Senate Vote Passes to Save Net Neutrality

Derangel said:
Unlikely my ass. Care to point to me what is unlikely about what ISPs have already bloody done in the past? Are you too young to remember when Comcast throttled and blocked all torrent traffic? How about Comcast and others throttling the fuck out of Netflix in order to blackmail them into paying more for the bandwidth they were already paying for? You really think that won't happen again?
Click to expand...

And this right here is why people push for NN, because they don't understand it.

NN does not stop them from charging edge providers to terminate data, in fact Title II protects their ability to charge a fee as a forced rate of zero is not legal. Title II allows for reasonable discrimination, which also allows them to charge for data termination to end users, yes, NN under Title II PROTECTS ISPs and allows them to do the VERY thing people claim it is meant to stop.

"Reclassification turns edge providers into “customers” of Broadband Service Providers. This new “carrier-to-customer” relationship (as opposed to a “carrier-to-carrier” relationship) would then require all BSPs (i.e., telephone, cable, and wireless broadband providers) to create, and then tariff, a termination service for Internet content under Section 203 of the Communications Act. Critically, this termination service would be separate and apart from any carrier-to-carrier agreements to deliver traffic. Because a tariffed rate cannot be set arbitrarily, and since a service cannot be generally tariffed at a price of zero, reclassification would require all edge providers (not their carriers)—as customers of the BSP—to make direct payments to the BSPs for termination services.

That is, all content providers, whether Netflix or a church website (or its host company), would be on the hook to pay every broadband service provider a positive termination fee. Most importantly, the agency would likely be prohibited from using its authority under Section 10 of the Communications Act to forbear from such tariffing requirements because the Commission has labeled all BSPs as “terminating monopolists.” In the presence of a terminating monopoly in the relevant market (i.e., each BSP is “dominant” for terminating access to their customers), competition—a key prerequisite for invoking section 10—cannot be used as a basis for forbearance for “terminating services.”"
 
Derangel said:
The fuck are you talking about? Do you really think that Google, Netflix, etc don't pay for bandwidth? If these BILLION PLUS DOLLAR A YEAR ISPs actually updated their fucking networks there wouldn't be any congestion.
Click to expand...

Who pays for that upgrade? Why do they need to upgrade? Oh yeah, because everyone is streaming services from Google/Netflix/Facebook. Why do those services not have some responsibility for the amount of traffic they increase? I am not sure what is so hard to understand about that.
 
gusphase said:
Again, net neutrality laws don't actually prevent throttling or price increases. While the real problem, a lack of competition and investment in New technology remains. Net neutrality advocates can only point to incredibly extreme and unlikely scenarios to make their case, and they don't really address the real issue. I' actually in favor of "fast lanes" for certain services as long as certain rules are in place. In many ways, fast lanes already exist even under net neutrality laws. I swear, this is the abortion debate for millennials.
Click to expand...

You're extreme ignorance at understanding Net Neutrality is really making my penis soft so I'm going to do my best to summarize what would/will happen if Net Neutrality remains:

This is part of a five step process to turn broadband data in the US into the monetization platform cable had. This is due to cord cutting. The real goal here is to get all data under one umbrella, then impose data caps (extremely low ones), then use the repeal of Net Neutrality to push cable-like packages for things like Netflix and Twitch to have those sites avoid counting against the cap. The push to get all mobile and otherwise non-broadband data classified as broadband is to assure that any data you use on any device counts against a cap. The slow and imminent death of cable is the cause of this. The reason ISPs didn't start down this path earlier was because cord cutting wasn't nearly as prevalent five years ago, and companies still didn't have a clear cut path to monetizing the internet.

So, this is just the next step. Look for language about caps to come up after midterms, and for aggressive bills to be pushed through allowing very low data caps nationwide. You will also see some sort of push to completely remove the possibility of start up ISPs. This will take form in an infrastructure bill severely limiting access to poles and underground junctions by new companies without direct permission from the existing ISPs that have cable on those poles.

Step 1: repealing Net Neutrality. This allows them to offer packages that don't count against a data cap.


Step 2: push to classify all data under one umbrella, so all data counts against said cap.

Step 3: eliminate the possibility of local ISP startups by making access to infrastructure either impossible, unreasonably expensive, or take far too much time for a new company to feasibly compete. This step is happening way sooner than expected.This brilliant ad (said nobody ever) attempted to demonize municipal broadband and failed to pass thankfully, but also after watching let me know if you notice anything interesting about the language used at the end.

As to the infrastructure side start looking for ads and bills being pushed to "focus on local safety and security" and to "improve infrastructure and roads", these are ways to pass things that don't let upstarts near the junctions, poles, and do the required splicing to actually get access to the existing network.

Step 4: implement data caps. This will be the time where aggressive shilling will take place on the form of "everyone is using so much internet we have to. You can't just let these people take your internet!"

Step 5: this is the end game that we are talking about when NN got thrown out. Majority of plans will have a 10-20 GB data plan monthly. Going over will be extremely expensive. Packages will be offered for different websites to not count against that cap. This is where you can expect to pay over 100$ a month for just internet for the same speeds you have now for unlimited access to only certain sites. Torrenting will clearly be hit extremely hard here. But don't take my word for it, talk to anyone involved in the industry specifically electrical contractors who work for the ISP's, the plans are starting to get out.

And to your other uninformed opinion about unlikely scenarios. Well if you took at least 10 minutes out of your precious day you would have found these gems:

2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.

2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.

2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones.

2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)

2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. This one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace

2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)

2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.

2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

I can go on for 2 more paragraphs with the litany of attempts these industries have tried to fuck you the customer on a consistent basis, yet you have the audacity to defend them. And the best part is you're actually doing their propaganda work free without even getting paid. Ouch!
 
NoOther said:
Who pays for that upgrade? Why do they need to upgrade? Oh yeah, because everyone is streaming services from Google/Netflix/Facebook. Why do those services not have some responsibility for the amount of traffic they increase? I am not sure what is so hard to understand about that.
Click to expand...

They take responsibility by paying for the bandwidth that they consume. It is not their fault that ISPs would rather fuck customers raw instead of actually fixing the mess they (and various governments) created. Congestion is solely the fault of ISPs not keeping their networks updated in order to meet the demands of their paying customers. Its not like bandwidth demands shot up over night, ISPs have been ignoring it for many years.

NoOther said:
This is a tangeant, but that actually isn't that true. Health insurance premiums have risen just as steadily under Obama as under Bush. The difference is that the ACA was supposed to severely limit the premium increase. That was one of Obama's platforms. He even said it would be less than your phone bill. That never happened, in fact premiums have been increasing steadily much as they had before. Healthcare has also been increasing under ACA, which it was supposed to go down because of ACA. So in effect, ACA hasn't done what it was supposed to do, but its actually costing everyone more in its implementation.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the information.

BlueFireIce said:
And this right here is why people push for NN, because they don't understand it.

NN does not stop them from charging edge providers to terminate data, in fact Title II protects their ability to charge a fee as a forced rate of zero is not legal. Title II allows for reasonable discrimination, which also allows them to charge for data termination to end users, yes, NN under Title II PROTECTS ISPs and allows them to do the VERY thing people claim it is meant to stop.

"Reclassification turns edge providers into “customers” of Broadband Service Providers. This new “carrier-to-customer” relationship (as opposed to a “carrier-to-carrier” relationship) would then require all BSPs (i.e., telephone, cable, and wireless broadband providers) to create, and then tariff, a termination service for Internet content under Section 203 of the Communications Act. Critically, this termination service would be separate and apart from any carrier-to-carrier agreements to deliver traffic. Because a tariffed rate cannot be set arbitrarily, and since a service cannot be generally tariffed at a price of zero, reclassification would require all edge providers (not their carriers)—as customers of the BSP—to make direct payments to the BSPs for termination services.

That is, all content providers, whether Netflix or a church website (or its host company), would be on the hook to pay every broadband service provider a positive termination fee. Most importantly, the agency would likely be prohibited from using its authority under Section 10 of the Communications Act to forbear from such tariffing requirements because the Commission has labeled all BSPs as “terminating monopolists.” In the presence of a terminating monopoly in the relevant market (i.e., each BSP is “dominant” for terminating access to their customers), competition—a key prerequisite for invoking section 10—cannot be used as a basis for forbearance for “terminating services.”"
Click to expand...

If i'm reading that right it still sounds pretty dang important. Reasonable discrimination and non-arbitrary tariffs. Those both sound like pretty important things to enforce on ISPs. ISPs having free reign to do whatever they hell they want leads to concerns of them unfairly charging for things and trying to put competing services at a disadvantage (all streaming services are competitors to cable-TV).
 
Derangel said:
If i'm reading that right it still sounds pretty dang important. Reasonable discrimination and non-arbitrary tariffs. Those both sound like pretty important things to enforce on ISPs. ISPs having free reign to do whatever they hell they want leads to concerns of them unfairly charging for things and trying to put competing services at a disadvantage (all streaming services are competitors to cable-TV).
Click to expand...

No. This protects the ISP for charging these fees, it does not stop them. This is the main claim for NN, and was the claim in your post, Title II of the NN bill would protect those actions, meaning all ISPs would be protected in charging them. I am not saying these fees are good or bad, only that the main claim of the supporters of NN is to stop ISPs from charging extra fees to edge providers (Netflix, Twitch, YouTube etc), but it does not, it not only allows them to, but becomes legally enforced. In other words, those are not being enforced on ISPs, ISPs are being allowed to enforce those on the edge providers.
 
Ski said:
You're extreme ignorance at understanding Net Neutrality is really making my penis soft so I'm going to do my best to summarize what would/will happen if Net Neutrality remains:

This is part of a five step process to turn broadband data in the US into the monetization platform cable had. This is due to cord cutting. The real goal here is to get all data under one umbrella, then impose data caps (extremely low ones), then use the repeal of Net Neutrality to push cable-like packages for things like Netflix and Twitch to have those sites avoid counting against the cap. The push to get all mobile and otherwise non-broadband data classified as broadband is to assure that any data you use on any device counts against a cap. The slow and imminent death of cable is the cause of this. The reason ISPs didn't start down this path earlier was because cord cutting wasn't nearly as prevalent five years ago, and companies still didn't have a clear cut path to monetizing the internet.

So, this is just the next step. Look for language about caps to come up after midterms, and for aggressive bills to be pushed through allowing very low data caps nationwide. You will also see some sort of push to completely remove the possibility of start up ISPs. This will take form in an infrastructure bill severely limiting access to poles and underground junctions by new companies without direct permission from the existing ISPs that have cable on those poles.

Step 1: repealing Net Neutrality. This allows them to offer packages that don't count against a data cap.


Step 2: push to classify all data under one umbrella, so all data counts against said cap.

Step 3: eliminate the possibility of local ISP startups by making access to infrastructure either impossible, unreasonably expensive, or take far too much time for a new company to feasibly compete. This step is happening way sooner than expected.This brilliant ad (said nobody ever) attempted to demonize municipal broadband and failed to pass thankfully, but also after watching let me know if you notice anything interesting about the language used at the end.

As to the infrastructure side start looking for ads and bills being pushed to "focus on local safety and security" and to "improve infrastructure and roads", these are ways to pass things that don't let upstarts near the junctions, poles, and do the required splicing to actually get access to the existing network.

Step 4: implement data caps. This will be the time where aggressive shilling will take place on the form of "everyone is using so much internet we have to. You can't just let these people take your internet!"

Step 5: this is the end game that we are talking about when NN got thrown out. Majority of plans will have a 10-20 GB data plan monthly. Going over will be extremely expensive. Packages will be offered for different websites to not count against that cap. This is where you can expect to pay over 100$ a month for just internet for the same speeds you have now for unlimited access to only certain sites. Torrenting will clearly be hit extremely hard here. But don't take my word for it, talk to anyone involved in the industry specifically electrical contractors who work for the ISP's, the plans are starting to get out.

And to your other uninformed opinion about unlikely scenarios. Well if you took at least 10 minutes out of your precious day you would have found these gems:

2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.

2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.

2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones.

2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)

2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. This one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace

2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)

2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.

2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

I can go on for 2 more paragraphs with the litany of attempts these industries have tried to fuck you the customer on a consistent basis, yet you have the audacity to defend them. And the best part is you're actually doing their propaganda work free without even getting paid. Ouch!
Click to expand...

While I appreciate a good book.

Net neutrality wasn't a thing until 2015. Everything you used as an example is useless.
 
The biggest thing many people were against net neutrality for was because the single biggest entities that have impacted internet freedom are not ISPs, but governments. You give them a foot in the door to combat a non-existent issue, many think you're basically asking to get screwed over.

I know everyone is scared of the tiered access issue, which I'm sure Comcast would like to do, but they've pretty much moved on from that and are fully committed to throttling and data caps, which net neutrality does nothing to stop and is probably more lucrative anyway.
 
If you don't like Comcast stop watching NBC ever **** them. I like that this seems to be a bigger concern than say what Time Warner cable was doing for years where they sold you a 1 year subscription at a good price then jack up the price 200% after that time period.
 
Last edited:
NN is dead. Accept it. The cable companies, their lobbyists, and the whore-in-chief-of-the-FCC, Pai won't let NN exist in any form.

Billions are at risk. Do any of you folks think this situation isn't rigged? Well, the Republican members will disagree. Because they are programmed to.
 
Doubt this clears the House. Not sure restoring the back door method of implementing a sort of NN using Title II that the Obama FCC dreamed up is a good idea anyway. I wonder how many of the Senators that voted for rolling back the FCC changes even understand what NN is?
 
Dead Parrot said:
Doubt this clears the House. Not sure restoring the back door method of implementing a sort of NN using Title II that the Obama FCC dreamed up is a good idea anyway. I wonder how many of the Senators that voted for rolling back the FCC changes even understand what NN is?
Click to expand...

The same question can be levied at the people that voted against it. Well, except the ones who were bribed by the telecom industry. Its pretty obvious why they voted the way they did.
 
The party ideology is still very strong at [H]. What person with any understanding of how this works would try to defend it if it weren't cause "Obama did it"? The fact this is bad news to so many of the lemmings is shocking.
 
Trigneus said:
What does everyone here believe the "Net Neutrality" law actually accomplished? The primary things I've noticed since 2015 is my stagnate internet speed (8MB down/ 0.5 up - yes 0.5), and Facebook, twitter, and youtube censorship of wrong think. Shouldn't a "Net Neutrality" law prevent what I've noticed the last three years? Congress isn't known for truth in titles/advertising and I don't believe a hundreds of pages long net neutrality bill was what most people think.
Click to expand...

Internet provider speeds have absolutely nothing to do with NN. The FCC after passing NN rules, turned their attention to removing many of the state level barriers to faster internet but lost in court.

FB, Twitter, and Youtube content have nothing to do with NN either. Those have to do with the long since removed Fairness Doctrine which was removed after it was attacked for years by the RNC. I'm not so sure that FNC/RNC would support a return to the Fairness Doctrine.
 
BlueFireIce said:
And this right here is why people push for NN, because they don't understand it.

NN does not stop them from charging edge providers to terminate data, in fact Title II protects their ability to charge a fee as a forced rate of zero is not legal. Title II allows for reasonable discrimination, which also allows them to charge for data termination to end users, yes, NN under Title II PROTECTS ISPs and allows them to do the VERY thing people claim it is meant to stop.

"Reclassification turns edge providers into “customers” of Broadband Service Providers. This new “carrier-to-customer” relationship (as opposed to a “carrier-to-carrier” relationship) would then require all BSPs (i.e., telephone, cable, and wireless broadband providers) to create, and then tariff, a termination service for Internet content under Section 203 of the Communications Act. Critically, this termination service would be separate and apart from any carrier-to-carrier agreements to deliver traffic. Because a tariffed rate cannot be set arbitrarily, and since a service cannot be generally tariffed at a price of zero, reclassification would require all edge providers (not their carriers)—as customers of the BSP—to make direct payments to the BSPs for termination services.

That is, all content providers, whether Netflix or a church website (or its host company), would be on the hook to pay every broadband service provider a positive termination fee. Most importantly, the agency would likely be prohibited from using its authority under Section 10 of the Communications Act to forbear from such tariffing requirements because the Commission has labeled all BSPs as “terminating monopolists.” In the presence of a terminating monopoly in the relevant market (i.e., each BSP is “dominant” for terminating access to their customers), competition—a key prerequisite for invoking section 10—cannot be used as a basis for forbearance for “terminating services.”"
Click to expand...

Yeah, your so called article is full of shit. Zero-cost/settlement peering was perfectly legal under NN. Here's a hint. When an article calls content providers "edge providers", it is a fairly good sign that it is so full of lobbyist shit that it should be declared a national superfund site.

AKA YOUR ARGUMENT IS COMPLETE LOBBYIST BS
 
Last edited:
gordon152 said:
The biggest thing many people were against net neutrality for was because the single biggest entities that have impacted internet freedom are not ISPs, but governments. You give them a foot in the door to combat a non-existent issue, many think you're basically asking to get screwed over.
Click to expand...

US government already has 100% total control and access to all communication. That argument is 100% orthogonal to NN.
 
gordon152 said:
The biggest thing many people were against net neutrality for was because the single biggest entities that have impacted internet freedom are not ISPs, but governments. You give them a foot in the door to combat a non-existent issue, many think you're basically asking to get screwed over.

I know everyone is scared of the tiered access issue, which I'm sure Comcast would like to do, but they've pretty much moved on from that and are fully committed to throttling and data caps, which net neutrality does nothing to stop and is probably more lucrative anyway.
Click to expand...

The government built the bloody internet, they've had a say in it for decades. The Federal Communications Act gave the FCC control of all interstate communication, which includes the internet. They don't need a "foot in the door". Do you remember SOPA? PIPA? They didn't need Title II/NN to try to get that. Your post is nothing but fear mongering BS and slippery slope fallacy.
 
rgMekanic said:
While I appreciate a good book.

Net neutrality wasn't a thing until 2015. Everything you used as an example is useless.
Click to expand...
You do understand that these are the types of actions that precipitated the need for a formal title II classification, right?

Please stop with the facile "the internet was fine before net neutrality" argument. Just because something hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't. The debacle of the ISPs extorting Netflix a few years back should tell you all you need to know about their plans.
 
rgMekanic said:
Yet every one of them got resolved before NN...
Click to expand...

At what cost? (court + getting how many customers to complain about it etc...)

Every single battle that folks fight for NN seems to always end up giving ground.

Remember when we didn't have data caps... (yes I know that isn't covered with NN) Now I don't have a single ISP in my area without them. Toss in phone (since the FCC says that that is adequate internet even if coverage stinks in rural areas.) Folks have to love being an AT&T customer with free unlimited direct TV. https://www.directvnow.com/data Course how is that fair to any competition? Even the Title II didn't prevent it from occurring so what can you do to keep competition fair when the US has already decided to give ISP monopolies... Personally I think some regulation is better than nothing. Maybe over time we will manage to get better regulation, but if even [H] folks like you aren't willing to try figure out a way to keep things fair then we likely aren't ever going to get anywhere till another bitter generation takes power and things just flip the other way again.



It will be interesting how this pans out in the house. There are plenty of Republican districts that are in the same boat as Kennedy, per Washington Post:

Kennedy, whose vote was closely watched, as he was one of the few Republicans siding with Democrats on the issue, said he was ultimately persuaded to vote yes because more than 1 in 5 Louisianans lack choice in their broadband provider.

“It was a fairly close call, but I'll tell you what it comes down to: the extent to which you trust your cable company,” Kennedy told The Washington Post moments after casting his vote. “If you trust your cable company, you're not going to like my vote today. If you don't trust your cable company, you will.”​



And NN is a very hot topic. PER NPR:
Net neutrality doesn't make for catchy campaign slogans, but there are indicators that voters are clocking this issue. According to data provided by Google, net neutrality regularly ranks among top political searches in each state.

In Pennsylvania and Nebraska, which held their primary elections on Tuesday, it ranked second in political searches behind health care. "This is one of those areas where Washington, D.C., sometimes gets in a bubble and doesn't recognize what's going on in the rest of the country," said Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who runs the Senate Democrats' 2018 campaign operation.​


And this is definitely something kids will tell their parents to talk to their congress person for. (Doesn't mater if folks truly believe it doesn't actually result in NN. Just the concept of allowing someone the power to limit the internet is blasphemy to nearly everyone born since the 90s.)
 
TMCM said:
Did you even read the post? NN was a response to everything that post links to
Click to expand...

The first sentence already tells he didn't, which was why I didn't even bother replying to him. Waste of good keyboard strokes and carpal tunnel homie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TMCM
like this
NoOther said:
Who pays for that upgrade? Why do they need to upgrade? Oh yeah, because everyone is streaming services from Google/Netflix/Facebook. Why do those services not have some responsibility for the amount of traffic they increase? I am not sure what is so hard to understand about that.
Click to expand...

This is the dumbest thing I've read all week. More traffic happens because the internet and technology is growing. Those streaming services are paying their bills.

ISPs aren't doing what they are supposed to be doing which is IMPROVING THEIR NETWORKS TO HANDLE THE TRAFFIC INCREASE. Derp.
 
Last edited:
How about we compromise: delay Net Neutrality rules, and instead enforce existing anti-trust law to break up every ISP that has a regional monopoly.
 
tetris42 said:
How about we compromise: delay Net Neutrality rules, and instead enforce existing anti-trust law to break up every ISP that has a regional monopoly.
Click to expand...

That will only take up 20+ years. Might want to look at actual timelines of anti-trust actions.
 
Until internet access becomes a utility, you want net neutrality.
This is clearly a tech forum, and techs are nerds who do not understand nontech things, like business.

We want as many things in place to prevent business from screwing us over
 
aaronspink said:
Yeah, your so called article is full of shit. Zero-cost/settlement peering was perfectly legal under NN. Here's a hint. When an article calls content providers "edge providers", it is a fairly good sign that it is so full of lobbyist shit that it should be declared a national superfund site.

AKA YOUR ARGUMENT IS COMPLETE LOBBYIST BS
Click to expand...

It's not, and if you would like to actually respond to what was said or linked, other than sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I'M NOT LISTENING", I would be more than happy to discuss. I never said, nor did the paper ever say zero cost was not legal, I said the whole claim to supporters of NN is that it would make charging fees illegal, which it does not and it actually protects them if they do charge it. I ONLY said that zero cost can not be enforced, not that an ISP could not choose to terminate for zero cost. As for you being upset they used a word you don't like, well, that seems to be a personal problem.
 
"Net Neutrality" (as implemented by the FCC a few years ago and the subject of this bill) is not Net Neutrality.
For or against what is being opposed, this is the way it should be done, not some un-elected bureaucrats taking control over the Internet.
 
BlueFireIce said:
It's not, and if you would like to actually respond to what was said or linked, other than sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I'M NOT LISTENING", I would be more than happy to discuss. I never said, nor did the paper ever say zero cost was not legal, I said the whole claim to supporters of NN is that it would make charging fees illegal, which it does not and it actually protects them if they do charge it. I ONLY said that zero cost can not be enforced, not that an ISP could not choose to terminate for zero cost. As for you being upset they used a word you don't like, well, that seems to be a personal problem.
Click to expand...

It was lobbyist BS. Anything that uses the term "edge providers" for internet business is lobbyist BS. Its a term that tries to confuse the difference between ISPs and internet businesses. The entire thing was complete BS that had no actual application to reality.
 
jardows said:
"Net Neutrality" (as implemented by the FCC a few years ago and the subject of this bill) is not Net Neutrality.
For or against what is being opposed, this is the way it should be done, not some un-elected bureaucrats taking control over the Internet.
Click to expand...

They aren't taking control. They legally already HAVE control. They are the legally designated controllers of communications within the US. They were given control by an act of congress with the consent of the president.
 
The threads turn into the same: those that want less... Everything and pay more and those that want NN... Control those POS ISPs.
 
aaronspink said:
They aren't taking control. They legally already HAVE control. They are the legally designated controllers of communications within the US. They were given control by an act of congress with the consent of the president.
Click to expand...
The FCC does not have a broad "anything that has anything to do with communication" powers. They were given powers over specific types of communication. The FCC made a rule that reclassified the Internet as a type of communication they have authority over, something that should have been left to Congress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top