FCC Votes To Protect Net Neutrality, Reclassify Broadband

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Well, it looks like it's a done deal. Let's see where this takes us from here...well, beside courtrooms. ;)

In a landmark decision today, the FCC voted 3-2 to create enforceable, bright-line rules protecting the open internet using their Title II authority to reclassify broadband internet as a telecommunications service. The commission’s order creates three bright-line rules:
  • Broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
  • They may not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of content, application, services, or any classes thereof.
  • They may not favor some internet traffic over other internet traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind — no paid prioritization or fast lanes.
Click to expand...
 
Any word on last mile un-bundling or whatever is called?
 
6IAPwW5.gif
 
Nope. This will do nothing to fix the perceived problems (which haven't actually occurred). In the end this is just going to slow down progress.
 
griffinhart said:
Nope. This will do nothing to fix the perceived problems (which haven't actually occurred). In the end this is just going to slow down progress.
Click to expand...

What do you mean "haven't actually occurred"? Have you forgot about these isp's extorting other companies?
 
this is going to cost us BIG TIME. this type of regulation only extends monopolies not breaks them up.
 
griffinhart said:
Nope. This will do nothing to fix the perceived problems (which haven't actually occurred). In the end this is just going to slow down progress.
Click to expand...

What a joke. The ISP's are the problem. They hold a monopoly that allows them to make up to 99% profit. If there was actual competition, Title II wouldn't be necessary. Right wing stooges have brought the gov't bad bandwagon again. Thankfully for once, the majority of people aren't getting on that sad train of bullshit.
 
I disagree that these problems haven't happened yet. I ask why do we have to wait problems to happen - when there is clear information that that is exactly where things are going. Lastly just how will this stifle progress and why are so many in the industry not saying the same thing?
 
tikiman2012 said:
What do you mean "haven't actually occurred"? Have you forgot about these isp's extorting other companies?
Click to expand...

Such as? If you say Netflix, VPN traffic vs no VPN isn't proof of anything since it changes the very nature of the traffic. UDP vs TCP.

I stand by my statement.
 
6 months from now you will notice a new charge on your bill. Maybe called a speed tax, say .001 per meg of data. Most likely only on the enterprise accounts. JMHO
 
frelled said:
What a joke. The ISP's are the problem. They hold a monopoly that allows them to make up to 99% profit. If there was actual competition, Title II wouldn't be necessary. Right wing stooges have brought the gov't bad bandwagon again. Thankfully for once, the majority of people aren't getting on that sad train of bullshit.
Click to expand...

No, I just don't buy the corporations or evil, or profit is bad mantra that is so popular these days. They are neither good nor evil. And please, what ISP is making a 99% profit?

Bottom line, people like you have gotten their way. I fully expect we will all regret it in the fullness of time.
 
since when has GOV, gave a shit about the "little guy"... this is not good at all.

This is going to expand beyond just cost... wait and see.

By switching from the current light-touch regime to Title II, broadband Internet services would be subjected to a panoply of requirements, such as for entry and exit. That also means broadband would likely become burdened with a host of new state and local taxes and fees, the kind we pay on our monthly home and/or wireless phone bills. These taxes and fees are normally passed on to consumers; when they rise, consumers end up paying more. Expect the same with broadband.
Click to expand...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/01/26/on-net-neutrality-title-ii-regulation-means-higher-taxes-on-consumers/
 
Whats hilarious about all this is how people actually think they know whats in the works with these upcomming regulations. The FCC refuses to release its plan in detail, why do you think that is? Kinda like the Obamacare "We have to pass it to find out whats in it."

There is a massive illusion being painted right now where this is gonna "help the little guy." Its all BS, just like any government program; whichever group is in favor shall have certain wavers granted to them (like obamacare) and the rest of the regulations be applied to whomever is not in favor. Its going to kill competition because now you will have to lobby for favoritism through politicians instead of companies ripping eachothers throat out in the competitive free market. And just to point something out, the free market isn't meant to be "fair" or "equal" its meant to be brutal, bloody and competitive in order to create a more industrious and free society, where people are judged based off merit, not feelings of "equity" or whatever touchy-feely, empty, substanceless, crap the left spews out. So if a young upstart comes around and one of the big companies buy that young upstart out, who cares. The young upstart just made millions and now he can go apply his talents somewhere else.
 
Zale00 said:
Whats hilarious about all this is how people actually think they know whats in the works with these upcomming regulations. The FCC refuses to release its plan in detail, why do you think that is? Kinda like the Obamacare "We have to pass it to find out whats in it."

There is a massive illusion being painted right now where this is gonna "help the little guy." Its all BS, just like any government program; whichever group is in favor shall have certain wavers granted to them (like obamacare) and the rest of the regulations be applied to whomever is not in favor. Its going to kill competition because now you will have to lobby for favoritism through politicians instead of companies ripping eachothers throat out in the competitive free market. And just to point something out, the free market isn't meant to be "fair" or "equal" its meant to be brutal, bloody and competitive in order to create a more industrious and free society, where people are judged based off merit, not feelings of "equity" or whatever touchy-feely, empty, substanceless, crap the left spews out. So if a young upstart comes around and one of the big companies buy that young upstart out, who cares. The young upstart just made millions and now he can go apply his talents somewhere else.
Click to expand...

People forget history....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
 
When the govt get's involved nothing is "neutral". I'm shocked by the foolish acceptance of this. You really think what you see on the surface is all you get? I'm reminded of Nancy Pelosi's comment regarding passing Obamacare. "We have to pass it to find out what's in it".
The Obama administration and the IRS only have the best of intentions for you. LOL SUCKERS!
 
griffinhart said:
No, I just don't buy the corporations or evil, or profit is bad mantra that is so popular these days. They are neither good nor evil. And please, what ISP is making a 99% profit?

Bottom line, people like you have gotten their way. I fully expect we will all regret it in the fullness of time.
Click to expand...

None.

Cable companies make profits that high on selling high speed data if you completely ignore the fact they spend billions deploying, upgrading, and maintaining the networks.
 
tikiman2012 said:
It's extortion anyway you cut it. Extortion is illegal.
Click to expand...

Extortion is illegal. You have that right. Of course, this isn't extortion. They were neither throttling, nor prioritizing traffic. Personally, I think that Netflix footing the bill for any deals makes perfect sense. No matter who paid for it, it was going to be passed to the consumer. I would much rather see Netflix pass the cost to their subscribers since they are the ones directly using the service, rather than passing the cost on to all ISP customers who may or may not be using the service.


And in the governmental world this sort of thing happens all the time. If ISP's were a town and Netflix a new mall that wanted to be built the towns often require these new projects that will increase traffic pay for the civil upgrades, such as widening highways and adding on/off ramps.
 
Excellent point about the fairness doctrine. And look at the language the left uses to manipulate "Fairness Doctrine" Are you freaking kidding me, thats the left trying to control speech on the radio waves. Pathetic.
 
Alot of young techies get off on "punishing" the evil big bad ISPs. Grrr its not fair, I want faster netflix and porn grrrrr. Yet they hate the NSA spying on them, lol. You just jammed uncle sam even further deep inside your precious internet with this crap.

I can't wait till the tech bloggers choke on their naivety. It shall be a glorious day.
 
Zale00 said:
Excellent point about the fairness doctrine. And look at the language the left uses to manipulate "Fairness Doctrine" Are you freaking kidding me, thats the left trying to control speech on the radio waves. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.[2]
Click to expand...

Why do people continue to ignore history.... :mad:
 
I am reading other news sites and listen to radio talk shows and a few libertarian sites. There are so many people and groups that blindly say government regulation of any kind is a bad thing. One thing I sent to an radio talk show host today is

"Net neutrality is necessary. Maybe a necessary evil, but it will level the playing field for everyone. Without net neutrality, say Verizon has a board full of extreme leftists and to promote their idealism, they decide to block all websites and services associated with the conservative right. No one can access your site or listen to your talk show online. How would you feel about that? Or how about a presidential election? An ISP with liberal executives and board members could block anything and everything concerning the republican, independent or libertarian candidates so that all any of their customers would ever find is good things about the democrat candidate.

How about services like Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu. These online streaming services are competition to the cable TV providers who also provide your internet connection. There is already a lot of controversy going around about ISPs throttling the services, implementing data caps to limit the amount of streaming video you can view before being fined extra for going over the limit, and creating high speed lines for such services but demanding extra costs which the streaming service passes on to the customer to the point that it is cheaper to go back to the cable TV provider.

How often have you heard companies lobby over a controversial bill claiming “oh no we would never go to such extreme measures.” Then once the bill is passed, they do what they claim they would not do. Read Unintended consequences of the DMCA. https://www.eff.org/wp/unintended-consequences-16-years-under-dmca

If ISPs can control what passes through their network without any sort of regulation, then they will become a large source of censorship and anti-competitive business practices. I may seem to be bringing up extreme examples, but could you or anyone else guarantee that the ISPs would never commit such censorship or anti-competitive business practices?"
 
I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that there will be no middle ground on this. Seems that people always either sound like Ralph Nader or Ayn Rand when talking about things like this.
 
NeghVar said:
I am reading other news sites and listen to radio talk shows and a few libertarian sites. There are so many people and groups that blindly say government regulation of any kind is a bad thing. One thing I sent to an radio talk show host today is

"Net neutrality is necessary. Maybe a necessary evil, but it will level the playing field for everyone. Without net neutrality, say Verizon has a board full of extreme leftists and to promote their idealism, they decide to block all websites and services associated with the conservative right. No one can access your site or listen to your talk show online. How would you feel about that? Or how about a presidential election? An ISP with liberal executives and board members could block anything and everything concerning the republican, independent or libertarian candidates so that all any of their customers would ever find is good things about the democrat candidate.

How about services like Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu. These online streaming services are competition to the cable TV providers who also provide your internet connection. There is already a lot of controversy going around about ISPs throttling the services, implementing data caps to limit the amount of streaming video you can view before being fined extra for going over the limit, and creating high speed lines for such services but demanding extra costs which the streaming service passes on to the customer to the point that it is cheaper to go back to the cable TV provider.

How often have you heard companies lobby over a controversial bill claiming “oh no we would never go to such extreme measures.” Then once the bill is passed, they do what they claim they would not do. Read Unintended consequences of the DMCA. https://www.eff.org/wp/unintended-consequences-16-years-under-dmca

If ISPs can control what passes through their network without any sort of regulation, then they will become a large source of censorship and anti-competitive business practices. I may seem to be bringing up extreme examples, but could you or anyone else guarantee that the ISPs would never commit such censorship or anti-competitive business practices?"
Click to expand...

Yes I can guarantee they wouldn't censor. BECAUSE IT WILL COST THEM MONEY! And the profit motive is king in the free market. But now you are going to have politicians and bureaucrats passing regulation to throttle and censor. All in the name of the "public interest." Quick question, why is the Federal Election Commission playing a role in all of this? Because the Almighty B Hussein O, wants to the FEC to piggyback off of this ruling and regulate political websites. Havent heard much about that now have you? I WONDER WHY?!?!?!!
 
griffinhart said:
No, I just don't buy the corporations or evil, or profit is bad mantra that is so popular these days. They are neither good nor evil. And please, what ISP is making a 99% profit?

Bottom line, people like you have gotten their way. I fully expect we will all regret it in the fullness of time.
Click to expand...

If thats the case then I can safely say no one gives a fuck about your opinion.
Be naive all you want, just know that we do not have to care about what you think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top