Reply With Quote
Regarding the secrecy...
Fair enough.I don't know what beef you have with TSA, but I want no part of it.
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.
Regarding the secrecy...
That didn't take long.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/0...-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 le 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 cir stances.
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 compe ion; 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.
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.
lol @ missing the forest for the tree
Net neutrality: A lobbying bonanza
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...za-115385.html
How much $ will this regulation fee add to our bills each month?
I firmly believe the government will abuse their power and regulate content.
Now put into words what's your actual non-political, technological or economic concerns about this specific move.
I'm not sure either. It's amusing though.
They already regulate content. How does this change modify that in any way?
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?
It's common for stupid people to fall back on ideology. So much easier than thinking for yourself critically.
FWIW, whatever passes is going to be sued to 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 for the 30% while everybody else is stuck with 70%.
Their FUD is that if net neutrality is regulated, Internet goes under le II, they won't invest.
^ everybody is in it for the $$$.... there's no good guys/bad guys here...
bull . BigNetwork cartel wants to screw everybody. If the Repugs were voting on it, they had Internet to them.
USA BigCorp ISPs, network operators charge higher prices for tier service than other industrial countries. And screwing Internet, cable TV, cellphone (ALWAYS happens when BigCorp displace govt regulation) with higher prices and even tier services is ALWAYS their (profit) objective.
You're either IGNORANT of the the above, or your blind ideology makes you STUPID, or both.
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.
"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" bull . I'm pretty sure FCC will not use their power.
I would like them to force BigISP/BigNetwork to allow compe ors (gogole fiber, etc) on their utility poles, echoing the Carterfone decision.
"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" bull . I'm pretty sure FCC will not use their power.
I would like them to force BigISP/BigNetwork to allow compe ors (gogole fiber, etc) on their utility poles, echoing the Carterfone decision.
Brought to you by the same people who want to bring you SOPA and CISPA.
In for a penny, in for a pound
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?
You sure about that?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?
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?
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.
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.
Cool, right? Not according to Netflix, which has likened these deals to extortion and called for the FCC 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 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
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:
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 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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
