Is Net Neutrality Dead?

[HardOCP News]

You know things are bad when you need a FAQ to know if you are dead, alive or on life support.

But the ruling, which is still being examined by lawyers on both sides of the debate, may not cause as much damage as some people fear. To get the low-down on how this court decision will affect the FCC, broadband Internet service providers, and consumers, check out this FAQ.

 

[Azhar]

On Tuesday, a three-judge panel in a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. unanimously tossed out an FCC cease-and-desist order against cable giant Comcast. The FCC said in 2008 that Comcast had illegally slowed its customers' Bit Torrent traffic. Comcast, which changed its practices voluntarily before the FCC took action, claimed it was simply managing its network. The cable giant appealed the FCC's order to clear its name and set the record straight.

Even though Comcast voluntarily stop throttling their customer, I wonder if since this case was toss out, Comcast will see this as a green light to move forward with their throttling practice.

 

[BloodyIron]

It's a good thing that key elements of the internet run strictly through the USA, so they effectively can tap the entire internet if they want.

This net neutrality shit affects the whole world, whether you'd like to believe it or not.

 

[RangerXML]

OK, I'm not for gov't controlled internet, but the alternative is tiers and content restrictions. Now giving the FCC those kind of powers could seriously back fire in the future if there are ever any laws past on content and piracy, but how else can we give Telecommunication companies the smack down to prevent them from doing this. It seems like every few months the pass new restrictions and limits. Could Google, the republic and future interstellar empire be our only savior or are we doomed to have internet become the next cable TV or radio (as in censored and heavily restricted).

 

[RadCliffeX]

Pirate Internet is back baby!



Oh I can't wait for Lan Parties to kick up again in the Cincy area!

 

[mavrocket]

We must NOT allow the FCC to regulate providers, if we do we are opening a door to censorship and government control.

Look at what is going on in Australia! If we allow Net Nuetrality, we are going to end up just like the Aussies, fighting the government for uncensored internet!

 

[RangerXML]

Pirate Internet is back baby!



Oh I can't wait for Lan Parties to kick up again in the Cincy area!

Would be cool to start private City wide networks that evolve into full fledged pirate networks and then start connecting them to other cities. Anyone wanna start a new project. Sad, but I'm in the boons and I don't think comcast/cox would take to long respond to a VPN in my area over there consumer level service.

 

[BloodyIron]

We must NOT allow the FCC to regulate providers, if we do we are opening a door to censorship and government control.

Look at what is going on in Australia! If we allow Net Nuetrality, we are going to end up just like the Aussies, fighting the government for uncensored internet!

Can you please back up your fears and concerns with proof? Not just hearsay and conjecture but proven studies and examples?

If you compare internet regulated by the government to other forms of regulation such as food regulation, highway and city regulation, sewage regulation, etc etc, perhaps you'll realize that your government is not completely faceless, and completely against you.

Sure, they will likely cheat with it a bit. But they already do this, and they will always do this until you change your government.

But you really think allowing the ISP's to tier their services is a _better_ option? Get the fuck off my internet, please.

 

[ianken]

We must NOT allow the FCC to regulate providers, if we do we are opening a door to censorship and government control.

Look at what is going on in Australia! If we allow Net Nuetrality, we are going to end up just like the Aussies, fighting the government for uncensored internet!

Down troll! Down!

Seriously! Down! Bad troll! BAD!

 

[iansilv]

We will get net neutrality, the FCC will be given the power through congressional legislation. It will work smoothly as always....

Wait! Oh Shit! Yeah- it's a long way off.

 

[dochmbi]

It's either government control or corporate control, pick your poison!

 

[kllrnohj]

We must NOT allow the FCC to regulate providers, if we do we are opening a door to censorship and government control.

Look at what is going on in Australia! If we allow Net Nuetrality, we are going to end up just like the Aussies, fighting the government for uncensored internet!

Really? Are your phone conversations censored? Mine sure aren't.

I recently switched from Sprint to Verizon. Thanks to the FCC, I was able to keep my number. If I would have been required to get a new number, I probably wouldn't have switched. FCC regulations improved competition between carriers - and there isn't any censorship on phone lines despite the FCC regulating them since 1934.

 

[kirbyrj]

It sounded like Comcast/ATT, etc. were working with the FCC and voluntarily supporting open practices because they don't want to see more laws enacted.

 

[Stiletto]

Gee, I'm pretty sure that if you don't like the service you're getting, or being offered, you can choose not to do business with that particular company. Go with a competitor. No competitors in your area? Choose between internet that doesn't meet your standards, or no internet. Believe it or not, your life can continue without.

It would be so nice if people valued the concept of a free and open market over entitlement paradigms which give the government more power over their lives. You have choices. Cherish them. Won't be long before the Feds make all your decisions for you.

 

[kirbyrj]

Well, I did see somewhere (Europe?) that internet was classified as a basic human right .

 

[Stiletto]

If you compare internet regulated by the government to other forms of regulation such as food regulation

Bad food can kill you. Lack of torrent availability will not.

highway and city regulation

Bad roads can kill you. A 250GB limit will not.

sewage regulation

Sewage in the water supply can kill you. Possibly having your favorite porn site inaccessible will not.

But you really think allowing the ISP's to tier their services is a _better_ option? Get the fuck off my internet, please.

Do I think allowing private companies to determine what they want to offer to sell is a good option? Yes. If the store down the street decides they're not going to sell Mountain Dew anymore, are you going to demand the government pass a law that requires them to sell it? Go somewhere else, or do without. Freedom of choice is an awesome thing.

 

[xX_Jack_Carver_Xx]

What The Fuck.

The US Government IS the internet. The backbone of the entire system is government equipment. The ISPs are only portals into that backbone.

Keep your government hands off my Medicare....

Keep your government hands off my Internet...

Same unbelievable level of ignorance. The internet is the creation of the US government, to interconnect military facilities, national laboratory installations, and universities doing government contract work. It spread to military and government contractor corporations, etc.

The core of the US internet is government equipment or government leased equipment. It was TOO LATE on day one to worry about the government getting its hands on the internet.

Pirate Internet? WTF is that? How are you going to access it outside of one of the ISP portals?

Net Neutrality is the ABSENSE OF REGULATION not the presence. The point is to prohibit both the government AND the ISPs from "regulating" content or the access to the content for any purpose.

The COMMERCE aspect of the internet is far too important now, and into the future, to allow ANYONE.... government or private corporations... to fuck with it. The selfish monopolistic tendencies of corporations in a capitalist market will REQUIRE them to fuck it all up in the pursuit of an extra buck.... because ENOUGH is never ENOUGH.

Congress will simply EXPLICITLY grant the FCC the power to regulate the internet, and the FCC will then implement Net Neutrality... for the sake of COMMERCE in general, and against the specific interests of any one or group of interests.

 

[Stiletto]

Net Neutrality is the ABSENSE OF REGULATION not the presence. The point is to prohibit both the government AND the ISPs from "regulating" content or the access to the content for any purpose.

...therefore regulating the internet delivery industry. The only entity this bill would restrict would be the private sector. It has no power over the government's iron fist if they decide to start filtering. The difference?

The private sector needs customers. It will do what it needs to in order to keep customers, including lowering prices, providing more services, etc. If they don't, their revenue falls, and they can go out of business.

The government doesn't need to please "customers". "Customers" still have to pay their bill every April 15th, and if they don't, they go to jail. The government doesn't have to worry about going out of business. Their revenue is constant. Hence the folly of government exerting power over any industry, be it internet access, or health care.

 

[keenan]

Not having net neutrality guaranteed will DESTROY THE INTERNET AS WE KNOW IT. Why is it so hard to understand? It will lead directly and obviously to the monopolies that control the end user's connection extorting funds from the people their users are trying to connect to. What recourse does 99% of the population have against these companies? In almost all markets one company controls all the cable infrastructure and another controls the telephone infrastructure. Two options, both equally large and faceless, does not a free market make.

The Internet is pretty much essential service for any modern household. What are regular citizens supposed to do if Comcast decides to say throttle YouTube so that HD streams don't work, trying to extort $x million/yr from Google? You can't just leave the Internet. You might have another huge faceless corporation to turn to for access, but if they do the same thing, then what? Rejecting net neutrality gives Comcast et. al. carte blanche to extort both users and service providers for pretty much everything. It will lead directly to a tiered Internet, and you can bet your bacon that the tier that gives you the access you have today will cost significantly more than you pay today. What is this going to do for Internet-based business if 50% of users in the US can only access some subset of sites? The whole idea is sickening.

 

[mysticdrew]

The easiest way for congress to grant the FCC the power to enact NN is to declare the internet an Utility. Then ISP's will need to apply for rate hikes and stuff like your electric/gas companies do.

Government has its place in society, they are not controlling anything with NN just helping out us common folk so we dont get raped in the ass by Charter/Comcast/Timewarner/ATT and all the other big name isps that have control of geographical regions.

I have charter, if they raise their price what choice to I have? Dial-up? hell no, DSL? no dsl near me. I don't have a choice and most of the U.S doesn't have a choice unless you're lucky enough to have cable and uverse in your area.

 

[MavsX]

We must NOT allow the FCC to regulate providers, if we do we are opening a door to censorship and government control.

Look at what is going on in Australia! If we allow Net Nuetrality, we are going to end up just like the Aussies, fighting the government for uncensored internet!

 

[MavsX]

Not having net neutrality guaranteed will DESTROY THE INTERNET AS WE KNOW IT. Why is it so hard to understand? It will lead directly and obviously to the monopolies that control the end user's connection extorting funds from the people their users are trying to connect to. What recourse does 99% of the population have against these companies? In almost all markets one company controls all the cable infrastructure and another controls the telephone infrastructure. Two options, both equally large and faceless, does not a free market make.

The Internet is pretty much essential service for any modern household. What are regular citizens supposed to do if Comcast decides to say throttle YouTube so that HD streams don't work, trying to extort $x million/yr from Google? You can't just leave the Internet. You might have another huge faceless corporation to turn to for access, but if they do the same thing, then what? Rejecting net neutrality gives Comcast et. al. carte blanche to extort both users and service providers for pretty much everything. It will lead directly to a tiered Internet, and you can bet your bacon that the tier that gives you the access you have today will cost significantly more than you pay today. What is this going to do for Internet-based business if 50% of users in the US can only access some subset of sites? The whole idea is sickening.

Not to mention. More and more companies are showing their tv shows on the internet. All of them are being streamed. Some people are going to cancel their tv service, because they can all their shows on the net. That probably deeply concerns comcast, because it is a huge portion of their revenue. Comcast wants a tiered service so they can charge you based on consumption, ie. the more shows you watch streamed the more you pay. They will want to make some of that money back up because joe schmoe canceled the cable service. Sounds like a bunch of BS to me. They need to pass net neutrality.

 

[scheherazade]

It's either government control or corporate control, pick your poison!

Or neither... with a law saying that : no communications provider can differentiate access based on the content being communicated.




If you let the government in on the act : you get censorship

If you let the corporations do what they like : you will get reduced service, and the option to buy back what you previously had


The only solution is a limited law.

-scheherazade

 

[scheherazade]

Not to mention. More and more companies are showing their tv shows on the internet. All of them are being streamed. Some people are going to cancel their tv service, because they can all their shows on the net. That probably deeply concerns comcast, because it is a huge portion of their revenue. Comcast wants a tiered service so they can charge you based on consumption, ie. the more shows you watch streamed the more you pay. They will want to make some of that money back up because joe schmoe canceled the cable service. Sounds like a bunch of BS to me. They need to pass net neutrality.

Which should be a non issue since you are buying UNLIMITED internet access.
You can use your XXXX KB/sec for whatever and whenever you want.

(even though the isp will fine you if they consider your usage 'excessive' - because unlimited really isn't unlimited...)




If the telecoms are so concerned, they should just charge per kilobyte and stop crying about what we use it for.





The real problem with non-neural internet is this :


If you download from sites A and B, you pay $X per file.
But if you download from sites C and D, you pay $2X per file.
So that you visit their web sites where they get ad revenue.

Or suddenly they decide that you need a $1 charge per email sent. (regardless of whether it was from your ISP email account - i.e. gmail)
And they give some lame excuse like "it's to pay for spam filtering".

Or they decide that "for security reasons" (i.e. B.S.) they need to limit traffic to "non sanctioned video services".
So youtube and google video are fast (because they pay your ISP part of their ad revenue), and Veoh, MegaVideo, etc, are all slow as balls because they don't want to pay the de-cripple tax to your ISP.

And of course you are given the option to pay for un-corking your specific link to those sites - on a site by site basis.
It'll only be a basic $2 a month, per web site, bandwidth de-cripple.


They'll say it's all to pay for their fancy equipment that "properly manages bandwidth usage to ensure the best experience for the end user".

But really, they'll blow a bunch of money that they weren't spending, in introducing new hardware to discriminate and limit traffic.
And your connection will get suckier.
And you'll get handed the opportunity to buy back the access you once had.

Whoop tee doo. Can't wait...


-scheherazade

 

[scheherazade]

Do I think allowing private companies to determine what they want to offer to sell is a good option? Yes. If the store down the street decides they're not going to sell Mountain Dew anymore, are you going to demand the government pass a law that requires them to sell it? Go somewhere else, or do without. Freedom of choice is an awesome thing.

While that sounds good, it doesn't apply.
There is no variety in what ISPs sell. They have one product.

Every ISP is selling "IP packet routing service".
That's it. No other items for sale. That's all they have to offer.


A better comparison would be :
You go to rent a car.
Rental company asks you if your trip is for work or pleasure.
If it's for work, they charge you double.

When really, they shouldn't care WHY you drive.
It should only matter how, and how much you drive.


-scheherazade

 

[SPARTAN VI]

A better comparison would be :
You go to rent a car.
Rental company asks you if your trip is for work or pleasure.
If it's for work, they charge you double.

When really, they shouldn't care WHY you drive.
It should only matter how, and how much you drive.


-scheherazade

Car analogy detected, destroy thread immediately.

Go ahead, don't mind my chuckles.

 

[xX_Jack_Carver_Xx]

If you let the government in on the act : you get censorship

It boogles the mind.

You HAVE government in on the act, it IS the act, it was in on it from day one, it IS the internet.

The reason after 35+ years that you DO NOT have censorship on the internet in the US is...

THE FIRST AMENDMENT

... it is prohibited BY LAW.

The internet is what it is and has become such a force on earth directly because it was the US that created it. That from day one it has been governed by US law and immune from censorship by law, sharing the blessing of the First Amendment with all mankind.

Net Neutrality will simply codify that corporations acting as gate keepers on this internet are covered by the same prohibitions against censorship that the government is subject to.

The idiot christian nutball president of Oz can do what he likes, but his reach ends at the border of Oz. If he wants to block Playboy.com in Oz, go ahead but the rest of the world will go right on following the bouncing boobs. Oz doesn't have a First Amendment.... let THAT be a lesson to all.

 

[scheherazade]

libel...
slander...
an array of 'sensitive speech' prohibitions... (you cant urge a mob to action, for example)
incitement...

there's laws about speech. it's not 'free'.



The internet started as a government entity - its a long way from arpanet.
Trunk carriers are multinational.
And your day to day isps are NOT them, isps are customers too.



You have the right to bare arms.
But you cant gave a machine gun without a tax stamp, and you have to relinquish your right to no warrantless search.
(Yes folks, you CAN buy a fully automatic gun, silencer, etc. - with strings attached)


The internet is not very regulated right now.
So far the government has limited its involvement to "what you can't do".
Giving them a bigger role, and letting them start deciding about "what you can do", is when you start to get censorship.

No, not the scaaaaaaary spooky big brother kind.
Just ever bloating books of regulations that [like the tax code] eventually make everyone a criminal - because if you nit pick hard enough you will find something where you did wrong by the letter of the law.

-scheherazade

 

[KnishofDeath]

Here go again.

Pointless right-wing paranoia drivel on [H] surprise, surprise.

Can all of you grab your guns and disappear into the woods with your prospective militias never to be heard from again?

Ok great thanx.

 

[kirbyrj]

^^^ Talk about a straw man.

That's like me saying all Left-wing nutjobs parade around in gay rights parades while smoking marajuana and cashing their unemployment checks .

 

[singe_101]

Not to mention. More and more companies are showing their tv shows on the internet. All of them are being streamed. Some people are going to cancel their tv service, because they can all their shows on the net. That probably deeply concerns comcast, because it is a huge portion of their revenue. Comcast wants a tiered service so they can charge you based on consumption, ie. the more shows you watch streamed the more you pay. They will want to make some of that money back up because joe schmoe canceled the cable service. Sounds like a bunch of BS to me. They need to pass net neutrality.

Joe Schmoe needs ESPN and the major networks for sports, local news, they'll probably want HGTV and Discovery, American Idol will stream when North Korea is a tourist paradise, etc.

And that's just the "primary" TV, there will often be others on at the same time or available, with cable.

That's not to mention all the bars with ESPN constantly on, the damn chatterboxes in "business" areas with CNBC or Fox News, hotels, hospitals,

 

[xX_Jack_Carver_Xx]

libel...
slander...
an array of 'sensitive speech' prohibitions... (you cant urge a mob to action, for example)
incitement...

there's laws about speech. it's not 'free'.

Your individual right to free speech ENDS at the point where it violates someone elses rights.

Libel, Slander, Defamation, fire in a theatre, kiddie porn, etc.... none of that is CENSORED by the government, especially on the internet. However, if you engage in an act of "speech" that violates someone else's rights, there will be a cost to pay... tort in court for the libeled/slandered/defamed... jail for disturbing the peace for yelling fire, as well as criminal charges for any injuries caused... and prison in assfuck nation for being a child porn king.

It's a very very simple concept... YOUR RIGHTS end at the border of the next persons RIGHTS.

But the government does not now nor will it ever engage in internet censorship.... because it is ILLEGAL. It would be a violation of our constitutional rights... freedom of speech, due process, and equal protection.

Now if the US government cedes its power over the internet to the UN or other nations, the game could change. If it sold the internet and its operation to the private sector, you can be assured of rampant censorship in every way imaginable.

But for now, the government is NET NEUTRAL in its operation of the internet.... as REQUIRED by the US Constitution. For the dopes in the audience, NO the word internet is not in the Constitution, but it is implicitly governed by the free speech and free press, due process and equal protection elements of the Constitution. IMPLICIT means its covered without Ben Franklin having to explicitly coin the phrase "internet" in 1790.

All the FCC wants to do is assure that the private sector elements... portals, etc... that stand between the consumer/business and the actual internet are governed by the same freedom of speech, press, due process, and equal protection rights that the government operated core internet is.

in doing so, they assure not just American's but indeed most of the world will enjoy an information infrastructure that is truly open and free.... something good for all mankind.... and above all, in the end BEST FOR COMMERCE worldwide.

It is not just an earthy crunchy pursuit of free speech utopia, it is also a fundamental requirement for true FREE MARKET capitalism and commerce to thrive.

The powers that be want to snuff out the powers that MIGHT BE someday, so as to assure they remain the powers that be. But this is a desire by the "vested interests" that flys in the face of what is ultimately in the interest of both consumers and free market capitalism.

If the AOL's and COMPUSERVES of the world could have stopped the Youtubes and Googles, Comcasts and FIOSs from ever happening, where would we be now?

That is a question that the cocksuckers at Comcast can't answer with a straight face if asked. They want to be in a position to stop whatever will crush them from happening... too bad AOL didn't get the chance to crush Comcast before IT happened years earlier, huh?

The US Government operates the internet. WE THE PEOPLE are the US Government, so start behaving like it... and the first thing you don't do is fuck yourself over through ignorance and idiological psycosis.

 

[LightningCrash]

OK, I'm not for gov't controlled internet, but the alternative is tiers and content restrictions.

False bifurcation. Stop it.

We must NOT allow the FCC to regulate providers, if we do we are opening a door to censorship and government control.

Slippery slope. Stop it.

Not having net neutrality guaranteed will DESTROY THE INTERNET AS WE KNOW IT.

Slippery slope. Stop it. Where is the harm right now, in the status quo? Policy has to address that harm, not some spoonfed propaganda you heard and thought would be cute to repeat. "Oh Osama Bin Comcable is out there... and he may one day inconvenience me at some point in the future as long as I am in a mutual agreement to do business with him. We need to kill him now!"

 

[keenan]

Slippery slope. Stop it. Where is the harm right now, in the status quo? Policy has to address that harm, not some spoonfed propaganda you heard and thought would be cute to repeat. "Oh Osama Bin Comcable is out there... and he may one day inconvenience me at some point in the future as long as I am in a mutual agreement to do business with him. We need to kill him now!"

Because it's already starting? Throttling/blocking BitTorrent. Hijacking DNS NXDOMAIN responses. Injecting ads by rewriting HTTP responses.

These companies are monopolies providing public infrastructure services and should be regulated the same way other such companies are.

 

[LightningCrash]

Because it's already starting? Throttling/blocking BitTorrent. Hijacking DNS NXDOMAIN responses. Injecting ads by rewriting HTTP responses.

These companies are monopolies providing public infrastructure services and should be regulated the same way other such companies are.

Because what's already starting? Where's the articulable harm today?

Protip: the FTC didn't find any.