FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules For 'Open Internet'. Ended by orange turd and losers.

JinCA

Well-Known Member
Sep 11, 2013
13,041
5,297
3,830
Yes. This is to make sure it doesn't get out of hand. The big hurdle I wanted them to pass was forcing ISPs to lease their cable line to other companies. That would be the end game for all ISP/Cable monopolies due the fact it would obliterate barriers to entry. That's the next step. It happened with the telephone lines and should happen with cable lines as well.
At least that way we'd have what looks like competition (although I doubt they'd do much to differentiate from each other) but at least there would be some choice. As it stands now many cities have only one or two choices for an ISP.
 

Kerosene31

What happened to the American Dream? It came true.
Forum Mod
Supporting Member
Sep 12, 2013
8,165
1,833
3,620
Buffalo, NY
Is the domination of a few cable companies so bad it's become an Antitrust issue? So would this be just another tool to push back?
Yep, there's a reason they stopped the Comcast/TWC merger.
 

Kerosene31

What happened to the American Dream? It came true.
Forum Mod
Supporting Member
Sep 12, 2013
8,165
1,833
3,620
Buffalo, NY
A great article on this from CNET

1. What is Net neutrality?

Net neutrality is the principle that all traffic on the Internet should be treated equally. And the new rules will ensure that whether you're checking Facebook, posting pictures to Instagram, shopping on Amazon, or streaming Netflix movies, all the information traveling across the Internet to you and from you should be treated the same. That means your Internet service provider -- whether that's a broadband company like Comcast or a wireless carrier like AT&T or Verizon -- can't block or slow down your access to that content. The new rules also ensure that a broadband provider can't pick winners and losers on the Internet by creating "fast lanes" that allow them to charge certain companies for priority, or faster, access to customers.

2. Why does this matter to me?

For consumers of Internet services (which covers the majority of people here in the US), Net neutrality means there's nothing in the way of you accessing your favorite sites and getting your favorite content. If you're an entrepreneur looking to start your own streaming service, you'll be be treated the same as a deep-pocketed Netflix or Google when delivering videos to your customers.

3. What's going to change when these rules are adopted?

Nothing. That's the whole point. The Internet has always operated on this basic principle of openness or Net neutrality. But over the last year, broadband providers such as Verizon opened the door to the idea of fast lanes and toll takers by taking a more liberal interpretation of the principles, sparking the need for firmer rules.

The open nature of the Internet is critical for the fostering of new technologies and services. It's why a young Harvard student named Mark Zuckerberg was able to build the Facebook social network. It's also how two Stanford graduate students, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, were able, with their little project called Google, to change how we search for things on the Web -- and upend the advertising industry at the same time.

The decade-long debate over how to implement Net neutrality has really been a battle to make certain a level of openness is preserved. And the way to preserve it is by establishing "rules of the road" that let Internet service providers, consumers and innovators know what's allowed and what's not allowed on the Net.

4. If nothing would happen to the Internet if these new rules weren't adopted, why should I care?

It's true that for much of the Internet's history there have been no formal rules governing Net neutrality. In fact, the only time official rules existed was between 2010 and 2014. Those rules were tossed out in January 2014 by a federal appeals court, so for the past year the Internet hasn't been "officially" protected by regulation. And most people can say that they have always and continue to enjoy a free and open Internet.

So why do we need the rules? It's because it will help protect the Internet from turning into a closed system that looks like the existing cable TV model.

Remember the "I want my MTV" campaign in the 1980s? Cable networks were unwilling to put MTV in their channel lineup. So MTV started the marketing campaign to get cable subscribers to demand that their local cable operators carry the channel. Imagine if YouTube or Netflix had to get permission from your broadband provider so you could watch your favorite cat videos or the next season of Netflix's "House of Cards" on their network?

In the traditional cable TV model, cable operators decide which channels you get and how easy it is to find content. By contrast, broadband providers today have no control over which Web sites or online services you access. Most Internet users want to keep it that way. Net neutrality regulation ensures that happens.

5. If everyone agrees on the rules, why are we still talking about this?

It's not the rules per se that are controversial. In fact, just about everyone agrees on the actual rules. What today's battle over Net neutrality is really about is whether the government should reclassify broadband as a so-called Title II telecommunications service under the 1934 Communications Act. If Internet service providers are treated as a Title II service, the FCC can then regulate them using rules originally established for the old telephone network. This legal definition establishes broadband as a "common carrier," a centuries-old concept that means their network must be open to everyone.

Wheeler's proposal, which will likely be approved on Thursday, makes this change to classify broadband under Title II. It's a clear departure from the "light" regulation the broadband industry has enjoyed for nearly 20 years. This light-touch approach to regulation has encouraged billions of dollars in investment in infrastructure, like wireless networks, and has helped make the Internet the biggest growth engine in the US economy.

Critics opposed to the FCC's Title II stance say reclassification will stifle innovation and curb growth. Why? They say that in addition to keeping the Internet open, the new classification will also carry with it a set of old-style utility regulation that might let the FCC to set prices or even force companies to share their networks and infrastructure with competitors.

6. Why is the FCC taking this drastic measure to reclassify broadband?

Democrats, consumer advocates and some Internet companies like Netflix say the only way the Net neutrality rules will hold up to court challenges is to use this old legal framework. Wheeler has said repeatedly that the FCC will ignore provisions in the old regulations that don't apply to broadband -- and that includes not setting rates or forcing companies to open their networks to competitors.

The carriers, however, are worried that future FCC commissioners might take a more proactive approach on rates, and Title II would give them the legal backing to proceed.

7. Will a new classification for broadband change anything?

That's the big question. You won't see any changes immediately. But critics of the Title II approach, such as Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, argue that applying utility-like regulation to broadband is a slippery slope because it could lead to the FCC imposing new taxes on the service, which will lead to higher prices for consumers. Critics also say this new classification will discourage broadband providers from investing in their networks.

Wheeler has addressed these concerns. He has said the agency will ignore any provisions that would impose new taxes on broadband service. But it remains to be seen whether broadband providers will truly be too scared to invest in their networks. Wheeler argues that's unlikely, given the huge success of the most recent wireless spectrum auction, which generated $45 billion for the government. AT&T and Verizon, who oppose Title II reclassification, were among the top three companies bidding in the auction, spending a total of $28.2 billion.

Spectrum is critical to ensuring there is enough capacity to deliver more and more quantities of information over the air, so it's unlikely that the carriers will let hold off on utilizing their newly gained licenses because of a different regulatory environment. It also isn't stopping new broadband competitors, such as Google, from announcing plans to deploy its fiber network for providing Internet access to additional cities.

8. Will Feb. 26 mark the end of this battle?

Sadly, no. Lawsuits are sure to follow. The major broadband operators in the US, including AT&T, Verizon and some cable operators, have already said they'll likely file a legal challenge to the Title II approach.

Republicans in Congress have also already crafted legislation that codifies the basic Net neutrality rules everyone agrees on but would strip the FCC of its authority to regulate the Internet. Some experts expect the Republican legislation to pass. But if it does, that legislation will surely get vetoed by President Obama, who is a big supporter of the FCC's Net neutrality rules and reclassification of broadband as a Title II service.

But while the battle may rage on in the courts, this latest chapter in the Net neutrality debate will conclude once the FCC votes to adopt this latest set of rules.
http://www.cnet.com/news/net-fix-8-burning-questions-about-net-neutrality/?ftag=CAD9f89b0c&bhid=23849274845929617803052369842070
 

Kerosene31

What happened to the American Dream? It came true.
Forum Mod
Supporting Member
Sep 12, 2013
8,165
1,833
3,620
Buffalo, NY
This is the reason why i left comcast.
You're lucky to have a choice. Lots of people don't. I have one and only one option for internet service in my area. It isn't like I am out in the country or something either, I am in a major suburban area (right near an airport and largest shopping center). However the only internet provider is Spectrum (formerly TWC). Fortunately so far for me their internet has been fine (no caps, good reliability), but what happens when it isn't?

But hey, that's not a monopoly because I don't need internet. I could just read a newspaper or something, right??
 

Nervusbreakdown

XBOX LIVE Member Since 2002
Sep 11, 2013
7,237
1,842
3,031
You're lucky to have a choice. Lots of people don't. I have one and only one option for internet service in my area. It isn't like I am out in the country or something either, I am in a major suburban area (right near an airport and largest shopping center). However the only internet provider is Spectrum (formerly TWC). Fortunately so far for me their internet has been fine (no caps, good reliability), but what happens when it isn't?

But hey, that's not a monopoly because I don't need internet. I could just read a newspaper or something, right??
Funnt tjat you say this because I live in Philadelphia which is the home of comcast and the are having trouble in Philly right now with verizon giving a better option.

I have the 150 matching speed and it runs like a tank. My downloads and stream have been super and worth the price.

Far as tv goes i do Sling TV and I have a killer Antenna that picks up all the channel i need.
 

Kerosene31

What happened to the American Dream? It came true.
Forum Mod
Supporting Member
Sep 12, 2013
8,165
1,833
3,620
Buffalo, NY
Funnt tjat you say this because I live in Philadelphia which is the home of comcast and the are having trouble in Philly right now with verizon giving a better option.

I have the 150 matching speed and it runs like a tank. My downloads and stream have been super and worth the price.

Far as tv goes i do Sling TV and I have a killer Antenna that picks up all the channel i need.
What's weird is Verizon is available in spots all over, but their coverage isn't 100%. They have never even offered DSL in my area even though they have phone service. They must have some sort of cost vs profit formula and we just don't make the cut.
 

karmakid

Hiding in your WiFi 🙃
Forum Mod
Sep 11, 2013
6,424
2,144
2,529
in front of a screen
https://www.battleforthenet.com/

FCC Chair Ajit Pai is about to announce a vote to slash America's net neutrality rules—meaning companies like Comcast & Verizon will be able to block apps, slow websites, and charge fees to control what you see & do online. Once Pai announces the vote, the situation becomes desperate.

What is net neutrality? Why does it matter?

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet providers like Comcast & Verizon should not control what we see and do online. In 2015, startups, Internet freedom groups, and 3.7 million commenters won strong net neutrality rules from the US Federal Communication Commission (FCC). The rules prohibit Internet providers from blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization—"fast lanes" for sites that pay, and slow lanes for everyone else.




This could be your last chance to stop ISPs from messing up your Internet.
 

Plainview

I am a sinner.
Sep 11, 2013
27,908
10,082
4,279
https://www.battleforthenet.com/

FCC Chair Ajit Pai is about to announce a vote to slash America's net neutrality rules—meaning companies like Comcast & Verizon will be able to block apps, slow websites, and charge fees to control what you see & do online. Once Pai announces the vote, the situation becomes desperate.

What is net neutrality? Why does it matter?

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet providers like Comcast & Verizon should not control what we see and do online. In 2015, startups, Internet freedom groups, and 3.7 million commenters won strong net neutrality rules from the US Federal Communication Commission (FCC). The rules prohibit Internet providers from blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization—"fast lanes" for sites that pay, and slow lanes for everyone else.




This could be your last chance to stop ISPs from messing up your Internet.
That was a great segment.
 

Kerosene31

What happened to the American Dream? It came true.
Forum Mod
Supporting Member
Sep 12, 2013
8,165
1,833
3,620
Buffalo, NY
This guy is on the list of people who I truly hate.
It is really disturbing how this gets buried in the news. Anti-net neutrality groups are clearly just corporate interests looking to line their own pockets. There's no debate on net neutrality - it is a simple issue. The only people against it are internet providers looking to monetize something they don't produce.

We rage at video game companies trying to nickel and dime us, but this goes largely unnoticed. Without net neutrality laws, your internet company could for example slow down your Xbox Live and/or PS traffic and charge you to get it back. That's the "innovation" they are talking about.

(sorry I know I'm preaching to the choir here) :)
 

Plainview

I am a sinner.
Sep 11, 2013
27,908
10,082
4,279
It is really disturbing how this gets buried in the news. Anti-net neutrality groups are clearly just corporate interests looking to line their own pockets. There's no debate on net neutrality - it is a simple issue. The only people against it are internet providers looking to monetize something they don't produce.

We rage at video game companies trying to nickel and dime us, but this goes largely unnoticed. Without net neutrality laws, your internet company could for example slow down your Xbox Live and/or PS traffic and charge you to get it back. That's the "innovation" they are talking about.

(sorry I know I'm preaching to the choir here) :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Viktor

hrudey

XBox One X: The X Stands for Excellence
Sep 11, 2013
5,280
1,617
2,630
It is really disturbing how this gets buried in the news. Anti-net neutrality groups are clearly just corporate interests looking to line their own pockets. There's no debate on net neutrality - it is a simple issue. The only people against it are internet providers looking to monetize something they don't produce.

We rage at video game companies trying to nickel and dime us, but this goes largely unnoticed. Without net neutrality laws, your internet company could for example slow down your Xbox Live and/or PS traffic and charge you to get it back. That's the "innovation" they are talking about.

(sorry I know I'm preaching to the choir here) :)
So am I to understand that an upcoming Comcast "bit crate" that would allow me to skip the grind and download at normal speed isn't a great deal for us?
 

Andy

Well-Known Member
Super Mod
Cornerstone Member
Sep 11, 2013
14,460
4,523
14,180
"orange turd and losers," lol. Inspired thread titling.
 

Kerosene31

What happened to the American Dream? It came true.
Forum Mod
Supporting Member
Sep 12, 2013
8,165
1,833
3,620
Buffalo, NY
Net neutrality = good. Simple as that. The only people against it are owners of ISPs like Comcast who want to monetize other things.

People try to sell this as "cutting regulations and red tape" but net neutrality is not that. The "regulations" just keep the internet exactly as it is now - open. The regulations keep people like Comcast from throttling your traffic and selling it back to you (IE a netflix tax).
 

The Sunset Limited

Well-Known Member
BANNED!
Nov 1, 2017
2,455
282
960
This might not be popular here but aren't we the exact demographic who has to view this as evil?

Young, liberal, gamers who grew up on free internet and use a disproportionately high amount of bandwith?

This just seems like an issue few, if any, really understand the kind of impact the end of net neutrality might bring.

*stop throwing your rotten vegetables at me*
 

Plainview

I am a sinner.
Sep 11, 2013
27,908
10,082
4,279
This might not be popular here but aren't we the exact demographic who has to view this as evil?

Young, liberal, gamers who grew up on free internet and use a disproportionately high amount of bandwith?

This just seems like an issue few, if any, really understand the kind of impact the end of net neutrality might bring.

*stop throwing your rotten vegetables at me*
The exact demographic that should view this as evil is everyone.
 

Kerosene31

What happened to the American Dream? It came true.
Forum Mod
Supporting Member
Sep 12, 2013
8,165
1,833
3,620
Buffalo, NY
But isn't that like hearing "Fracking is bad for everyone" from Jane Fonda? Like, of course she's going to say that. Aren't we just a bunch of Jane Fondas?
This is bad for everyone. Everyone. It could start with a netflix tax but eventually even eat away at our 1st amendment rights. It is that serious.

The problem is people are misinformed and simply trust their politicians. That's not an excuse. The problem is that certain groups have created this idea that "every regulation is bad" and sold people on it. While our government isn't always great, this is one thing that is simple and they got right. Trump 's administration is undoing all that.