful lot of discretion, potentially giving an unfair advantage to parties with insider influence.

We are days away from a final vote, and it appears that many of the proposed rules will make sense for the Internet. Based on what we know so far, however, the general conduct proposal may not. The FCC should rethink this one.

[angrydude]

lol @ libs giving big corporations the gun they need to shoot them with.

When you make a deal with the devil you're going to get burned.

[ElNono]

lol @ missing the forest for the tree

Net neutrality: A lobbying bonanza
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/net-neutrality-a-lobbying-bonanza-115385.html

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

How much $ will this regulation fee add to our bills each month?

[TheSanityAnnex]

:lol I'm not. You're speaking in clichés: "gubmint bad, you'll see". Well, that discussion is irrelevant in this case, the government had it's hands on this since the get go: from granting monopolies, to the DMCA, COPA, etc. The concern of government overreach is well past it's expiration date here, it's been happening for a long ass time (ie: SOPA, that was eventually beat through public outcry), and it didn't need this particular regulation to do it.

Now put into words what's your actual non-political, technological or economic concerns about this specific move.I firmly believe the government will abuse their power and regulate content.

[TheSanityAnnex]

:lol I don't know what beef you have with TSA, but I want no part of it.

I'm not sure either. It's amusing though.

[ElNono]

I firmly believe the government will abuse their power and regulate content.

They already regulate content. How does this change modify that in any way?

[TheSanityAnnex]

They already regulate content. How does this change modify that in any way?

More heavily regulated and unchecked

[ElNono]

More heavily regulated and unchecked

They can already do that, with or without this set of rules. Any non-political concerns? Impact on economics, technology? nothing?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are missing my point completely. I do not trust our government to properly run it without abusing it's power.

It's common for stupid people to fall back on ideology. So much easier than thinking for yourself critically.

[ElNono]

FWIW, whatever passes is going to be sued to hell and back...

[boutons_deux]

FWIW, whatever passes is going to be sued to hell and back...

Because the BigNetwork people are salivating over the $100Bs they will be able to suck down by getting content providers to pay for delivery, while cutting performance for the consumers, w/o any additional investment in increasing network throughput.

Today everybody shares 100% of the bandwidth pie. What BigNetwork wants is for the content providers to pay like hell for the 30% while everybody else is stuck with 70%.

Their FUD is that if net neutrality is regulated, Internet goes under Title II, they won't invest.

[ElNono]

^ everybody is in it for the $$$.... there's no good guys/bad guys here...

[boutons_deux]

^ everybody is in it for the $$$.... there's no good guys/bad guys here...

bullshit. BigNetwork cartel wants to screw everybody. If the Repugs were voting on it, they had Internet to them.

[boutons_deux]

Concerning the Internet yes I would trust bigcorp over gov.

USA BigCorp ISPs, network operators charge higher prices for shittier service than other industrial countries. And screwing Internet, cable TV, cellphone (ALWAYS happens when BigCorp displace govt regulation) with higher prices and even shittier services is ALWAYS their (profit) objective.

You're either IGNORANT of the the above, or your blind ideology makes you STUPID, or both.

[z0sa]

It would seem the FCC's hand was forced by the providers when they began offering super high speed internet to the select few who could afford it. I have no doubt in my mind the FCC will choose the broadest possible parameters so as to increase the government's own power. Likewise, I fully expect continued massive sustained propaganda campaigns and lobbying efforts on the part of the big corps in an attempt to thwart regulation.

no signs of a struggle are readily apparent to the incredibly vast majority of us flesh and blood non corporations, so I feel mostly indifference. I could see the big corporations using this as an excuse to penny pinch as much as possible on expanding their highest speed infrastructure, but as the saying goes, you dont miss what you never had.

[boutons_deux]

"I have no doubt in my mind the FCC will choose the broadest possible parameters so as to increase the government's own power"

I have no doubt that you are wrong. The FCC move was defensive, to preempt any "pay to play" bullshit. I'm pretty sure FCC will not use their power.

I would like them to force BigISP/BigNetwork to allow competitors (gogole fiber, etc) on their utility poles, echoing the Carterfone decision.

[TheSanityAnnex]

"I have no doubt in my mind the FCC will choose the broadest possible parameters so as to increase the government's own power"

I have no doubt that you are wrong. The FCC move was defensive, to preempt any "pay to play" bullshit. I'm pretty sure FCC will not use their power. :lol

I would like them to force BigISP/BigNetwork to allow competitors (gogole fiber, etc) on their utility poles, echoing the Carterfone decision.

[angrydude]

Brought to you by the same people who want to bring you SOPA and CISPA.

In for a penny, in for a pound

[ChumpDumper]

"I have no doubt in my mind the FCC will choose the broadest possible parameters so as to increase the government's own power"

I have no doubt that you are wrong. The FCC move was defensive, to preempt any "pay to play" bullshit. I'm pretty sure FCC will not use their power.

I would like them to force BigISP/BigNetwork to allow competitors (gogole fiber, etc) on their utility poles, echoing the Carterfone decision.


Didn't they just do that by classifying them as telecom companies?

[boutons_deux]

Didn't they just do that by classifying them as telecom companies?

no, nothing is changed EXCEPT the classifying broadband as a utility AND killing state laws against taxpayer-owned municipal networks

So what does y'all's govt paranoia dream as how FCC will destroy America? :lol

[ChumpDumper]

no, nothing is changed EXCEPT the classifying broadband as a utility AND killing state laws against taxpayer-owned municipal networks

So what does y'all's govt paranoia dream as how FCC will destroy America? :lolYou sure about that?

Anyway, Google got access to ATT's poles in Austin when the city threatened to step in. Seems like a non-issue if the local gubmit actually wants it.

And who wouldn't want Google?

[boutons_deux]

5 Things You Need to Know About the FCC's Net Neutrality Plan

1. Reclassification

Chairman Wheeler has decided to "reclassify" broadband as a telecom service rather than an information service. What does that mean? Basically that ISPs will have to answer to the FCC more so than they do now. The FCC already handles issues related to telecom companies - like those that provide landline phone service - and it would extend that oversight to ISPs, too.

Why is this img to pass net neutrality rules that will stick. It has already been sued over previous net neutrality rules - first by Comcast and then by Verizon - and the court has sided with the ISPs both times. The court said the FCC has some authority to monitor broadband issues, but it lacks the power to hand down regulations that apply to the ISPs.

That's because the Internet is considered an "information service," something the Supreme Court established in the 2005 Brand X case. How do you fix that? Give yourself the authority, of course. Chairman Wheeler's plan is to say that the Internet should actually be considered a telecom service, which would give the FCC much more authority to hand down net neutrality regulations and intervene if a customer has a complaint. If an ISP sues again, the FCC is also much more likely to prevail if ISPs have been reclassified as a telecom service.

ISPs won't be subject to all the rules their telecom counterparts must follow; Wheeler has said he wants to take a 21st century approach to reclassification. Namely, the FCC has promised that ISPs won't be subject to rate regulation or tariffs, last-mile unbundling, or the burdensome paperwork traditional telecom firms are subject to now.


2. No Paid Prioritization

Before he landed on reclassification, Chairman Wheeler threw around a bunch of ideas, one of which was allowing paid prioritization at times when it was commercially reasonable.
The FCC never got specific on what that meant; the only real example it provided was a prioritized connection for someone with an at-home heart-rate monitor that didn't significantly impact Internet traffic to anyone else.

But paid prioritization - or the idea that a company could pay to have their traffic or content move faster than someone else - is the exact opposite of what net neutrality wants to accomplish. As a result, net neutrality advocates flipped out, and Wheeler eventually softened his approach and simply asked the public what they thought about paid prioritization during the public comment period.

The final rules get very specific: no paid prioritization. "I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services," Wheeler wrote in an op-ed for Wired (http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality/).

3. The Rules Cover the Wireless Industry

The last time the FCC passed net neutrality regulations was in 2010, and the wireless industry successfully argued that it was still growing and should not be subject to all of the rules, lest it thwart innovation.

The FCC agreed, applying only one part of its rules to mobile broadband: transparency, which meant wireless carriers had to be up front about their practices. But the industry was exempt from everything else - until now.

Going forward, the FCC's net neutrality rules would cover consumers however they access the Web: PC, phone, tablet, etc. and all Internet service providers (cable, satellite, wireless) would have to adhere to three basic rules: no blocking, no throttling specific apps or content, and no paid prioritization.

4. Showdown at the Inter-Connection Corral

Last year, you might have noticed a few stories about Netflix fighting with ISPs like Comcast and Verizon about "inter-connection" or "peering" deals. Basically, these agreements provide Netflix with direct access to an ISP's network, which speeds up Netflix's service on those ISPs. If you're a customer of an ISP that has one of these inter-connection deals with Netflix (like Comcast, Verizon, or AT&T), you're less likely to see your Netflix videos buffer or stall.


http://www5.pcmag.com/media/images/456406-netflix-inter-connection-graphic.jpg?thumb=y

Cool, right? Not according to Netflix, which has likened these deals to extortion and called for the FCC (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2455210,00.asp) to put a stop to them by passing strong net neutrality regulations.

At first, the FCC said it wasn't going to include inter-connection in its net neutrality rules because it already had enough on its plate there. But it did agree to investigate (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2459525,00.asp) who was really to blame for things like Netflix slowdowns.

Fast forward to yesterday, and the FCC has decided to include inter-connection in its net neutrality rules after all. The agency is not going to ban these deals, though. Instead, it will let companies like Netflix and individuals who believe an inter-connection deal might be unfair to file a complaint with the FCC. The agency will decide whether it does anything about these complaints on a case-by-case basis.

5. ISPs, Carriers, and Republicans are NOT Happy

http://www1.pcmag.com/media/images/456405-ncta-on-title-ii.jpg?thumb=y

Not surprisingly, ISPs are irked by the chairman's plan (that's the NCTA's banner above). In general, most people involved in this debate are in favor of net neutrality. They differ, however, on how it should be preserved.

ISPs will tell you that the market has worked just fine without net neutrality rules: :lol

just look at the growth in video streams and smartphone users, they say. Consumer groups, however, argue that there's nothing to stop these ISPs from engaging in shady behavior. At least with net neutrality rules on the books, people will be able to complain to the FCC if they think something is amiss.

In Congress, the issue split right down party lines. President Obama backs reclassification, as do a number of Democrats, like Sen. Al Franken. Republicans, however, are currently working on legislation (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2475404,00.asp) that would strip the FCC of its authority to introduce net neutrality rules like these, though it remains to be seen if that will get any traction, and Obama is likely to veto it.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2476350,00.asp

As always, NOTHING but LIES, SLANDER, FUD from BigCorp and Repugs.

[z0sa]

"I have no doubt in my mind the FCC will choose the broadest possible parameters so as to increase the government's own power"

I have no doubt that you are wrong. The FCC move was defensive, to preempt any "pay to play" bullshit. I'm pretty sure FCC will not use their power.

I would like them to force BigISP/BigNetwork to allow competitors (gogole fiber, etc) on their utility poles, echoing the Carterfone decision.




Defensive? Hardly. I havent thought about the waves in a long time, but IIRC, the FCC traditionally only regulates our finite "public domain" communications resources. The internet is effectively infinite. Classifying an infinite information source as a telecom service rather than an information service seems awfully counter intuitive, at least, in a vacuum. This issue of whether or not the FCC possesses regulatory ability already had its day in court, anyway. It is pretty cut and dry that the internet, accurately defined as an information medium, does not fall under FCC regs. This "reclassification" gambit may work as intended, may very well be needed, but for all intents and purposes, it is the exploitation of a loophole.

[boutons_deux]

Defensive? Hardly. I havent thought about the waves in a long time, but IIRC, the FCC traditionally only regulates our finite "public domain" communications resources. The internet is effectively infinite. Classifying an infinite information source as a telecom service rather than an information service seems awfully counter intuitive, at least, in a vacuum. This issue of whether or not the FCC possesses regulatory ability already had its day in court, anyway. It is pretty cut and dry that the internet, accurately defined as an information medium, does not fall under FCC regs. This "reclassification" gambit may work as intended, may very well be needed, but for all intents and purposes, it is the exploitation of a loophole.

internet carries more that "information", it carries video, voice (VOIP), etc, etc. It is the basis of 1000s of businesses, and a tremendous economic stimulus SO FAR. They BigISPs screwed themselves by saying they would turn Internet into a toll road service, forcing non-toll payers into shitty performance, and precluding new businesses that can't afford to pay the tolls.

FCC said no, you won't.

All y'all anti-government haters will be PROVED WRONG AGAIN and AS ALWAYS.

If BigISP want a toll service, they can build toll networks in parallel with non-toll networks.

[angrydude]

Boutons, just because you think legislation does something, doesn't mean that's all it does.

But that's because you're stupid.

[z0sa]

FCC saying no you wont is the same as saying the FCC exploited a loophole. For good or ill, that is the reality. Now, you can make it sound like they are some white knight coming to save the little people's internet, but in reality, the average consumer is secondary to accrung dollar bills on the one hand and establishing the first toehold of an immense regulatory power on the other.

[ElNono]

It would seem the FCC's hand was forced by the providers when they began offering super high speed internet to the select few who could afford it. I have no doubt in my mind the FCC will choose the broadest possible parameters so as to increase the government's own power. Likewise, I fully expect continued massive sustained propaganda campaigns and lobbying efforts on the part of the big corps in an attempt to thwart regulation.

no signs of a struggle are readily apparent to the incredibly vast majority of us flesh and blood non corporations, so I feel mostly indifference. I could see the big corporations using this as an excuse to penny pinch as much as possible on expanding their highest speed infrastructure, but as the saying goes, you dont miss what you never had.

Pretty much in agreement, this is basically a boxing match between corps. It does, however, rattles the nest of status quo somewhat, which probably will cause some changes. I suspect the changes will be good or bad depending on the interests of whoever corp is doing a better job lining up the pockets of government officials. Which really is business as usual.

[ElNono]

Defensive? Hardly. I havent thought about the waves in a long time, but IIRC, the FCC traditionally only regulates our finite "public domain" communications resources. The internet is effectively infinite. Classifying an infinite information source as a telecom service rather than an information service seems awfully counter intuitive, at least, in a vacuum. This issue of whether or not the FCC possesses regulatory ability already had its day in court, anyway. It is pretty cut and dry that the internet, accurately defined as an information medium, does not fall under FCC regs. This "reclassification" gambit may work as intended, may very well be needed, but for all intents and purposes, it is the exploitation of a loophole.

Technically speaking, this is not true. What you're calling "infinite" in that instance is the content. Under that construction, telephone lines are "infinite" too, since their content is continuous and ever changing. The reality is that the internet, wired or wireless is simply another network, much like the phone network, the power grid, etc. As a matter of fact, vast parts of the internet network itself was afforded the same regulatory benefits of the phone network (natural monopolies, government subsidies, etc).

The truth of the matter is that the concept of "information services" as a separate regulatory entity was only created in 1996. The premise was likely to reduce regulatory burden in order to build out the network. The actual reason is probably closely tied to lobbying and $$$.

[z0sa]

PS... id wager the big corps will still get their fast lane subscription "toll" later on down the line. In fact, i foresee the FCC at some point reversing their direction, until they are first sanctioning, then requiring a separate faster internet prioritization, for all their friends with the dough that want them now.

Only difference will be the FCC getting their cut, along with certain special interest groups good for propaganda purposes, such as the disabled vet with an at home heart rate monitor. Wheeler already mentioned a similar example in defense of paid prioritization, though he hardened on the issue... for the moment.

[z0sa]

Technically speaking, this is not true. What you're calling "infinite" in that instance is the content. Under that construction, telephone lines are "infinite" too, since their content is continuous and ever changing. The reality is that the internet, wired or wireless is simply another network, much like the phone network, the power grid, etc. As a matter of fact, vast parts of the internet network itself was afforded the same regulatory benefits of the phone network (natural monopolies, government subsidies, etc).

The truth of the matter is that the concept of "information services" as a separate regulatory entity was only created in 1996. The premise was likely to reduce regulatory burden in order to build out the network. The actual reason is probably closely tied to lobbying and $$$.

Thanks for clarifying... in all honesty, after spending some time on the FCC website and wikipedia, I find it hard understanding why the government needs to be jumping through hoops at all. From my (apparently) layman's perspective, it looks like the FCC has been empowered with regulating any and all types of communications. I guess that's why my ass aint a lawyer. Gonna do more reading on this when I have time.


Which really is business as usual.

Business as usual certainly fits the bill, but I cant help wondering about the many different possible courses an FCC regulated internet will have taken 30, 50, 100 years from now. Perhaps it will amount to nothing at all because their gambit doesnt stand up in court. Who knows. Fascinating to think about though.

[spurraider21]

http://i.gyazo.com/76f7dd7a7ccdd1116955c2d9ab01e010.png

[ElNono]

Thanks for clarifying... in all honesty, after spending some time on the FCC website and wikipedia, I find it hard understanding why the government needs to be jumping through hoops at all. From my (apparently) layman's perspective, it looks like the FCC has been empowered with regulating any and all types of communications. I guess that's why my ass aint a lawyer. Gonna do more reading on this when I have time.

Correct. The FCC function actually *is* to regulate communications like the internet and has done so for many, many years. There was never a time where the FCC, Congress or both did not regulate the internet.

[Th'Pusher]

http://i.gyazo.com/76f7dd7a7ccdd1116955c2d9ab01e010.png

Reminds me of those tea bags holding up the signs telling the federal government to keep its hands off of medicare. He's a wildly misinformed old kook.

[spurraider21]

Reminds me of those tea bags holding up the signs telling the federal government to keep its hands off of medicare. He's a wildly misinformed old kook.
which part of that statement was misinformed?

[ElNono]

which part of that statement was misinformed?

- "... federal agency now claims the power to regulate the Internet"
- "... largest regulatory power grab in recent history" (unless recent history doesn't include Barrycare)
- "... the federal government should keep its hands off the Internet"

I left out the disingenuous parts, there's one or two of those there too, but mostly based off the misinformed parts.

FWIW, I think Ron Paul is a standup guy. I think his actual solution to this would be complete deregulation and abolish of the FCC. Certainly a debatable point, but not what was at issue here.

[Th'Pusher]

which part of that statement was misinformed?
As EN has pointed out multiple times in this thread theRe has never been a time when the federal government did not regulate the Internet. His statement about the fed keeping its hands off the internet implies that they don't already have their hands on it. That is inaccurate and he is spreading misinformation.

[ElNono]

Business as usual certainly fits the bill, but I cant help wondering about the many different possible courses an FCC regulated internet will have taken 30, 50, 100 years from now. Perhaps it will amount to nothing at all because their gambit doesnt stand up in court. Who knows. Fascinating to think about though.

I actually missed this post, but you probably get the gist by now. The internet you're surfing now is what the "FCC regulated internet" looks like. There was never a time where the FCC didn't regulate the internet. Now they might get bigger tools (depending on the upcoming lawsuits, I suppose). The reason is simple: the network isn't what it used to be in it's infancy anymore. All those monopolies and subsidies that they handed to build it out now are being used to control the monster. If you're truly interested, as scott pointed out in the other thread, google "Natural Monopolies" and read up. That's how the "public" internet was built.

[boutons_deux]

Boutons, just because you think legislation does something, doesn't mean that's all it does.

But that's because you're stupid.

it's not legislation, they are administrative rules.

what are these secret FCC "doings" you speak of?

[spurraider21]

personally, im a fan of the bandwidth requirement though

[boutons_deux]

One proof that the FCC has done something fantastic for the country is that Glenn Beck, Krazy Assed Canadian Anchor Baby Kruz, the Repugs, the BigISPs are vehementaly against the FCC rulings, because those assholes NEVER do anything FOR the country.

[RandomGuy]

Love how the retarded techies who are so afraid of verizon and comcast ruining the internet that they have cried out for government to ruin the internet.

The irony of course is that once regulatory capture occurs, as it always does, only verizon and comcast will exist anyway.

"Net neutrality" is a trojan horse. Lol @ thinking government cares about your internet experience.

you say that as if monopolies extracting as much money as possible from their products is good for the free market.

[z0sa]

I actually missed this post, but you probably get the gist by now. The internet you're surfing now is what the "FCC regulated internet" looks like. There was never a time where the FCC didn't regulate the internet. Now they might get bigger tools (depending on the upcoming lawsuits, I suppose). The reason is simple: the network isn't what it used to be in it's infancy anymore. All those monopolies and subsidies that they handed to build it out now are being used to control the monster. If you're truly interested, as scott pointed out in the other thread, google "Natural Monopolies" and read up. That's how the "public" internet was built.

actually I got lost in the world of imagination and simply didnt apply the information you related to me at all. Thanks for all your wisdom shared on this subject thus far, Professor Nono.

[Winehole23]

The Federal Communications Commission’s net-neutrality decision opens the FCC to “boundless authority to regulate the internet for whatever it sees fit,” the Electronic Frontier Foundation is warning.

The civil rights group says the FCC’s action in December (http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/12/fcc-order/), which was based on shaky legal authority, creates a paradox of epic proportions. The EFF favors net neutrality but worries whether the means justify the ends.


“We’re wholly in favor of net neutrality in practice, but a finding of ancillary jurisdiction here would give the FCC pretty much boundless authority to regulate the internet for whatever it sees fit. And that kind of unrestrained authority makes us nervous about follow-on initiatives like broadcast flags (https://www.eff.org/issues/broadcast-flag) and indecency campaigns (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Seven_dirty_words),” Abigail Phillips, an EFF staff attorney, wrote on the group’s blog Thursday (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/part-i-fcc-ancillary-authority-regulate-internet).

http://www.wired.com/2011/02/fcc-trojan-horse/

[ElNono]

Nobody ever is going to be happy about this. The EFF wanted Title II regulation, and they received their wish. But now they complain about the strings attached. ISPs want something else. Tech companies want something else...

[Winehole23]

regulatory solutions to lack of access and throttling are bound to create new problems. it's hard to do the cost benefit analysis before the paradoxes of regulation have arrived.

[angrydude]

you say that as if monopolies extracting as much money as possible from their products is good for the free market.

No, but it's predictable they'll try. How effective they are depends on how easy it is for them.

The point is centralizing power isn't the way to stop a monopoly. It's the way to ensure one.

The big companies are going to use these new regulatory rules as a hammer against smaller ISPs. That is as predictable as the sun coming up.

[ElNono]

regulatory solutions to lack of access and throttling are bound to create new problems. it's hard to do the cost benefit analysis before the paradoxes of regulation have arrived.

There's certainly more "free market" solutions to this, including winding down monopoly power in what are now seemingly competitive areas.

But no party in this brouhaha is looking for a "free market" solution, they want to tailor regulation to their wants and needs (and arguably there some reasons that are good. You mentioned access, which is good).

Unfortunately, this is a fight that has moved to lobbyists desks a long time ago, well before this new orders took shape. The new orders will intensify that.

[Winehole23]

There's certainly more "free market" solutions to this, including winding down monopoly power in what are now seemingly competitive areas.what are the free market solutions to monopoly power? some historical examples would be nice.

[ElNono]

what are the free market solutions to monopoly power? some historical examples would be nice.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. A "free market" solution would be to remove monopoly power in areas where monopoly power is no longer necessary (ie: to build out a market).

Granting monopoly power is itself government regulation, so, conversely, deregulation would be a free market solution. For a historical example, you could look at the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978.

Obviously, this has nothing to do with the case at hand, since ISPs are not looking to deregulate. They simply want the previous regulations to stay in place.

Funnily enough, the previous regulations were supposed to deregulate broadcast and telecommunications markets (Telecommunications Act of 1996 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996)). But they effectively opened up the door to mergers and acquisitions that basically killed any semblance of competition.

[boutons_deux]

"A "free market" solution would be to remove monopoly power"

that would be a dramatic govt intervention to be blocked by Repugs, (all monopoly law enforcement is political, not legal) would require other suppliers to come into the market (big investments) and who would that be. eg, SA has the TWC and grandecom duopoly with NO price competition, and exorbitant prices. Most cities have only one supplier because that's how the cities got supplier to invest originally. your "remove" is a mystery, how do you do it?

"Granting monopoly power is itself government regulation" no govt granted Microsoft its monopoly of desktop OS and MS office monopolies (which I think are still the ONLY divisions of MS that make a profit, which was certainly the case at one point)

[rasuo214]

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. A "free market" solution would be to remove monopoly power in areas where monopoly power is no longer necessary (ie: to build out a market).

Granting monopoly power is itself government regulation, so, conversely, deregulation would be a free market solution. For a historical example, you could look at the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978.

Obviously, this has nothing to do with the case at hand, since ISPs are not looking to deregulate. They simply want the previous regulations to stay in place.

Funnily enough, the previous regulations were supposed to deregulate broadcast and telecommunications markets (Telecommunications Act of 1996 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996)). But they effectively opened up the door to mergers and acquisitions that basically killed any semblance of competition.

Have you read up on the Bell System's history? I'm not talking about the recent ATT breakup but all the way from the start (Bell Patent, Kingsbury agreement, nationalization etc.).

[rasuo214]

"A "free market" solution would be to remove monopoly power"

that would be a dramatic govt intervaention to be blocked by Repugs, would require other suppliers to come into the market (big investments) and who would that be. eg, SA has the TWC and grandecom duopoly with NO price competition, and exorbitant prices. Most cities have only one supplier because that's how the cities got supplier to invest originally. your "remove" is a mystery, how do you do it?

"Granting monopoly power is itself government regulation" no govt granted Microsoft its monopoly of desktop OS and MS office monopolies (which I think are still the ONLY divisions of MS that make a profit, which was certainly the case at one point)




Huh? Reread the quoted part. That act of granting monopoly power (Natural Monopoly) is an act of government regulation. Not sure what that has to do with Microsoft.


As for the rest, local governments are big barrier to competition. Read this article to get an understanding of what ElNono is taking about (ElNono correct me if I'm wrong): http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/

[boutons_deux]

Microsoft achieved windows/office monopoly by legal means, not technical superiority and compeititon. There was no govt act of granting MS its monopoly.

[rasuo214]

Microsoft achieved windows/office monopoly by legal means, not technical superiority and compeititon. There was no govt act of granting MS its monopoly.

Okay, but that has nothing to do with what you quoted and responded to.

[ElNono]

Have you read up on the Bell System's history? I'm not talking about the recent ATT breakup but all the way from the start (Bell Patent, Kingsbury agreement, nationalization etc.).

I'm fairly familiar with it. What about it? Arguably, there's a time and place for natural monopolies, due to the investment necessary and access, but I think it's something that needs to be revisited much more often than it currently is, especially in light of technological advances.

[ElNono]

As for the rest, local governments are big barrier to competition. Read this article to get an understanding of what ElNono is taking about (ElNono correct me if I'm wrong): http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/

That's one area, but generally speaking, it applies evenly to the federal government too. This has moved to the political terrain many years ago, where you have to stuff dollar bills to purchase your position.

I think in this instance companies went to the States individually because they were more receptive to their lobby money and could adjudicate the matter quicker.

[boutons_deux]

companies went to the States individually because they were

... much cheaper to corrupt and less observed by investigative journalists.

Same strategy the Repugs use, take over the state govts district by gerrymandered district with out-of-state $Ms since they don't have the same leverage at national level.

[RandomGuy]

No, but it's predictable they'll try. How effective they are depends on how easy it is for them.

The point is centralizing power isn't the way to stop a monopoly. It's the way to ensure one.

The big companies are going to use these new regulatory rules as a hammer against smaller ISPs. That is as predictable as the sun coming up.

Internet service providers are already monopolies for all practical purposes.

As for who is pushing for what and why... one has to turn to a comedian, because no actual journalist is doing it.

fpbOEoRrHyU

[angrydude]

The problem is we're essentially arguing about two separate things but the net neutrality side only wants to talk about one of them, and pretend the other one doesn't exist.

I wouldn't care if there was a "Net Neutrality" bill stating that ISPs have to treat all internet traffic the same. Or even that municipal governments could create their own ISPs if they wanted.

But turning ISPs into common carriers under Title 2 implies a lot more than that. And it's going to backfire. And the tears from places like Reddit when they realize they just dug their own graves will be hilarious.

[boutons_deux]

because no actual journalist is doing it.

fpbOEoRrHyU

JO +staff are most certainly serious investigative journalism.

[boutons_deux]

The other net neutrality debate: After FCC ruling, SMS still mired in ambiguity

When the Federal Communications Commission voted last week (http://www.zdnet.com/article/net-neutrality-becomes-the-law-of-the-land/) to treat internet service providers as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, there was one aspect of the net neutrality debate that remained unaddressed -- the regulation of SMS.

There has been a lack of concrete language on how net neutrality affects content that's delivered on mobile phones via text message and Short Message Service (SMS).

For the most part, the net neutrality debate has focused on whether ISPs should be able to discriminate between the data that they deliver through their pipes. In regards to SMS, however, the net neutrality issue is whether mobile carriers like Sprint, Verizon and T-Mobile should be able to regulate the text-based content they provide to their customers.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-other-net-neutrality-debate-should-mobile-messaging-be-subject-to-provider-policing/?tag=nl.e539&s_cid=e539&ttag=e539&ftag=TRE17cfd61

[Winehole23]

In the US, the last mile of internet infrastructure is an enormous problem. There are two reasons for this: technical restraints holding back the bandwidth needed to support modern-day internet traffic, and a lack of competition between the major carriers selling internet service to the end user.


Most of America's telecommunications infrastructure relies on outdated technology (http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/natoa/journal_2009spring/index.php#/14), and it runs over the same copper cables invented by Alexander Graham Bell over 100 years ago. This copper infrastructure—made up of "twisted pair" and coaxial cables—was originally designed to carry telephone and video services. The internet wasn't built to handle streaming video or audio (http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/net-neutralitys-technical-troubles).



When your streaming video reaches that troubled last mile of copper, those packets will slam on their brakes as they transition from fiber optic cables to copper coaxial cables. Copper can only carry so much bandwidth, far less than what the modern internet demands. Only fiber optic cables, thick twists of ultra-thin glass or plastic filaments that allow data to travel at the speed of light, can handle that bandwidth. They're also both easier to maintain and more secure than copper.



As consumers demand more bandwidth for things like streaming HD movies, carriers must augment their networks—upgrade hardware, lay more fiber, hire more engineers, etc.—to keep traffic moving freely between them. But that costs big money—like, billions of dollars in some cases (http://gizmodo.com/after-billions-in-subsidies-the-final-verizon-fios-map-1682854728). Imagine the cost of swapping out the coaxial cables in every American home with fiber optic cables. It's thousands of dollars per mile according to some government records (http://www.itscosts.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/DisplayRUCByUnitCostElementUnadjusted?ReadForm&UnitCostElement=Fiber+Optic+Cable+Installation+&Subsystem=Roadside+Telecommunications+).



And here's the kicker. The last mile infrastructure is controlled by an oligarchy—three big cable companies: Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon. You know this well. One in three Americans only have one choice for broadband service (http://gizmodo.com/obamas-plan-to-loosen-comcasts-stranglehold-on-your-int-1679463766); most of the others only have two internet providers to choose from.



Without competition, there's no incentive for internet providers to improve improve infrastructure. These massive telecom companies create a bottleneck in the last mile of service by refusing to upgrade critical infrastructure (http://gizmodo.com/netflix-quality-sucks-because-isps-want-more-money-to-l-1528153690). And they can charge exorbitant prices for the sub-par service while they're at it.



So your internet is shitty and slow and expensive.

http://gizmodo.com/why-americas-internet-is-so-shitty-and-slow-1686173744/+maxread

[ChumpDumper]

The problem is we're essentially arguing about two separate things but the net neutrality side only wants to talk about one of them, and pretend the other one doesn't exist.

I wouldn't care if there was a "Net Neutrality" bill stating that ISPs have to treat all internet traffic the same. Or even that municipal governments could create their own ISPs if they wanted.

But turning ISPs into common carriers under Title 2 implies a lot more than that. And it's going to backfire. And the tears from places like Reddit when they realize they just dug their own graves will be hilarious.Talk about the other side then.

Enlighten us.

[angrydude]

Talk about the other side then.

Enlighten us.

Do you want a book report? But I know you're being disingenuous (in other words a liar) who has no interest in talking seriously.

But for the others who may be viewing this, start with figuring out what the the phrase "just and reasonable" implies and go from there.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/201

All charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with such communication service, shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust or unreasonable is declared to be unlawful:

What you can't? Not even lawyers can? These things get litigated? Welcome to the brave new world of internet regulation. I'm glad the future of the internet now lies in the hands of the SCOTUS. They never make wrong decisions. Or side with big corporations. Or understand technology.

First, the rules that came out already have people talking whether ISPs are prohibited from blocking unlawful content. So Net Neutrality isn't even neutral on the face of it! Because of course. The government doesn't care about protecting your porn viewing habits, or your pirate bay downloads.

http://watchdog.org/205577/net-neutrality-regulations/

Broadband rate regulation (price controls) is another that people are talking about. Just because they don't have em now, doesn't mean they can't. Look at the text of the statute. They clearly can if they want to. ("all charges")

http://www.techpolicydaily.com/internet/broadband-rate-regulation-inevitable-title-ii/

As for the other implications of Title II which have nothing to do with not restricting web traffic, Google is your friend.

http://blog.acton.org/archives/72274-net-neutrality-yes-title-ii.html
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2014/06/regulating-internet-access-public-utility-litan
http://www.calinnovates.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2014-09-11-FINAL-NERA-White-Paper.pdf

Here's a letter from a bunch of techies about how using title 2 is a bad vehicle for net neutrality (again, they are for net neutrality, against title II).
http://docs.techfreedom.org/Reply_Comments_Coalition_Letter.pdf

[angrydude]

You are soon (now really) going to have be a lawyer who specializes in administrative law to understand what the hell is going on with the internet.

Hope you went to law school.

[ChumpDumper]

You are soon (now really) going to have be a lawyer who specializes in administrative law to understand what the hell is going on with the internet.

Hope you went to law school.
So what is it the government can do now that they couldn't potentially do before? I didn't see anything above that it could not have done before through law or regulation.

[ElNono]

First, the rules that came out already have people talking whether ISPs are prohibited from blocking unlawful content. So Net Neutrality isn't even neutral on the face of it! Because of course. The government doesn't care about protecting your porn viewing habits, or your pirate bay downloads.

http://watchdog.org/205577/net-neutrality-regulations/

Broadband rate regulation (price controls) is another that people are talking about. Just because they don't have em now, doesn't mean they can't. Look at the text of the statute. They clearly can if they want to. ("all charges")

http://www.techpolicydaily.com/internet/broadband-rate-regulation-inevitable-title-ii/


These two are welcome improvements over the status quo, IMO.

ISPs have been already largely complicit in blocking and throttling whatever they deemed "unlawful" content (ie: torrents). Sometimes even blocking (ie: DNS takeovers) or removing lawful content without actually verifying what was being requested for removal. What's "lawful" or not isn't a new dilemma introduced by this regulation, it's something that ISPs have been dealing with for a while, entirely at their discretion and generally in favor of whoever requested the takedowns, most notably without a court order. Furthermore, the redress options were limited, and again, entirely at their discretion. This became a larger problem as some content owners started to use shitty automated tools to scrape for links to alleged unlawful content en-masse, triggering all sorts of false positives. The reality is that all that has been largely ineffective, because technologically speaking, it's extremely difficult to snoop into heavily encrypted connections, especially if they mask themselves as different, lawful type of connections. This is a cat and mouse game that's been raging on for years, and has no end in sight. But hey, having at least a place to file a complaint about specific instances of takedown abuse is a welcome addition.

As far as the price controls, I find it only natural to ensure that some of these companies that enjoy a government sanctioned monopoly don't abuse that position. Obviously, it's not like that in every market or every company, but you rarely hear about shitty rates and services on high-competition markets anyways.

I wouldn't totally disagree that Title II is a larger than needed hammer to deal with the current situation. I would've been in favor of actually removing some of the anti-competitive barriers (like the monopolies in now relatively competitive markets, banning HoA exclusive deals with ISPs, etc), but that was never an option here, as ISPs would rather keep their walled garden over anything else. From what I've read, AT&T and Comcast were furious with Verizon for challenging the previous, not Title II, net neutrality regulations. They thought they could live with them, and they were largely softer than the current approach. They made the bed, now they get to lie in it.

I'm actually more curious on what happens next. I assume this is going to be litigated to hell and back, and will be interesting to see what arguments are raised. I'm also wondering if the ISPs are just going to wait out until a change in administration, and likely in the FCC, and perhaps head that route for a rollback. Obviously, Congress is also an option.

[boutons_deux]

FCC reserved the power to regulate broadband and wireless, to defend the status quo, not to replace the status quo with the FUD, propaganda from the network operators and from the "we hate/destroy govt" right wing fucktards.

One place where the mythical (aka absent) "free market" network domination and monopoly screw consumers is exploitative, extractive pricing, compared with prices in other industrial countries.

Would all y'all fucktard bubbas complain if FCC cut TV, cell, Internet prices by 30%?

Forced cable TV to unbundle channels so you could buy the channels you watch rather than subsidizing the Kardashians, MTV, BET, Disney, Guy fucking Fieri, Spanish-language, Hallmark, E!, TLC, Longhorn channels?

Forced network operators to allow competitors to use, unbundle their "dark fiber", and utility poles to allow real competition for TV and Internet?

[Winehole23]

§ 8.5 No blocking.

A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.



§ 8.7 No throttling.
A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.



§ 8.9 No paid prioritization.
(a) A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid prioritization.
(b) "Paid prioritization" refers to the management of a broadband provider's network to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic, including through use of techniques such as traffic shaping, prioritization, resource reservation, or other forms of preferential traffic management, either (a) in exchange for consideration (monetary or otherwise) from a third party, or (b) to benefit an affiliated entity.
(c) The Commission may waive the ban on paid prioritization only if the petitioner demonstrates that the practice would provide some significant public interest benefit and would not harm the open nature of the Internet.



§ 8.11 No unreasonable interference or unreasonable disadvantage standard for Internet conduct.
Any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage (i) end users' ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet access service or the lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of their choice, or (ii) edge providers' ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to end users. Reasonable network management shall not be considered a violation of this rule.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/the-future-of-broadband/fcc-unveils-text-of-net-neutrality-rules-20150312

[boutons_deux]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/the-future-of-broadband/fcc-unveils-text-of-net-neutrality-rules-20150312

Strong, EXPLICIT stuff.

I wonder which notoriously packed conservative court the BigISP will file suit? Isn't the DC 9th the court for administrative law suits?

[ElNono]

First Lawsuits Challenging FCC's New Net Neutrality Rules Arrive

A small ISP based in Texas and an industry trade group have become the first to file lawsuits challenging the FCC's recent net neutrality rules (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/03/23/the-first-of-the-net-neutrality-lawsuits-has-now-been-filed/). The trade group, USTelecom, argues that the regulations are not "legally sustainable." (https://www.scribd.com/doc/259713340/Ustelecom-Petition) Alamo Broadband claims it is facing "onerous requirements" (http://www.scribd.com/doc/259713341/Alamo-Petition) by operating under Title II of the Communications Act. Such legal challenges were expected, and are doubtless the first of many — but few expected them to arrive so soon. While some of the new rules were considered "final" once the FCC released them on March 12, others don't go into effect until they're officially published in the Federal Register, which hasn't happened yet.

[ElNono]

Alamo Petition
http://www.scribd.com/doc/259713341/Alamo-Petition

US Telecom Petition
https://www.scribd.com/doc/259713340/Ustelecom-Petition

[boutons_deux]

Alamo Petition
http://www.scribd.com/doc/259713341/Alamo-Petition

US Telecom Petition
https://www.scribd.com/doc/259713340/Ustelecom-Petition

Where is the "actual harm"?

[ElNono]

Where is the "actual harm"?

The challenge is on the constitutionality and legality under Federal law. If the court agrees to proceed, they'll state their case. In the US Telecom case, it's the same court that reviewed and struck down the previous attempt at regulation.