Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post) NewsFlash FCC: You know how we said we'd reconsider this net neutrality paid priority thing? We lied   (m.washingtonpost.com) divider line 886
    More: NewsFlash, Federal Communications Commission, net neutrality, internet, new economy  
•       •       •

19173 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 May 2014 at 11:42 AM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

886 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-15 02:10:27 PM  
FCC approves  NetNeutering (tm)-  government allows internet companies to advertise and bill  maximum download speeds with no minimum guarantees.  FCC should allow higher speeds for companies that will pay but not to slow down others that do not pay. If you have a 25Mps service and a movie streaming service pays the fee, ISPs should provide faster than 25Mps delivery for that- but not below the tier a subscriber is paying for.

I still like when the government required cable companies to pay local stations to carry the over the air stations, Comcast just passed the fee onto the subscribers.
 
2014-05-15 02:10:31 PM  

BullBearMS: Electing corporate whores with a D after their name is preferable to the other corporate whores, because at least they lie to us first?


Electing corporate whores with a D after their name is preferable to the other corporate whores, because they have a more palatable approach to the issue. Is this really that hard to understand?
 
2014-05-15 02:11:00 PM  

BullBearMS: Well, thank goodness we elected the liar who said he was opposed to that!

We certainly shouldn't hold them responsible for lying to us!


This is not a final decision. Had they voted to not consider the motion, there is no regulation in place that would disallow what Comcast wants to do, and they would have done it anyhow.
 
2014-05-15 02:11:09 PM  

wyltoknow: ikanreed: Okay, we need a backup plan.

Digging up cables of companies that do this?  Boycotts?  Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?

Digging up cables...pretty sure thats a federal offense.


Boycotts would be better. In fact we need a day when all the internet shuts down in protest I mean ALL OF THE INTERNET.  We shutdown every day till we get neutrality back. So stack up on your porn,cat videos and gets some stamps. cause it's gonna be rough sails if we have to go that far and I get the feeling we might have to.
 
2014-05-15 02:11:43 PM  

dr_blasto: paygun: Maybe we should just make the government bigger and give them more power.  It worked for healthcare.

So far, it has.

Regulation is limiting the power of corporations. Perhaps we should have unregulated, unfettered capitalism again since that's always worked out really well.


Net neutrality is necessary to reign in capitalism!  In order to allow for capitalism!

Underdogs don't compete on level playing fields.  That's why they're called underdogs.  Really, this is just another barrier to entry argument, it seems.

And there seems to be an assumption that innovation comes from garages, and not from large scale players like google.  Or the government.
 
2014-05-15 02:11:57 PM  

ox45tallboy: The FCC voted in favor of having the ability to regulate the ISP's.


No. They didn't

If they wanted to have the ability to regulate the ISP's they would classify them as a common carrier.

Something it only takes the three existing Democrats on the commission to do.
 
2014-05-15 02:12:31 PM  

Triple Oak: why they didn't vote either way or had one person abstain is beyond me


Because by opening the floor to debate, they've pretty much ensured that they (the FCC) will have jurisdiction to regulate the ISP's.
 
2014-05-15 02:12:43 PM  

sendtodave: jst3p: sendtodave: The Homer Tax: I honestly can't tell if you're trolling.

Success.

I guess admitting you are a troll is better than admitting you are an idiot.

The ambiguity is the success.

Admitting anything would remove that ambiguity.


Sometimes trolls inadvertently help explain a sometimes complex subject.
 
2014-05-15 02:13:55 PM  

alice_600: wyltoknow: ikanreed: Okay, we need a backup plan.

Digging up cables of companies that do this?  Boycotts?  Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?

Digging up cables...pretty sure thats a federal offense.

Boycotts would be better. In fact we need a day when all the internet shuts down in protest I mean ALL OF THE INTERNET.  We shutdown every day till we get neutrality back. So stack up on your porn,cat videos and gets some stamps. cause it's gonna be rough sails if we have to go that far and I get the feeling we might have to.


How is net neutrality beneficial to you?

Personally, I mean.

Unless you are another Harvard dropout with millions in seed money, why do you care?
 
2014-05-15 02:14:07 PM  

sendtodave: MadHatter500: sendtodave: MadHatter500: A 1Gig local loop (business grade) is now $50k install, $5k/month recurring charges, and dropping.

As consumer speeds increase, and they demand reliability, the residential prices should reflect that.

I mean, I was just going for $1000 per month for residential service, but $5000 is OK, too.

Want guaranteed service and speeds?  Pay for it.

Agreed, just letting you know the price points for that are going to drop.  In 5 years, in most major US cities, the cost of business grade bandwidth will be $1 per megabit per second per month.  Consumer grade service will be running about $.50 per meg per month or less.  This won't be offered in every location - but if you are in a decent sized town, it will be the norm.

Why everyone gets so bent out of shape over improved price points is beyond me.  But it is amusing to watch the foam.  I guess people really have no concept of historical prices, and certainly no grasp of price/performance.

But, see, eight there.

"Business grade bandwidth, consumer grade bandwidth."

It seems like the very idea of different "grades," different service tiers, is a problem or something.


This is certainly seems to be foremost in some people's mind.  I'm sure the ISPs would gladly take their money at the higher price point and abolish the consumer grade service that provides services to the vast majority of the population at a lower price.  I'm also certain that 99.999% the 100M households that would have to pay more to meet their need for such egalitarianism would not be happy with the new arrangement.

For those having a problem following this - an analogy about what we're talking about:

The one size fits all rules that some people are pushing for doesn't work in any industry.  If it was applied to cars, everyone would have to buy some kind of crazy combination of RV/Bus/Tractor Trailer.  Vehicle registrations would be thousands of dollars a year and only one grade of fuel would be available - alcohol dragster fuel because those same vehicles would be able to do the quarter mile in 3.5 seconds.  They'd cost a $1m+ a piece and requires you to have a complete engine rebuild every week.

It is just as crazy to try to force every network service to be the same.  A single family house looks very different than a 500 person corporate building from the perspective of the network.  They want to go different places, they run different applications and have completely different offered load profiles.  Insisting they be treated the same is stupid.
 
2014-05-15 02:14:32 PM  

dr_blasto: sendtodave: jst3p: sendtodave: The Homer Tax: I honestly can't tell if you're trolling.

Success.

I guess admitting you are a troll is better than admitting you are an idiot.

The ambiguity is the success.

Admitting anything would remove that ambiguity.

Sometimes trolls inadvertently help explain a sometimes complex subject.


Sometimes they do.  Sometimes they do...

/fartnoise
 
2014-05-15 02:14:48 PM  

BullBearMS: ox45tallboy: The FCC voted in favor of having the ability to regulate the ISP's.


No. They didn't

If they wanted to have the ability to regulate the ISP's they would classify them as a common carrier.


It's either/or? There's no middle ground? Interesting.
 
2014-05-15 02:15:08 PM  

ox45tallboy: BullBearMS: Well, thank goodness we elected the liar who said he was opposed to that!

We certainly shouldn't hold them responsible for lying to us!

This is not a final decision. Had they voted to not consider the motion, there is no regulation in place that would disallow what Comcast wants to do, and they would have done it anyhow.


An overt lie.

All the commission has to do is classify internet service providers as falling under the existing rules that currently apply to phone companies, electric companies, gas companies, airlines, railroads, bus lines, taxi companies, cruise ships, trucking companies and other freight companies.

Once three commissioners vote to classify them as a common carrier, they can no longer interfere in customer choice.
 
2014-05-15 02:15:13 PM  

USA Prime Credit Peggy: *sigh*

Oxtallboy doing the lord's work in here. Must be exhausting replying to all these paid republican shills.


He's parroting liberal bullshiat to people who point out facts and truth. Typical
 
2014-05-15 02:15:30 PM  

sendtodave: alice_600: wyltoknow: ikanreed: Okay, we need a backup plan.

Digging up cables of companies that do this?  Boycotts?  Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?

Digging up cables...pretty sure thats a federal offense.

Boycotts would be better. In fact we need a day when all the internet shuts down in protest I mean ALL OF THE INTERNET.  We shutdown every day till we get neutrality back. So stack up on your porn,cat videos and gets some stamps. cause it's gonna be rough sails if we have to go that far and I get the feeling we might have to.

How is net neutrality beneficial to you?

Personally, I mean.

Unless you are another Harvard dropout with millions in seed money, why do you care?


Speaking personally, it would be great if the mobile video startup I work for didn't have to pay through the nose to the service providers in order to get our product off the ground.
 
2014-05-15 02:16:16 PM  

Someguy72: The problem with your rhetoric against Republicans is it is Democrats who are the majority in current FCC.  Please stop your biased hatred when you don't know what you are talking about.  It's also Republicans in Congress who were denouncing this move this morning.


Republicans were denouncing this move because they don't believe the FCC should regulate the ISP's at all, and the ISP's should be free to shape their data traffic however they want and charge whatever the market will bear for the privilege of carrying data.

Once again, this vote was only to open the proposal for consideration and public comment, not to put it into effect.
 
2014-05-15 02:17:33 PM  
By definition ISPs are common carriers, how can you argue they are not? The only reason they haven't been firmly classified is money, politics, and 'Muricans.

God I hate you all, seriously I do, nothing funny about a society of idiots.
 
2014-05-15 02:17:39 PM  

qorkfiend: sendtodave: alice_600: wyltoknow: ikanreed: Okay, we need a backup plan.

Digging up cables of companies that do this?  Boycotts?  Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?

Digging up cables...pretty sure thats a federal offense.

Boycotts would be better. In fact we need a day when all the internet shuts down in protest I mean ALL OF THE INTERNET.  We shutdown every day till we get neutrality back. So stack up on your porn,cat videos and gets some stamps. cause it's gonna be rough sails if we have to go that far and I get the feeling we might have to.

How is net neutrality beneficial to you?

Personally, I mean.

Unless you are another Harvard dropout with millions in seed money, why do you care?

Speaking personally, it would be great if the mobile video startup I work for didn't have to pay through the nose to the service providers in order to get our product off the ground.


Startups are so last decade.
 
2014-05-15 02:17:58 PM  

sendtodave: dr_blasto: paygun: Maybe we should just make the government bigger and give them more power.  It worked for healthcare.

So far, it has.

Regulation is limiting the power of corporations. Perhaps we should have unregulated, unfettered capitalism again since that's always worked out really well.

Net neutrality is necessary to reign in capitalism!  In order to allow for capitalism!

Underdogs don't compete on level playing fields.  That's why they're called underdogs.  Really, this is just another barrier to entry argument, it seems.

And there seems to be an assumption that innovation comes from garages, and not from large scale players like google.  Or the government.



Well seeing as several tech companies did start out in garages...  (or college dorms)
 
2014-05-15 02:18:17 PM  

Someguy72: Obama's Reptiloid Master: 1. It's not a final rule.

The problem with your rhetoric against Republicans is it is Democrats who are the majority in current FCC.  Please stop your biased hatred when you don't know what you are talking about.  It's also Republicans in Congress who were denouncing this move this morning.


And the problem with your train of thought is that most of these guys in Washington are old farts who aren't in the internet business to begin with. They have other people handle everything internet for them. So quit thinking these guys know what the internet really is capable of doing.
 
2014-05-15 02:19:15 PM  

sendtodave: dr_blasto: paygun: Maybe we should just make the government bigger and give them more power.  It worked for healthcare.

So far, it has.

Regulation is limiting the power of corporations. Perhaps we should have unregulated, unfettered capitalism again since that's always worked out really well.

Net neutrality is necessary to reign in capitalism!  In order to allow for capitalism!

Underdogs don't compete on level playing fields.  That's why they're called underdogs.  Really, this is just another barrier to entry argument, it seems.

And there seems to be an assumption that innovation comes from garages, and not from large scale players like google.  Or the government.


This is a barrier to entry thing.

Capitalism doesn't self-manage, no matter how many invisible hands there are.

Raise the bar for entry and innovation can only come from the labs of big companies or governments and not from garages.

If you want nothing but an internet full of cats and law and order, this is great. If you want giant media corporations to control what is available to be seen, then great: net neutrality isn't for you.
 
2014-05-15 02:19:29 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Hi! I can lick my own eyebrows: Thank FSM that I have enough porn downloaded to last two lifetimes.

You have a thousand terabytes of porn?!?


All saved on SSD, Solid Sock Drive
 
2014-05-15 02:19:41 PM  

Argonreality: It was more or less a 5-10 minute contemplation on wording for a hypothetical amendment, and my initial thought for the time period was something like 2-3 years, similar to most corporate NDAs so it's reasonable to enforce avoidance of conflict of interest while also trying to avoid Ted Stevens levels of derp.


I'd be happier for a regulation stating that people like FCC commissioners can't resign and take really high-paying jobs for companies for whom they just approved a multi-billion dollar merger.
 
2014-05-15 02:19:41 PM  

BullBearMS: MadHatter500: That's what the EFF would like Net Neutrality to mean. It isn't what it means in this case. To Google, Netflix, Level 3, Cogent, Verizon, AT&T and Comcast, "Net Neutrality" is "Broadband providers should subsidize the connectivity costs of content providers".

How could them possibly survive under the exact same common carrier restrictions that have always applied to electric companies, gas companies, airlines, railroads, bus lines, taxi companies, cruise ships, trucking companies and other freight companies!


You should read my other, admittedly wall of text post about the options that face the broadband companies.  It's not a question of if they'd survive, they just wouldn't like it because the settlement fees they'd be entitled to would be litigated at every turn.  That's the problem with Title II.  It also drives some capital inefficiencies and business structures into the broadband carriers they'd prefer to avoid.  But overall they'd do just fine - only it would cost more for everyone involved.  There are better ways to address the issues at hand.
 
2014-05-15 02:21:11 PM  

dr_blasto: If you want nothing but an internet full of cats and law and order, this is great.


By "law and order," do you actually mean less chaotic, or is that a comment on how everything on TV anymore is "Law and Order?"
 
2014-05-15 02:21:39 PM  
I already don't get the advertised speed from my ISP. Will this change anything?

/ cocks
// my ISP I mean
 
2014-05-15 02:22:18 PM  

ox45tallboy: Triple Oak: why they didn't vote either way or had one person abstain is beyond me

Because by opening the floor to debate, they've pretty much ensured that they (the FCC) will have jurisdiction to regulate the ISP's.


Thank goodness the politics tab trolls are here to tell us why Obama's betrayal is not a betrayal at all!

The problem is that there is a simple way to make the Internet Service Providers subject to network neutrality regulations. You simply need three votes to classify them as a utility subject to common carrier restrictions in the same way phone companies already are.

The FCC had tried to impose so-called "common carrier" regulations on broadband providers without officially classifying them as utilities subject to those types of rules, and the court rejected that sleight of hand.

What happens now is entirely dependent on whether the FCC's new chairman, Tom Wheeler, has the courage to stand up and finally say the right words - that broadband access is a telecommunications service that should be regulated just like landline phones. He need only convince two additional FCC commissioners to agree with him, and the argument is simple: consumers already perceive internet service as a utility, and it's advertised only on the commodity basis of speed and price.
 
2014-05-15 02:22:56 PM  

BullBearMS: No. They didn't

If they wanted to have the ability to regulate the ISP's they would classify them as a common carrier.

Something it only takes the three existing Democrats on the commission to do.


The debate is currently whether to classify them as a common carrier, as a utility, or as something new. The fact is that because of this vote, the FCC has taken control of the ISP's and the regulations they must follow no matter how they wind up being classified. This is a good thing for consumers and start-up companies all around, as the Republicans' plan was for "Congress" to have sole responsibility for regulation, which means if no regulations pass, then no regulations exist.
 
2014-05-15 02:22:59 PM  

happydude45: USA Prime Credit Peggy: *sigh*

Oxtallboy doing the lord's work in here. Must be exhausting replying to all these paid republican shills.

He's parroting liberal bullshiat to people who point out facts and truth. Typical


Are you going to tell us how the Republicans are all about net neutrality and that we didn't have FCC decisions like this under the Bush administration?
 
2014-05-15 02:23:01 PM  

Trance354: fark em. all of them. you know what, I might just run for office, because I don't like the way people are doing things, everyone in congress is corrupt, and we need a "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" moment


The movie showed exactly why those things don't happen...

One guy shutting down government would just be shat upon by the press, and he's unlikely to find a happy ending in the middle of that clusterfark.   Especially if hes depending on another politician to be burdened by his conscience at the last moment.

Much as I'd like to see it, I think Washington needs to burn a bit more than it needs another complaining voice.
 
2014-05-15 02:23:26 PM  
img.fark.net

/cough
 
2014-05-15 02:24:36 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: 1. It's not a final rule.

2. Ruelmaking authority is subservient to legislative power.

3. Congress can always act and supersede the FCC.

4. The solution is therefore that we stop electing Republicans to Congress, or at least any Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) who supports anything less than treating ISPs as common carriers.


Don't minimize the impactfulness of taking one more step towards oblivion by saying, "Oh, you know, we can turn around and walk the other way with 1000x more effort."
 
2014-05-15 02:24:41 PM  

sendtodave: dr_blasto: If you want nothing but an internet full of cats and law and order, this is great.

By "law and order," do you actually mean less chaotic, or is that a comment on how everything on TV anymore is "Law and Order?"


The latter. But, looking back, the former might also apply. Sometimes my laziness and lack of capitalization works out.
 
2014-05-15 02:24:51 PM  

MadHatter500: sendtodave: MadHatter500: sendtodave: MadHatter500: A 1Gig local loop (business grade) is now $50k install, $5k/month recurring charges, and dropping.

As consumer speeds increase, and they demand reliability, the residential prices should reflect that.

I mean, I was just going for $1000 per month for residential service, but $5000 is OK, too.

Want guaranteed service and speeds?  Pay for it.

Agreed, just letting you know the price points for that are going to drop.  In 5 years, in most major US cities, the cost of business grade bandwidth will be $1 per megabit per second per month.  Consumer grade service will be running about $.50 per meg per month or less.  This won't be offered in every location - but if you are in a decent sized town, it will be the norm.

Why everyone gets so bent out of shape over improved price points is beyond me.  But it is amusing to watch the foam.  I guess people really have no concept of historical prices, and certainly no grasp of price/performance.

But, see, eight there.

"Business grade bandwidth, consumer grade bandwidth."

It seems like the very idea of different "grades," different service tiers, is a problem or something.

This is certainly seems to be foremost in some people's mind.  I'm sure the ISPs would gladly take their money at the higher price point and abolish the consumer grade service that provides services to the vast majority of the population at a lower price.  I'm also certain that 99.999% the 100M households that would have to pay more to meet their need for such egalitarianism would not be happy with the new arrangement.

For those having a problem following this - an analogy about what we're talking about:

The one size fits all rules that some people are pushing for doesn't work in any industry.  If it was applied to cars, everyone would have to buy some kind of crazy combination of RV/Bus/Tractor Trailer.  Vehicle registrations would be thousands of dollars a year and only one grade of fuel would be available - alcohol dragster fuel because those same vehicles would be able to do the quarter mile in 3.5 seconds.  They'd cost a $1m+ a piece and requires you to have a complete engine rebuild every week.
It is just as crazy to try to force every network service to be the same.  A single family house looks very different than a 500 person corporate building from the perspective of the network.  They want to go different places, they run different applications and have completely different offered load profiles.  Insisting they be treated the same is stupid.


Your car analogy is even worse then most car analogies ... and actually, you can make a pretty good car analogy for Net Neutrality.

Nobody is suggesting that you treat a single family home exactly the way you treat a 500 person corporate building.  The latter requires much larger bandwidth and a very different SLA - and they appropriately pay a very different rate for that.  Net Neutrality does not impact that in the slightest.  To claim otherwise is such a gross misunderstanding of net neutrality that I'm trying hard to decide between troll or shill (cue the "Why Not Both" image)
 
2014-05-15 02:25:11 PM  

Firethorn: *snerk* only libtards like you still think Cheney is relevant.


Point granted, I sometimes forget how seamlessly rightards toss former heroes into the dustbin of history with Reagan and Goldwater.
 
2014-05-15 02:26:01 PM  

alice_600: Someguy72: Obama's Reptiloid Master: 1. It's not a final rule.

The problem with your rhetoric against Republicans is it is Democrats who are the majority in current FCC.  Please stop your biased hatred when you don't know what you are talking about.  It's also Republicans in Congress who were denouncing this move this morning.

And the problem with your train of thought is that most of these guys in Washington are old farts who aren't in the internet business to begin with. They have other people handle everything internet for them. So quit thinking these guys know what the internet really is capable of doing.


LOL

"These guys" are industry lobbyists.

cdn.arstechnica.net

Washington, DC, has long had a revolving door through which government officials exit to become lobbyists, and lobbyists enter to become government officials.

Regulators being led by former executives from the industries they're supposed to regulate and industry groups being led by their former regulators sounds like it should be the stuff of fiction. But the Federal Communications Commission has once again proven that this phenomenon is quite real.

The CTIA Wireless Association today announced that Meredith Attwell Baker-a former FCC Commissioner and former Comcast employee-will become its president and CEO on June 2, replacing Steve Largent, a former member of Congress (and former NFL player).

Largent himself became the cellular lobby's leader when he replaced Tom Wheeler-who is now the chairman of the FCC. Wheeler is also the former president and CEO of the NCTA (National Cable & Telecommunications Association), which... wait for it... is now led by former FCC Chairman Michael Powell.

To sum up, the top cable and wireless lobby groups in the US are led by a former FCC chairman and former FCC commissioner, while the FCC itself is led by a man who formerly led both the cable and wireless lobby groups.

There's more. Baker, the new CTIA CEO, was also an employee of the CTIA before her stint as an FCC commissioner. She was a director of congressional affairs at CTIA from 1998 to 2000, and she started working for the government in 2004 when she joined the Department of Commerce. She was appointed to the FCC in 2009, voted in favor of Comcast's purchase of NBCUniversal in January 2011, and then left the government to become senior vice president of government affairs for Comcast-NBCUniversal in May 2011.
 
2014-05-15 02:26:40 PM  
How can anyone be a loyal member to either party? Just a bunch of puppets for big business.
 
2014-05-15 02:26:49 PM  
After weeks of public outcry over the proposal, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said the agency would not allow for unfair, or "commercially unreasonable," business practices. He wouldn't accept, for instance, practices that leave a consumer with slower downloads of some Web sites than what the consumer paid for from their Internet service provider.

WTF does he think Comcast/Verizon were doing to Netflix? They were doing precisely this!
 
2014-05-15 02:27:59 PM  

sendtodave: alice_600: wyltoknow: ikanreed: Okay, we need a backup plan.

Digging up cables of companies that do this?  Boycotts?  Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?

Digging up cables...pretty sure thats a federal offense.

Boycotts would be better. In fact we need a day when all the internet shuts down in protest I mean ALL OF THE INTERNET.  We shutdown every day till we get neutrality back. So stack up on your porn,cat videos and gets some stamps. cause it's gonna be rough sails if we have to go that far and I get the feeling we might have to.

How is net neutrality beneficial to you?

Personally, I mean.

Unless you are another Harvard dropout with millions in seed money, why do you care?


Cable TV sucks.  I don't want the internet to go down that same road, which is what will happen when $$$ = access to the market in the post net neutrality world.
 
2014-05-15 02:29:30 PM  

qorkfiend: Not directly, but surely you would admit there are differences between the two party platforms on the issue.


I wouldn't.  The parties may use different rhetoric, but their goals (at least in this area) are essentially identical.  Government doesn't like something as free as the internet, they want to control the flow of information.
 
2014-05-15 02:30:01 PM  

qorkfiend: Speaking personally, it would be great if the mobile video startup I work for didn't have to pay through the nose to the service providers in order to get our product off the ground.


Hmm.

Given the option, if google had offered you a job, and this startup had offered you one at the same time, which would you pick?

Or, if google bought this startup, would you go work there?

What is so innovative about the startup that google can't do teh same thing?

I mean, sure, it's romantic, but most startups aren't genius tinkerers in the garage with a game changing idea.

And the ones that are?  Drop out of Harvard and get millions in seed money.

I think you were are getting more game-changers out of google then myfacebutts kids in garages.
 
2014-05-15 02:30:15 PM  

sendtodave: How is net neutrality beneficial to you?

Personally, I mean.

Unless you are another Harvard dropout with millions in seed money, why do you care?


Because it keeps the price of services like Netflix low, because any extra money they pay to the ISP's will be passed on to the consumer.

Because it allows the consumer to have a better choice of where to receive high bandwidth content such as BitTorrent, streaming media, or online video games. (Imagine if EA games worked great but Ubisoft games were laggy because EA was paying Verizon/Comcast extra for priority bandwidth. Now imagine this was an exclusive contract like the one EA has for licensing certain professional sports franchises.)

Because it ensures that specialized websites you like to visit that don't have a lot of consumers will still be commercially viable without having to pay extra access fees to be able to supply their content to customers of a specific ISP. You get fed up with Comcast, so you move to AT&T only to find out that your favorite website isn't paying AT&T extra, so the website is slow and laggy.

That's why this is important to the consumers.
 
2014-05-15 02:32:18 PM  

BullBearMS: An overt lie.

All the commission has to do is classify internet service providers as falling under the existing rules that currently apply to phone companies, electric companies, gas companies, airlines, railroads, bus lines, taxi companies, cruise ships, trucking companies and other freight companies.

Once three commissioners vote to classify them as a common carrier, they can no longer interfere in customer choice.


But is classifying them as a common carrier the best thing to do here? Or should they be classified as a utility instead? Or should they be classified as something else.

Perhaps they haven't been classified as a common carrier because that might not be the best thing to do here. Keep in mind they also voted (also along party lines) to open debate on whether to classify the ISP's as utilities.
 
2014-05-15 02:33:56 PM  

sendtodave: qorkfiend: Speaking personally, it would be great if the mobile video startup I work for didn't have to pay through the nose to the service providers in order to get our product off the ground.

Hmm.

Given the option, if google had offered you a job, and this startup had offered you one at the same time, which would you pick?

Or, if google bought this startup, would you go work there?

What is so innovative about the startup that google can't do teh same thing?

I mean, sure, it's romantic, but most startups aren't genius tinkerers in the garage with a game changing idea.

And the ones that are?  Drop out of Harvard and get millions in seed money.

I think you were are getting more game-changers out of google then myfacebutts kids in garages.


Competition from startups keeps the bigger companies more honest. They grow lethargic and complacent without the threat of competition. Why innovate when your product is the only one available and you're allowed to quash competitors before they become a threat?

/are you seriously arguing that competition is not good for the consumer?
 
2014-05-15 02:34:10 PM  

happydude45: USA Prime Credit Peggy: *sigh*

Oxtallboy doing the lord's work in here. Must be exhausting replying to all these paid republican shills.


He's parroting liberal bullshiat to people who point out facts and truth. Typical


I'm pointing out what actually happened. Most people do not want to go with the Republican plan of declining to regulate and allowing the ISP's to do whatever they want with zero oversight.
 
2014-05-15 02:34:18 PM  

Lamberts Ho Man: Cable TV sucks.  I don't want the internet to go down that same road, which is what will happen when $$$ = access to the market in the post net neutrality world.


Cable TV sucks because... why?  Because they tier service?  It costs too much for what they consider premium service?

Cable sucks because you can't afford it?
 
2014-05-15 02:35:02 PM  

MadHatter500: BullBearMS: MadHatter500: That's what the EFF would like Net Neutrality to mean. It isn't what it means in this case. To Google, Netflix, Level 3, Cogent, Verizon, AT&T and Comcast, "Net Neutrality" is "Broadband providers should subsidize the connectivity costs of content providers".

How could them possibly survive under the exact same common carrier restrictions that have always applied to electric companies, gas companies, airlines, railroads, bus lines, taxi companies, cruise ships, trucking companies and other freight companies!

You should read my other, admittedly wall of text post about the options that face the broadband companies.  It's not a question of if they'd survive, they just wouldn't like it because the settlement fees they'd be entitled to would be litigated at every turn.  That's the problem with Title II.  It also drives some capital inefficiencies and business structures into the broadband carriers they'd prefer to avoid.  But overall they'd do just fine - only it would cost more for everyone involved.  There are better ways to address the issues at hand.


I'm sorry, but the argument is bullshiat.

The ISP's are already being paid by their customers for data at rates many times higher than in other countries.

If they have to upgrade their network to provide the service their customers are paying for, that's a simple cost of business that Comcast and the ilk should pay for out of their existing profits.

No business should be allowed to leverage their monopoly position to extort money from their competition in this way.
 
2014-05-15 02:35:11 PM  

BullBearMS: Once three commissioners vote to classify them as a common carrier, they can no longer interfere in customer choice.


Why are you moving the goalposts? You complained that the democrats' votes were about instantiating rules aimed at undermining net neutrality and that is false. Nobody is saying that what's being done is the ideal solution or that the democrats shouldn't do that, but that doesn't change the fact that you were and continue to be either wrong or lying about which party on that commission attempted to harm consumers.

Three members of one party voted for the possibility of consumer protections. Two members of the other voted for the guarantee of no consumer protections.

Stop lying.
 
2014-05-15 02:35:38 PM  

pippi longstocking: By definition ISPs are common carriers, how can you argue they are not? The only reason they haven't been firmly classified is money, politics, and 'Muricans.

God I hate you all, seriously I do, nothing funny about a society of idiots.


Is 'common carrier' the best classification? Or might it be better for the consumer if they are classified as a utility? Or as something else entirely, perhaps a brand-new classification with a different sort of regulation?
 
2014-05-15 02:36:06 PM  

ox45tallboy: Because it ensures that specialized websites you like to visit that don't have a lot of consumers will still be commercially viable without having to pay extra access fees to be able to supply their content to customers of a specific ISP. You get fed up with Comcast, so you move to AT&T only to find out that your favorite website isn't paying AT&T extra, so the website is slow and laggy.

That's why this is important to the consumers.


and yet...that is what was just proposed by the fcc. That is not speculation. It Happened.
I don't doubt you are for N.N.   we all are. (well except for a few fringe).
 
Displayed 50 of 886 comments

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report