• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

FCC Releases Net Neutrality Rules

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The Federal Communications Commission has finally released the net neutrality rules. You can download the 400 page document as a PDF, Word or Text document.

The open Internet drives the American economy and serves, every day, as a critical tool for America’s citizens to conduct commerce, communicate, educate, entertain, and engage in the world around them. The benefits of an open Internet are undisputed. But it must remain open: open for commerce, innovation, and speech; open for consumers and for the innovation created by applications developers and content companies; and open for expansion and investment by America’s broadband providers. For over a decade, the Commission has been committed to protecting and promoting an open Internet.
Click to expand...
 
What were these parts?
1. New Broadband Taxes.—One avenue for higher bills is the new taxes and fees that will be
applied to broadband. Here’s the background. If you look at your phone bill, you’ll see a “Universal
Service Fee,” or something like it. These fees (what most Americans would call taxes) are paid by
Americans on their telephone service and funnel about $9 billion each year through the FCC—all outside
the congressional appropriations process. Consumers haven’t had to pay these taxes on their broadband
bills because broadband Internet access service has never before been a Title II service.
But now it is. And so the Order explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on
broadband. As the Order frankly acknowledges, Title II “authorizes the Commission to impose universal
service contributions requirements on telecommunications carriers—and, indeed, goes even further to
require ‘[e]very telecommunications carrier that provides interstate telecommunications services’ to
contribute.”36 And so the FCC now has a statutory obligation to make sure that all Internet service
providers (and in the end, their customers) contribute to the Universal Service Fund.
Click to expand...

44 In fact, broadband taxes may go up even further than this should the FCC revisit its decision to forbear from
requiring contributions to the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) Fund. See Order at para. 470 (“[F]or now
we do forbear in part from the application of TRS contribution obligations that otherwise would newly apply to
broadband Internet access service”) (emphasis added). There, too, the fix may be in. See id. (“Applying new TRS
contribution requirements on broadband Internet access potentially could spread the base of contributions to the TRS
Fund, having the benefit of adding to the stability of the TRS Fund. Nevertheless, before taking any steps that
(continued….)

The great irony of all of this? The broadband tax increase enabled by reclassification is going to
deter broadband adoption, especially among the low-income Americans for whom broadband (especially
mobile broadband) is increasingly important for professional success, education, and more.45 The iron
law of microeconomics still holds: The more you tax something, the less you get of it. In this case, the
FCC’s decision today will mean fewer digital opportunities for hard-working Americans tomorrow.
Click to expand...
 
downloaded for reading...

I want to believe the best in the rules, but this did come from the Obama Admin. So I am going to review it with a fine tooth comb. The fact they refused to release the rules before passing them is worrisome. (You saw what ACA got us) You can't trust any politicians with squat. And Obama's cronies are among the most sneaky.

As some of the biggest proponents of net neutrality, it is up to all professionals with a net background to look at these rules.
 
Taldren said:
The great irony of all of this? The broadband tax increase enabled by reclassification is going to deter broadband adoption, especially among the low-income Americans for whom broadband (especially mobile broadband) is increasingly important for professional success, education, and more.45 The iron law of microeconomics still holds: The more you tax something, the less you get of it. In this case, the
FCC’s decision today will mean fewer digital opportunities for hard-working Americans tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Well here's your option: Trust companies to be honest and not
1) blackmail other companies for premium access
2) outright block competitors
3) discourage competition through lobbyist state legislatures from building competing municipal broadband.

All 3 have already come to pass.

Is this a hidden tax increase? Maybe. But the taxes aren't guaranteed. But regulation isn't free. It takes manpower.

While some parts of the rules might be questionable there are undeniable benefits. So you have to choose which you prefer:

1) Feeding the pig (corporations)
2) feeding a smaller amount to the jackass (government)
 
I'll be back in this thread later to see what kind of awesome posts are around to amuse me.
 
Taldren said:
What were these parts?
Click to expand...

These are arguments in the dissention written by GOP commissioner Ajit Pai that he's made before. The rule itself says no new taxes will occur, state or federal.

B. Promoting Investment with a Modern Title II
37. Today, our forbearance approach results in over 700 codified rules being inapplicable, a “light-touch” approach for the use of Title II. This includes no unbundling of last-mile facilities, no tariffing, no rate regulation, and no cost accounting rules, which results in a carefully tailored application of only those Title II provisions found to directly further the public interest in an open Internet and more, better, and open broadband. Nor will our actions result in the imposition of any new federal taxes or fees; the ability of states to impose fees on broadband is already limited by the congressional Internet tax moratorium.
Click to expand...

Indeed the words "tax" and "taxes" is mentioned about 10 times one in the rule and like 100 times in the dissents of Pai and O'Reilly.
 
Interest note right off the bat...

"Nor will our actions result in the imposition of any new federal taxes or fees;
the ability of states to impose fees on broadband is already limited by the congressional Internet tax
moratorium." - P.12 B. 37
 
antbikerjl said:
Interest note right off the bat...

"Nor will our actions result in the imposition of any new federal taxes or fees;
the ability of states to impose fees on broadband is already limited by the congressional Internet tax
moratorium." - P.12 B. 37
Click to expand...

No new federal taxes or fees ... that they can, if they choose, impose afterwards should this not be blocked by congress.

But yes, the STATES are limited by the congressional moratorium.
 
I like how the document tries to blunt much of the tax argument by referring to the (ITFA) which only get a 1-year extension from his Majesty last December. So that argument is built on a bed of sand.
 
jpm100 said:
I like how the document tries to blunt much of the tax argument by referring to the (ITFA) which only get a 1-year extension from his Majesty last December. So that argument is built on a bed of sand.
Click to expand...

But what does the ITFA have to do with this rule? Even if this rule gets defeated ITFA doesn't have to be extended.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
downloaded for reading...

I want to believe the best in the rules, but this did come from the Obama Admin. So I am going to review it with a fine tooth comb. The fact they refused to release the rules before passing them is worrisome. (You saw what ACA got us) You can't trust any politicians with squat. And Obama's cronies are among the most sneaky.
Click to expand...

Not even comparable to the ACA. This didn't come from the Obama Admin.

The FCC got its authority directly from Congress. Under the Congressional Review Act, agencies must submit final rules to Congress. After submission, Congress can begin a process to overturn the rule.

So, The final rule has just been made available and submitted to congress.

That's how Congress designed the FCC to work so keep that "refused to release" bullshit to yourself.
 
DocFaustus said:
Not even comparable to the ACA. This didn't come from the Obama Admin.
Click to expand...

Actually the ACA itself is based on a conservative think tank plan and the first version of it was supported and passed under a GOP governor. GOP politics is simply a caricature these days, 100% opposition to any and everything "Obama". Simply inject the word "Obama" into the subject and instantly get the GOP base behind it. Sometimes it's effective. In this case it's going to blow up in the GOP's face I think.
 
Taldren said:
Death and Taxes are life's ONLY guarantee.
Click to expand...

Yeah, my thought was "what planet does this person live on that they think new taxes/fees aren't guaranteed?"


heatlesssun said:
But what does the ITFA have to do with this rule? Even if this rule gets defeated ITFA doesn't have to be extended.
Click to expand...

Well beyond that I could easily see the calling it's new tax increases "fees" instead of "taxes" to get around the ITFA and saying they are simply bring it ISP in line with other utilities.
 
DocFaustus said:
Not even comparable to the ACA. This didn't come from the Obama Admin.

The FCC got its authority directly from Congress. Under the Congressional Review Act, agencies must submit final rules to Congress. After submission, Congress can begin a process to overturn the rule.

So, The final rule has just been made available and submitted to congress.

That's how Congress designed the FCC to work so keep that "refused to release" bullshit to yourself.
Click to expand...

Hey you keep that research and facts crap to yourself buddy! ;)
 
DocFaustus said:
Not even comparable to the ACA. This didn't come from the Obama Admin.

The FCC got its authority directly from Congress. Under the Congressional Review Act, agencies must submit final rules to Congress. After submission, Congress can begin a process to overturn the rule.

So, The final rule has just been made available and submitted to congress.

That's how Congress designed the FCC to work so keep that "refused to release" bullshit to yourself.
Click to expand...

And nothing in these facts says the FCC can not make rules it will be voting on public before they actually vote on them, so basically you post seems to point us to the possibility that the only reason it's been made public now is because they had to submit it to Congress anyways, and members of Congress would have gladly made it public.
 
heatlesssun said:
Actually the ACA itself is based on a conservative think tank plan and the first version of it was supported and passed under a GOP governor. GOP politics is simply a caricature these days, 100% opposition to any and everything "Obama". Simply inject the word "Obama" into the subject and instantly get the GOP base behind it. Sometimes it's effective. In this case it's going to blow up in the GOP's face I think.
Click to expand...

Yeah no...

Try getting your talking points from some place other than MSNBC.

Obama had to buy off members of his own damn party to get that trash rammed down our throats. The best is yet to come from ACA.
 
XvMMvX said:
Yeah no...

Try getting your talking points from some place other than MSNBC.

Obama had to buy off members of his own damn party to get that trash rammed down our throats. The best is yet to come from ACA.
Click to expand...

The only honest words made about the ACA was done by Jonathan Gruber.
 
Ultima99 said:
Hey you keep that research and facts crap to yourself buddy! ;)
Click to expand...

Sorry sir, please accept my apologies

I not exactly sure when what should be clearly a nerd issue - Net Neutrality: computer geeks vs. Comcast - became such a political topic.

Next time I'll try to parse it out in a more inbred tone for the "If'n he's a for it, them I'm ag'nst it, 'cause Murica! that't why" crowd :D
 
XvMMvX said:
Yeah no...

Try getting your talking points from some place other than MSNBC.

Obama had to buy off members of his own damn party to get that trash rammed down our throats. The best is yet to come from ACA.
Click to expand...

Where did the idea of mandatory health insurance come from? Didn't the Heritage Foundation propose that in the late 70's? And as far as buying off party members, a Lot of Democrats did lose their seats over the ACA. Like sausage, you don't really want to see politics made. And that's not just the politics of government.
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
And nothing in these facts says the FCC can not make rules it will be voting on public before they actually vote on them, so basically you post seems to point us to the possibility that the only reason it's been made public now is because they had to submit it to Congress anyways, and members of Congress would have gladly made it public.
Click to expand...

I understand that is the only talking point left for the conspiracy theorists, but this is the way the FCC typically works, so nothing is out of the norm here. : http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/02/27/theres-already-a-conspiracy-theory-brewing-over-net-neutrality/

I have no idea why people are trying to hard to make this thread about ACA. I guess they have no good points to argue in regards to NN so they are trying to shift the topic to something they can talk about.
 
DocFaustus said:
I understand that is the only talking point left for the conspiracy theorists, but this is the way the FCC typically works, so nothing is out of the norm here. : http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/02/27/theres-already-a-conspiracy-theory-brewing-over-net-neutrality/

I have no idea why people are trying to hard to make this thread about ACA. I guess they have no good points to argue in regards to NN so they are trying to shift the topic to something they can talk about.
Click to expand...

Sorry but a story from the Washington Post that basically says "Hey, it's no big deal" doesn't really carry much weight with me.

The simple facts are, the FCC had talked about specifics of various actions on NN but then when they actuaully are going to vote on a NN bill they clam up and wont tell the public the specifics until it goes to Congress.

This administration claims to be the "most transparent administration in history,” and yet they really seem to like doing things behind closed doors.
 
I don't actually see any document to download from the link provided.. Am I blind?:confused:
 
DocFaustus said:
I have no idea why people are trying to hard to make this thread about ACA. I guess they have no good points to argue in regards to NN so they are trying to shift the topic to something they can talk about.
Click to expand...

I don't think I saw hardly a word of dissent against net neutrality on this forum that didn't get shouted down like a Westboro Baptist Church member until Obama's speech of support for NN in November 2014. Then, all of a sudden, an obstinacy of corporate shills were born.
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
Sorry but a story from the Washington Post that basically says "Hey, it's no big deal" doesn't really carry much weight with me.

The simple facts are, the FCC had talked about specifics of various actions on NN but then when they actuaully are going to vote on a NN bill they clam up and wont tell the public the specifics until it goes to Congress.

This administration claims to be the "most transparent administration in history,” and yet they really seem to like doing things behind closed doors.
Click to expand...


ok dumbass, why dont you read up on how the FCC releases final rules before opening the starting train you seem hell bent on.

A the FCC can only release final rules after all members including dissenters write up their papers.

B the only reason it took THIS long is the OMG THE SKY IS FALLING MURICA FREEEEEEEDOM idiot Ajit Pai intentionally delayed his dissent to write more spurious bullshit and fact-wrong, outright lying tripe in his dissent to stir up the nimwits like you.
 
Here's the TDLR version as I understand it (posted by another, reiterated here):

1) No Blocking - An ISP cannot legally block any "legal content" for any reason what-so-ever.

EXAMPLE: Comcast cannot prvent you from getting to Disney's website anymore just because they are having a cable TV dispute with Disney over ESPN licensing.

2) No Throttling - No ISP can say "you have broadband Internet" and then tell you "You used too much Internet this month by constantly streaming NetFlix, so we have to throttle you to dial-up speeds until next month when you pay us."

If they want to have bandwidth caps on plans now, they must clearly specify this limitation in the agreement and NOT in some hidden EULA.

"the order builds on the strong foundation established in 2010 and enhances the transparency rule for both end users and edge providers, including by adopting a requirement that broadband providers always must disclose promotional rates, all fees and/or surcharges, and all data caps or data allowances"

3) No Fast Lanes - An ISP can't tell a website that the website will be slowed down unless they pay for "fast lane access" AKA Paid Prioritization.

Note: This doesn't mean the ISP can't sell users faster speeds for more money. Just that ISPs can't try to double-dip by charging web content providers to allow/speed up their traffic through the ISP's network as well as charging users for the Internet access to get the web content.
 
ROTO said:
ok dumbass, why dont you read up on how the FCC releases final rules before opening the starting train you seem hell bent on.

A the FCC can only release final rules after all members including dissenters write up their papers.

B the only reason it took THIS long is the OMG THE SKY IS FALLING MURICA FREEEEEEEDOM idiot Ajit Pai intentionally delayed his dissent to write more spurious bullshit and fact-wrong, outright lying tripe in his dissent to stir up the nimwits like you.
Click to expand...

Yep, if you can't deal with facts switch to insults, very mature.

There is a HUGE difference between releasing final ruling and releasing what is being discussed and put up for a vote.
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
Sorry but a story from the Washington Post that basically says "Hey, it's no big deal" doesn't really carry much weight with me.

The simple facts are, the FCC had talked about specifics of various actions on NN but then when they actuaully are going to vote on a NN bill they clam up and wont tell the public the specifics until it goes to Congress.

This administration claims to be the "most transparent administration in history,” and yet they really seem to like doing things behind closed doors.
Click to expand...

Do you have a problem content of FCC's ruling that this discussion is about? I would love to hear it so we can all discuss on this tech forum.

If you're only talking point has zero objection to the law but instead is only based on how the FCC has always historically operated. Again, the only connection to this administration was when the president announced he supported net neutrality. Keep bitching
 
Burning_Monk said:
What facts? The ones you are purposely misrepresenting?
Click to expand...

No, the ones you choose to ignore, as for misrepresenting, when comments post that the proposal should have been made puublic before the vote you start yapping about them publishing the final approved regulation.

None of the defenses you have sprewed out have addressed the the issue, which is the FCC being able, but refusing, to release the proposal before it was voted on.
 
XvMMvX said:
Yeah no...

Try getting your talking points from some place other than PMSNBC.

Obama had to buy off members of his own damn party to get that trash rammed down our throats. The best is yet to come from ACA.
Click to expand...

fixed
 
Paying a couple bucks more a month to ensure my traffic isn't being fucked around with? Sure.

Why not.
 
c0mad0r said:
Here's the TDLR version as I understand it (posted by another, reiterated here):

1) No Blocking - An ISP cannot legally block any "legal content" for any reason what-so-ever.

EXAMPLE: Comcast cannot prvent you from getting to Disney's website anymore just because they are having a cable TV dispute with Disney over ESPN licensing.

2) No Throttling - No ISP can say "you have broadband Internet" and then tell you "You used too much Internet this month by constantly streaming NetFlix, so we have to throttle you to dial-up speeds until next month when you pay us."

If they want to have bandwidth caps on plans now, they must clearly specify this limitation in the agreement and NOT in some hidden EULA.

"the order builds on the strong foundation established in 2010 and enhances the transparency rule for both end users and edge providers, including by adopting a requirement that broadband providers always must disclose promotional rates, all fees and/or surcharges, and all data caps or data allowances"

3) No Fast Lanes - An ISP can't tell a website that the website will be slowed down unless they pay for "fast lane access" AKA Paid Prioritization.

Note: This doesn't mean the ISP can't sell users faster speeds for more money. Just that ISPs can't try to double-dip by charging web content providers to allow/speed up their traffic through the ISP's network as well as charging users for the Internet access to get the web content.
Click to expand...

Thanks c0mad0r, it looks pretty good so far.

Has anyone found any particular bad parts yet?
 
XvMMvX said:
Yeah no...

Try getting your talking points from some place other than MSNBC.

Obama had to buy off members of his own damn party to get that trash rammed down our throats. The best is yet to come from ACA.
Click to expand...

BINGO!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top