Page 1 of 23 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 552
  1. #1
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,110
    I know there are some here interested in this topic. Net Neutrality hearing:

    http://www.c-span.org/video/?320083-...-an rust-law

  2. #2
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    77,193
    When Barry appointed an industry exec/lobbyist to head FCC, one knows he was going to OK the mega-corps ing up internet, like the mega-corps ALWAYS up everything except for themselves.

    Same when the Dems appointed health-insurance Baucus to write ACA using an insurance industry exec/lobbyist, one knew ACA would enrich/entrench the mega-corps.
    Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-23-2014 at 12:16 PM.

  3. #3
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    77,193
    all y'all's Repugs rigging the "free market" for the "optimum solution" AGAINST the 99%, ing up Internet forever.

    Backed by Big Telecom, GOP Takes Aim at Net Neutrality and Community Broadband

    In this case, the FCC is considering regulating the internet. Big broadband companies are not happy about it, and the same goes for the members of Congress they have made hefty donations to.

    Last week, the Republican-led House voted to slash the FCC's budget by $17 million and narrowly approved a controversial amendment to a broad appropriations bill that would prevent the FCC from preempting state laws aimed at stomping out community-owned broadband initiatives that compete with big commercial providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon.


    Big broadband providers, along with their allies in Congress, are worried that the FCC may cave to public pressure and opt to regulate the internet as a telecommunications service like telephone lines in order to enforce the proposed net neutrality rules - an option the FCC only put on the table after significant public outcry and grassroots protest.

    Rumors of a Republican plan to slip an amendment into the appropriations bill that would block such a move sent net neutrality advocates scrambling to call their representatives last week, and no such amendment surfaced on the House floor.


    Instead, the GOP took aim at public internet services in local communities just one week after FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler surprised critics by announcing he would be willing to defend them.

    Undermining Net Neutrality

    Cable and broadband companies such as Verizon, Time Warner Cable and AT&Tconsistently rank at the bottom of the communications industry when it comes to having happy customers. High prices, slow data transmission and unreliable service are among the reason why customer satisfaction with broadband internet providers recently dropped to 63 percent: the lowest score in the 2014 American Customer Satisfaction Index.


    Consumers are fed up with their internet providers, which face little compe ion in many local markets. Their representatives in Congress, however, seem eager to shield the broadband industry from government regulation.


    In late May, Rep. Bob Latta (R-Ohio) introduced a bill that would prevent the FCC from reclassifying the internet under federal law as a "common carrier" service like telephone lines, which would allow the internet to be regulated more like a public utility. If the internet were considered a "common carrier" under federal law, the FCC could require broadband providers to serve the public indiscriminately. The bill has little chance of passing, but members of Congress on both sides of the aisle agree with Latta and have put increasing pressure on the FCC to ignore calls to designate the web as a "common carrier" service.


    Common carrier reclassification is at the heart of the debate over the FCC's most recent proposal to establish net neutrality rules. Net neutrality is the idea that all web content should be treated equally, and governments and broadband providers should not discriminate against, block or censor legal web content.

    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/25090-backed-by-big-telecom-gop-takes-aim-at-net-neutrality-and-community-broadband



  4. #4
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    77,193
    Terse FCC letter suggests Verizon's plan to throttle unlimited data is a cash grab

    FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has sharply questioned Verizon Wireless over its planannounced last week to throttle mobile data speeds for customers with unlimited plans.

    In a letter to Verizon Wireless President and CEO Dan Mead on Wednesday, Wheeler challenged Verizon’s plans to treat customers differently based on their data plans rather than on network technology issues. His questioning suggested Verizon wants to slow down subscribers’ service so they’ll switch to a plan with a limited monthly data allowance.

    “‘Reasonable network management’ concerns the technical management of your network; it is not a loophole designed to enhance your revenue streams,” Wheeler wrote.


    Verizon plans to sometimes scale back connection speeds for the top 5 percent of data users who are still on plans that let them send and receive unlimited amounts of data in a month. The company no longer sells such plans to new customers but allows those who had them in the past to keep them. Verizon claims its planned throttling practice, which it calls Network Optimization, is intended to protect the experience of all users at times and places where its network is experiencing high demand.


    In his letter, Wheeler focused on the fact that Verizon is aiming the practice specifically at its remaining unlimited-data customers.


    “I know of no past Commission statement that would treat as ‘reasonable network management’ a decision to slow traffic to a user who has paid, after all, for ‘unlimited’ service,” Wheeler wrote.


    http://www.techhive.com/article/2460...l#tk.nl_thbest



  5. #5
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    77,193
    Bold Obama Stand Shakes Up Net Neutrality Debate


    President Barack Obama edged up to questioning the Federal Communications Commission's newly proposed net neutrality rules, a heavily criticized plan that would favor Internet content providers that can afford to pay more for faster delivery of their services.

    Obama campaigned heavily on net neutrality during his 2008 election, but has been largely silent on the issue since the FCC voted to kill it with new Internet service rules that would create "fast lanes" for content providers that can afford to pay for them; those that can't will be hit with slower traffic.

    Obama echoed one of progressives' major criticisms of the new rules
    at the U.S. Africa Business Forum in Washington on Wednesday, saying he is in favor of "an open and fair Internet."


    "One of the issues around net neutrality is whether you are creating different rates or charges for different content providers. That’s the big controversy here," he said. "You have big, wealthy media companies who might be willing to pay more but then also charge more for more spectrum, more bandwidth on the Internet so they can stream movies faster or what have you. And I personally -- the position of my administration, as well as I think a lot of companies here is you don’t want to start getting a differentiation in how accessible the Internet is to various users."

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/06/obama-net-neutrality_n_5655862.html

    Killing net neutrality, ing up Internet will be high on the Repugs' agenda if they get Exec and Congressional control, along with a lot of other stuff the Repugs will up, for decades.

  6. #6
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    77,193
    Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    President Obama on Monday put the full weight of his administration behind an open and free Internet, calling for a strict policy of so-called net neutrality and formally opposing deals in which content providers like Netflix would pay huge sums to broadband companies for faster access to their customers.

    The president’s proposal is consistent with his longstanding support for rules that seek to prevent cable and telephone companies from providing special access to some content providers. But the statement posted online Monday, as Mr. Obama traveled to Asia, is the most direct effort by the president to influence the debate about the Internet’s future.

    In the statement, and a video on the White House website, Mr. Obama urged the Federal Communications Commission to adopt the strictest set of neutrality rules possible and to treat consumer broadband service as a public utility, similar to telephone or power companies.


    “We cannot allow Internet service providers to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas,” Mr. Obama wrote in the statement.



    Mr. Obama said that new rules under consideration by the F.C.C. should adhere to several key principles:

    No website or service should be blocked by an Internet service provider;

    no content should be purposefully slowed down or sped up;

    there should be more transparency about where traffic is routed;

    and no paid deals should be made to provide a speed advantage to some providers over others in delivering content.


    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/technology/obama-net-neutrality-fcc.html


    The Repugs/ALEC are of course FOR letting BigCorp rig the Internet, like they rig everything else.


  7. #7
    Still Hates Small Ball Spurminator's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Post Count
    32,037
    Ted Cruz: "Net Neutrality is the Obamacare of the Internet."

    http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/10/7...yone-who-wants

    This is your leader, GOP supporters. If you care about anything except partisan gamesmanship, you'll call him out on this.

  8. #8
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    77,193
    Ted Cruz: "Net Neutrality is the Obamacare of the Internet."

    http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/10/7...yone-who-wants

    This is your leader, GOP supporters. If you care about anything except partisan gamesmanship, you'll call him out on this.
    Krazy Kruz is a so-called libertarian, which is fraudulent anti-govt bull . Natural that he wants to "liberate" Internet from govt regs so BigCorps can it up.

  9. #9
    Still Hates Small Ball Spurminator's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Post Count
    32,037
    Cruz seems to have deleted his tweet. Probably didn't expect the backlash. I doubt he's suddenly changed sides on the issue.

  10. #10
    Veteran
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Post Count
    2,143
    Net Neutrality is one of those areas where we're going to get the worst of all possible outcomes because, dammit, the government's just got to do something!

  11. #11
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,370
    I don't really have an opinion on this yet but, if I understand the arguments, "net neutrality" will only result in equal access if there is unlimited bandwidth. Otherwise, it becomes like any other utility where the provider will charge you according to some usage algorithm. Someone enlighten me. What are providers restricting me from accessing without the government getting involved in yet one more of area of my life.

    I don't know if it's "Obamacare for the Internet" but, less government is always better.

  12. #12
    Veteran
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Post Count
    2,143
    Verizon was throttling netflix.

    The problem with this issue is that people have a point. It's a very complex issue, and tech people who want it like to patronize you like a toddler if you don't completely agree with them.

    Yes, ISPs doing this is a bad thing. But government enforced Net Neutrality is not a good solution for it. It's only going to open the door to a lot more government intrusions down the line.

    Its like that whole, the operation was a success, but the patient died thing.

  13. #13
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,370
    Verizon was throttling netflix.
    For their own customers or for all NetFlix subscribers? I don't have any problems accessing Netflix on my TV, home computer, or mobile device. And, I don't have Verizon.

    The problem with this issue is that people have a point. It's a very complex issue, and tech people who want it like to patronize you like a toddler if you don't completely agree with them.

    Yes, ISPs doing this is a bad thing. But government enforced Net Neutrality is not a good solution for it. It's only going to open the door to a lot more government intrusions down the line.
    I tend to agree with this statement.
    Last edited by Yonivore; 11-10-2014 at 07:49 PM.

  14. #14
    Veteran
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Post Count
    2,143
    They throttled it just for verizon customers.

    So you might say ppl can just switch ISPs. The problem is in some areas of the country there is only one.

    Like I said, it gets problematic.

  15. #15
    Veteran baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    73,047
    The internet without net neutrality tbh


  16. #16
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,370
    They throttled it just for verizon customers.

    So you might say ppl can just switch ISPs. The problem is in some areas of the country there is only one.

    Like I said, it gets problematic.
    Only if Netflix (or whatever subscription service you're upset about) is a necessity. I'm not that impressed with Netflix but, they do provide original content and, in my opinion, should be compensated for that. For instance, House of Cards is awesome but, if it cost more than I was willing to pay, I'd do without.

    And, I don't see anything in Baseline's post that I couldn't do without, either.

    Again, I'm not sure any perceived benefit is worth handing the keys over to the federal government for.

  17. #17
    Veteran
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Post Count
    2,143
    Only if Netflix (or whatever subscription service you're upset about) is a necessity. I'm not that impressed with Netflix but, they do provide original content and, in my opinion, should be compensated for that. For instance, House of Cards is awesome but, if it cost more than I was willing to pay, I'd do without.

    And, I don't see anything in Baseline's post that I couldn't do without, either.

    Again, I'm not sure any perceived benefit is worth handing the keys over to the federal government for.
    Again, it's mostly scaremongering. If ISPs were going to do what baseline's post says they would have done it already. There are other economic factors at play which I'll never expect net neutrality supporters to understand.

  18. #18
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,370
    Again, it's mostly scaremongering. If ISPs were going to do what baseline's post says they would have done it already. There are other economic factors at play which I'll never expect net neutrality supporters to understand.
    Agreed.

  19. #19
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    125,699
    The internet grew in large part because any joe in his basement could literally fire up a server and start offering their content (youtube, google for example started like this).
    If people liked it, then it would become popular, joe would pay the ISP more for more bandwidth, then eventually monetize his business, IPO, etc.

    ISPs simply moved the bytes around from any basement to the general public, and got paid based on their data plans.

    Now, ISPs see that little joe became multimillion dollar netflix, and want a piece of the pie. So they slow down joe's traffic, degrade the experience of joe's users, and demand ransom, while they launch their own "netflix". Joe can't force users to switch ISPs, because unfortunately there's still a lot of monopolies out there.

    This isn't new. Public utilities discrimination is well do ented, due to the same monopoly power. Back in the day, government stepped in to regulate it. One of the discussions now is if ISPs should be classified as public utilities (and subject to the same regulations). ISPs obviously don't want that, because it would close their new money spigot.

    Perhaps the real solution is to simply mandate net neutrality in areas where there's no real compe ion, and even, perhaps, offer incentives to create compe ion in those areas. But that makes too much sense, so we'll probably end up with some hacked up "solution" that maintains the monopolies, and tries to keep every player happy by taking a dump on the consumer.

  20. #20
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    125,699
    Again, it's mostly scaremongering. If ISPs were going to do what baseline's post says they would have done it already. There are other economic factors at play which I'll never expect net neutrality supporters to understand.
    I agree there's no reason to do that kind of stuff, but there are indeed much larger economic factors at play, like a higher barrier to entry, etc... if net neutrality wouldn't be there anymore.

  21. #21
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,370
    The internet grew in large part because any joe in his basement could literally fire up a server and start offering their content (youtube, google for example started like this).
    If people liked it, then it would become popular, joe would pay the ISP more for more bandwidth, then eventually monetize his business, IPO, etc.

    ISPs simply moved the bytes around from any basement to the general public, and got paid based on their data plans.

    Now, ISPs see that little joe became multimillion dollar netflix, and want a piece of the pie. So they slow down joe's traffic, degrade the experience of joe's users, and demand ransom, while they launch their own "netflix". Joe can't force users to switch ISPs, because unfortunately there's still a lot of monopolies out there.

    This isn't new. Public utilities discrimination is well do ented, due to the same monopoly power. Back in the day, government stepped in to regulate it. One of the discussions now is if ISPs should be classified as public utilities (and subject to the same regulations). ISPs obviously don't want that, because it would close their new money spigot.

    Perhaps the real solution is to simply mandate net neutrality in areas where there's no real compe ion, and even, perhaps, offer incentives to create compe ion in those areas. But that makes too much sense, so we'll probably end up with some hacked up "solution" that maintains the monopolies, and tries to keep every player happy by taking a dump on the consumer.
    Probably.

  22. #22
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    125,699
    Unfortunately, the shenanigans of ISPs that want to be more than just a transport for the data (literally an utility), will guarantee government intervention. There's no way around it.

  23. #23
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    77,193
    net neutrality is nothing but maintaining the status quo, where all bandwidth is shared equally.

    non-net-neutrality is allowing corps to sell higher bandwidth to those corps that can pay, tilting the playing field, ERECTING ENTRY BARRIERS, to those, perhaps startups/innovators, who can't.

    network operators are common carriers, interstate commerce, etc, etc and should be regulated like common carriers.

    all y'all right-wingers' absolute resistance to ANY GOVT regulation is ing short-sighted and beyond stupid, but that's right wingers for ya.

    Corporations are trying up Internet for MORE profit, consumers get screwed.

  24. #24
    Veteran baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    73,047
    I can't understand why people are interested in paying more for their Netflix.

  25. #25
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    125,699
    I just think more compe ion would work just as well here. Unfortunately, as Google Fiber is finding out, barrier to entry in that market has it's own limitations.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •