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   (washingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: NewsFlash, Federal Communications Commission, net neutrality, internet, new economy  
•       •       •

19299 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 May 2014 at 11:42 AM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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

Archived thread

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-15 03:28:57 PM  

BullBearMS: Then I would say that concrete actions have been taken to do the exact opposite of what Obama promised have been taken, regardless of what "comments" they are allowing.


Even though common carriage is still on the table?
 
2014-05-15 03:31:33 PM  

ox45tallboy: People feel that the Democrats have done a bad thing, and I can understand why they feel that way. Articles such as the one we're commenting on are spun so that the Democrats are placed in the worst possible light, because that automatically makes the Republicans look better.


Could they have not submitted an option that allows for censorship of the internet if they were concerned about how they would be portrayed with such an option up for public debate?
 
2014-05-15 03:31:42 PM  

ox45tallboy: pippi longstocking: Well unless you can clarify how any website is going to reach me without an ISP then you can go ahead and put that in the common carrier group.

How about "public utility" like the electric or water companies? Or how about a new classification with a different set of rules, since a good bit of things are possible on the Internet that aren't with traditional phone carriers?


How about banana? How about lamp? Let's call them that too. You know what the evil farks at comcast and timewarner are actually trying to do and yet you support them.
 
2014-05-15 03:31:54 PM  
They can do this the easy way, or they can do this the farking torches and pitchforks and rolling heads way.

Nothing convinces the oligarchy of the error of their ways but fire and guillotines.

This city's sleeping like a soldier
Trapped inside of an iron lung.
Machines can keep you breathing
But what happens when you find a new war's begun?
Flip a switch and turn it off, you won't be able to breathe.
So either way you're a casualty.

I've got this burning like my veins are filled
With nothing but gasoline.
And with a spark,
It's gonna be the biggest fire they've ever seen.
Cut me down or let me run,
Either way it's all gonna burn...
The only way that they'll ever learn

We've got to turn it off,

Flip a switch.

Light up the night!

There is a city that this darkness can't hide.
There are the embers of a fire that's gone out,
But I can still feel the heat on my skin
This mess we're in, well you and I,
Maybe you and I,
We can still make it right.

Maybe we can bring back the light.
 
2014-05-15 03:32:54 PM  
in other (good news) The gov of tn just signed the Hemp Bill!


https://www.facebook.com/tnhemp/posts/736157356435344?fref=nf

whoohoo!
 
2014-05-15 03:33:46 PM  

sendtodave: Would more regulation cause innovation and investment to collapse?  Because it seems that the argument against letting them do whatever what they want is that it would cause innovation and investment to collapse.

Do we assume that little guys are more innovative than providers?


Little guys are almost always more innovative than big guys, because they less overhead and less invested in maintaining their current profit levels - they can take more risks. If a small guy fails, you don't really hear about it, because usually it's only one or two peopl who have lost their shirts. When a big company makes a mistake and the stock price tumbles, you hear all about it because a ton of people own that stock.

Why would Comcast carry Netflix without additional concessions, when they're trying to get their own video-on-demand service going? Why wouldn't they prioritize traffic from their VOD servers at the cost of other people's VOD? The concept of Fiduciary Duty means that CEO's are responsible for only doing what is most profitable, period, no matter how evil it is. If this means that Comcast begins charging others for access to its customers, so be it.
 
2014-05-15 03:34:54 PM  

ox45tallboy: It's also important to note that several of the people who have been insisting I'm providing inaccurate information have stated their preference for classifying ISP's as common carriers, which the Democrats voted in favor of considering and the Republicans against.


Which is also inaccurate information.

The Federal Communications Commission is sitting on a mess. This week the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. decided in Verizon Communications v. the FCC (pdf) that the commission didn't have the authority to impose its open Internet order on Verizon or anyone else. There is a simple fix for this mess. It does not require any new laws from Congress. It already has the support of the Supreme Court.

If the FCC actually wants to ensure net neutrality, it will have do something that every regulator in every other developed country did a long time ago. (It will also turn Verizon litigiously apoplectic.) It has to unmake the mistake it made in 2002, when it failed to classify cable Internet providers as telecommunications services. Doing so would solve everything.


This vote had nothing to do with reclassifying internet service providers in a way that would force them to obey long standing common carrier provisions.

No matter how you try to spin "allowing comments".

This was a concrete step in the opposite direction.
 
2014-05-15 03:35:52 PM  

qorkfiend: BullBearMS: Then I would say that concrete actions have been taken to do the exact opposite of what Obama promised have been taken, regardless of what "comments" they are allowing.

Even though common carriage is still on the table?


Just like the Public Option was on the table?

Seriously, how stupid do you politics tab shills think people are?
 
2014-05-15 03:39:52 PM  
 
2014-05-15 03:41:00 PM  

ox45tallboy: dr_blasto: They would then have to provide service to all the farmers in BFE and we would have the internet inundated with farmer talk.

[i.telegraph.co.uk image 620x387]
"Mooooo-ooooooo!"

You laugh but my sister and her husband work on an agricultural research facility, and my brother-in-law uses his iPad on a daily basis to update things like grass height and stool consistency. I joke that my sister milks cows for a living, but she's actually been instrumental in performing research that resulted in FDA approval of a drug that helped save quite a few dairy cows, keeping milk, butter. and cheese prices low for everyone. Without the Internet, that researcxh might not have been possible.


OK, that's all good.

Just not sure it offsets farmersonly.com or the crazy midwest right-wing derp and jeebus.
 
2014-05-15 03:43:23 PM  

BullBearMS: I would say that the fact that Obama put industry lobbyists in charge of regulation proves that the industry owns the Democratic leadership as well as the FCC.


http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=B09&year=a

Interesting.

BlackBerry has spent more lobbying in 2013 than Verizon.

Or Level 3.

Or Google.
 
2014-05-15 03:44:19 PM  

Prophet of Loss: snocone:

[static.comicvine.com image 686x572]


Is that The Man from The Road?
 
2014-05-15 03:45:11 PM  

BullBearMS: qorkfiend: BullBearMS: Then I would say that concrete actions have been taken to do the exact opposite of what Obama promised have been taken, regardless of what "comments" they are allowing.

Even though common carriage is still on the table?

Just like the Public Option was on the table?

Seriously, how stupid do you politics tab shills think people are?


The public option remains on the table. Consider that taking common carriage off the table in this instance - as the GOP commissioners voted to do, and the Democratic commissioners voted against, a point which you seem to be deliberately ignoring - would have removed it from the table entirely and handed all of the reins to Congress, and if you think that Congress would have done anything to advance your stated goal, you're as stupid as you seem to assume everyone who disagrees with you is.
 
2014-05-15 03:45:27 PM  

pippi longstocking: How about banana? How about lamp? Let's call them that too. You know what the evil farks at comcast and timewarner are actually trying to do and yet you support them.


Ummmm... wat?

I support regulation of the industry, at least to the point of Net Neutrality as defined by the EFF, if not further in some ways. The proposal that the Democrats voted in favor of opens the debate for public comment. Part of this proposal includes the idea of classifying the ISP's as common carriers. The Republicans voted against this proposal.

I'm not sure why in the world many people are saying they support the Republicans, who want no regulation at all and would prefer the ISP's are free to carry traffic on their networks as they see fit and demand extra fees from content providers under threat of slowing of their Internet traffic.

Republicans want no regulation. Democrats want regulation, they'd just like to hear public comment on various ideas before enacting any rules.

Which is closer to your ideal scenario?
 
2014-05-15 03:51:07 PM  
Anyway, our whole economic system is heavily weighted to favor the big guys.  That's by design.  It's a feature, not a bug.

I don't know why we act so shocked and appalled when it does.  Don't worry guys, we'll still get our bread and Youtubes.
 
2014-05-15 03:51:43 PM  

jshine: Deftoons: I am fine with this.  Internet is a service and just like anything else, you pay more to get more.  I don't feel entitled to it.

Not sure if trolling or serious, but I do pay for my internet access & bandwidth -- and feel consequently entitled to receive what I pay for.  I don't want Comcast/Charter/Cox/etc. deciding which websites I should be allowed to access quickly and which should be slow.


Uh, yes I'm serious.  You know how the pricing system works, right?

Look - if your providers are making you pay for something that you indeed actually paid for, then that's fraud (to which there are already laws on the books for that).  But if you paid for a nosebleed seat but demanding you should get front row, well then, I have news for you.

I should note - thus far, the example you provided has not happened yet en masse.
 
2014-05-15 03:53:04 PM  

Deftoons: Look - if your providers are making you pay for something that you indeed actually paid for...

I meant to say '

if your providers are making you pay extra for something that you indeed already paid for ...'
 
2014-05-15 03:54:55 PM  

ox45tallboy: Republicans want no regulation. Democrats want regulation


Seriously, stop telling the same lie over and over.

If the Democrats in control of the FCC wanted regulation, the vote would be over reclassifying ISP's so that they would fall under the existing regulations that already apply to the phone companies.

Instead of allowing ISP's to extort money out of people who offer competing services.
 
2014-05-15 03:57:28 PM  
We can't fight them on their own turf. They're too big. It would be like lining up to fight the US military one-on-one. It doesn't work, and never has.

What does work is guerrilla tactics. And in this fight, the best guerrilla tactic we have is a mesh network.

Here's the basic idea: individuals volunteer hardwired network connections to be connected to a wireless router of sorts. Solar powered wireless routers are then distributed over a large area, expanding this point in the network. Others may join, and still others with hardwired connections may join. This could be infinitely expanded without the need for digging up infrastructure (think something the size of a large solar light acting as your solar powered AP re-broadcasters). It may not be very fast overall, but it would solve many of the problems we face today: privacy would be more difficult to intrude upon, and there would no way for any company to enforce its "anti-net-neutrality" rules as long as there is at least one other provider connected to this network that doesn't enforce these rules.
 
2014-05-15 04:00:08 PM  

BullBearMS: ox45tallboy: Republicans want no regulation. Democrats want regulation

Seriously, stop telling the same lie over and over.

If the Democrats in control of the FCC wanted regulation, the vote would be over reclassifying ISP's so that they would fall under the existing regulations that already apply to the phone companies.

Instead of allowing ISP's to extort money out of people who offer competing services.


Why are you consistently and deliberately ignoring the fact that today's vote is not only NOT the final word on the issue, but actually includes a proposal to reclassify the ISPs?
 
2014-05-15 04:00:53 PM  

BullBearMS: This vote had nothing to do with reclassifying internet service providers in a way that would force them to obey long standing common carrier provisions.


Actually, it had EVERYTHING to do with this.

From MarketWatch:

Also at issue: reclassifying broadband service as a utility, something Republicans and telecom firms say would add another layer of regulation. Some Democrats, but not all, favor reclassification.

From the Latin Post:

The FCC's new language also puts the option of reclassification of ISPs under Title II of the Telecommunications Act as a stronger fallback option should ISPs begin to play favorites unfairly. Title II reclassification refers to officially calling ISPs a public utility, like electricity or landline telephone services, which would allow for more stringent government regulation and is something that some net neutrality advocates have been arguing should be the first step.

Once again, in addition to considering some regulated violations of net neutrality principles, Democrats voted in favor of considering the regulation of ISP's as common carriers. The Republicans voted against even considering this. Which position are you arguing for? It seems like you're arguing that ISP's should be classified as common carriers, which is something the Democrats voted to consider and the Republicans voted against. Which more closely aligns with your ideas about the way things should work?
 
2014-05-15 04:02:22 PM  

BullBearMS: This was a concrete step in the opposite direction.


This was, in fact, a concrete step in favor of the classification of ISP's as public utilities, something the Republicans are adamantly against. You should be very happy.
 
2014-05-15 04:04:00 PM  

BullBearMS: qorkfiend: BullBearMS: Then I would say that concrete actions have been taken to do the exact opposite of what Obama promised have been taken, regardless of what "comments" they are allowing.

Even though common carriage is still on the table?

Just like the Public Option was on the table?

Seriously, how stupid do you politics tab shills think people are?


Well, you're the one who is suggesting that the Republicans are the ones who want to regulate the ISP's and the Democrats are against it, so....
 
2014-05-15 04:04:05 PM  

sdd2000: sprawl15: thanks obama

From the article: "The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, ..." I will let you guess who appointed the three.


3 D's and 2 R's
 
2014-05-15 04:06:08 PM  

leeto2: RoxtarRyan: Here's a question: If this goes through the way ISPs want, what is to stop them from blacklisting sites that host opinions that go against the company? As in, I have Comcast, so what is to stop them from blacklisting any site that hosts articles about the negative aspects of their service/complaints/etc? What is to stop an ISP from taking a blank check... I mean.... "donation"... in order to blacklist websites that host articles that go against that party's political beliefs, or is critical of some of their members?

I don't think they can actively censor anything.  Of course, if a particular website didn't bribe, er, pay for higher bandwidth, then certainly they could be "throttled" down to a more acceptable level.  "Censorhip? Us?  Why no, we were just being efficient, that's why that site was throttled to  2 Kb/s.


Well, what is to stop them from just outright making them 404 to a user? Throttling to zero is still throttling.
 
2014-05-15 04:06:18 PM  

dr_blasto: OK, that's all good.

Just not sure it offsets farmersonly.com or the crazy midwest right-wing derp and jeebus.


Oh, they're Republicans through and through, mainly because they've been led to believe that Jeebus wants them to vote that way because abortion. But they're good people and they do great work and they're not making the Internet any worse for having access to it.
 
2014-05-15 04:08:06 PM  

ox45tallboy: BullBearMS: This was a concrete step in the opposite direction.

This was, in fact, a concrete step in favor of the classification of ISP's as public utilities, something the Republicans are adamantly against. You should be very happy.


Bullshiat.

If they want to make ISP's public utilities, all they have to do is vote to do so.

It doesn't require new laws.

It doesn't require comments.

It's all been on the books for decades.

All they have to do is vote to do it.

There is a simple fix for this mess. It does not require any new laws from Congress. It already has the support of the Supreme Court.

If the FCC actually wants to ensure net neutrality, it will have do something that every regulator in every other developed country did a long time ago. (It will also turn Verizon litigiously apoplectic.) It has to unmake the mistake it made in 2002, when it failed to classify cable Internet providers as telecommunications services. Doing so would solve everything.
 
2014-05-15 04:09:00 PM  

scotchlandia: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: BarryTheMasterOfSandwich: This country is a joke.

I'm thoroughly disgusted with what it's become. It's time for a revolution. This country in no way resembles the nation of my youth.

If we violently overthrow our government over "internet fees" we will look more silly than the guys who violently overthrew their government over a 1% customs tax to pay for the French & Indian war.

/ Oh... nevermind.


Even the Romans knew not to fark with the peoples' entertainment.
 
2014-05-15 04:09:05 PM  

BullBearMS: Seriously, stop telling the same lie over and over.

If the Democrats in control of the FCC wanted regulation, the vote would be over reclassifying ISP's so that they would fall under the existing regulations that already apply to the phone companies.

Instead of allowing ISP's to extort money out of people who offer competing services.


Ummm... dude, how many more links do you want me to provide to show you that THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WAS VOTED ON TODAY?

The Democrats voted in favor of considering this option and moving it to public comment and debate. The Republicans voted against this. These are facts.
 
2014-05-15 04:11:23 PM  

MattStafford: Congress is bought and paid for, both sides of the aisle, with very very few exceptions. Don't vote for establishment candidates, regardless of what they're proposing. If at any point in time the media treats someone as though they have a legitimate chance, or starts giving them favorable coverage, run the other farking way. Vote for the Ron Pauls and the Ralph Naders and the Bernie Sandersesses.


And if you hear about security people running drills for some kind of terrorist situation you GTFO, cause chances are good that something is about to down.
 
2014-05-15 04:13:16 PM  

ox45tallboy: BullBearMS: Seriously, stop telling the same lie over and over.

If the Democrats in control of the FCC wanted regulation, the vote would be over reclassifying ISP's so that they would fall under the existing regulations that already apply to the phone companies.

Instead of allowing ISP's to extort money out of people who offer competing services.

Ummm... dude, how many more links do you want me to provide to show you that THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WAS VOTED ON TODAY?

The Democrats voted in favor of considering this option and moving it to public comment and debate. The Republicans voted against this. These are facts.


NETFLIX ALREADY PAYS A "PREMIUM" TO THE ISPs!

Not opinion, fact, and with the direction this is going it's not going to stop at video streaming nor at the firm level!
 
2014-05-15 04:13:52 PM  

ox45tallboy: Ummm... dude, how many more links do you want me to provide to show you that THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WAS VOTED ON TODAY?


How many people have to point out that allowing comment on something that doesn't require comment to enact is a bullshiat sideshow?
 
2014-05-15 04:16:01 PM  

BullBearMS: Bullshiat.

If they want to make ISP's public utilities, all they have to do is vote to do so.

It doesn't require new laws.

It doesn't require comments.

It's all been on the books for decades.

All they have to do is vote to do it.

There is a simple fix for this mess. It does not require any new laws from Congress. It already has the support of the Supreme Court.

If the FCC actually wants to ensure net neutrality, it will have do something that every regulator in every other developed country did a long time ago. (It will also turn Verizon litigiously apoplectic.) It has to unmake the mistake it made in 2002, when it failed to classify cable Internet providers as telecommunications services. Doing so would solve everything.


They've taken the first step today to do so. The Republicans voted to not take this first step.

Once again, which more closely aligns with your views:

1.) The Democrats, who voted to consider regulating the ISP's as common carriers and opened the subject to public debate and other proposals for regulation

or

2.) The Republicans, who adamantly oppose any regulation of the ISP's and voted against considering the proposal to classify them as common carriers

I understand that you want an immediate vote, but are you completely, irrevocably convinced that there is no better thing to do than classify the ISP's as common carriers? Might there be another classification, or even a totally new one with a new set of regulations, that might provide a better fit? I'm not saying that such a proposal exists, but would you be willing to listen to such a proposal, and give it consideration?

If so, then maybe you can understand what the public comment and debate time period of new FCC regulations is all about.
 
2014-05-15 04:16:39 PM  

pippi longstocking: ox45tallboy: BullBearMS: Seriously, stop telling the same lie over and over.

If the Democrats in control of the FCC wanted regulation, the vote would be over reclassifying ISP's so that they would fall under the existing regulations that already apply to the phone companies.

Instead of allowing ISP's to extort money out of people who offer competing services.

Ummm... dude, how many more links do you want me to provide to show you that THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WAS VOTED ON TODAY?

The Democrats voted in favor of considering this option and moving it to public comment and debate. The Republicans voted against this. These are facts.

NETFLIX ALREADY PAYS A "PREMIUM" TO THE ISPs!

Not opinion, fact, and with the direction this is going it's not going to stop at video streaming nor at the firm level!


Hush you.

He's busy trying to pretend that allowing ISP's to leverage their monopoly position to extort money from their competition and destroy network neutrality is a great victory for us all!

/because comments
 
2014-05-15 04:18:45 PM  

BullBearMS: pippi longstocking: ox45tallboy: BullBearMS: Seriously, stop telling the same lie over and over.

If the Democrats in control of the FCC wanted regulation, the vote would be over reclassifying ISP's so that they would fall under the existing regulations that already apply to the phone companies.

Instead of allowing ISP's to extort money out of people who offer competing services.

Ummm... dude, how many more links do you want me to provide to show you that THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WAS VOTED ON TODAY?

The Democrats voted in favor of considering this option and moving it to public comment and debate. The Republicans voted against this. These are facts.

NETFLIX ALREADY PAYS A "PREMIUM" TO THE ISPs!

Not opinion, fact, and with the direction this is going it's not going to stop at video streaming nor at the firm level!

Hush you.

He's busy trying to pretend that allowing ISP's to leverage their monopoly position to extort money from their competition and destroy network neutrality is a great victory for us all!

/because comments


Why am I not surprised that you grossly mischaracterize views that differ from your own?
 
2014-05-15 04:19:19 PM  

ox45tallboy: The Democrats, who voted to consider regulating the ISP's as common carriers


No they didn't.

They already have the power to regulate ISP's as common carriers. It's been written into the law FOR DECADES.

They don't need to consider anything.

What they voted for was another step towards the creation of internet fast lanes.
 
2014-05-15 04:20:41 PM  

pippi longstocking: NETFLIX ALREADY PAYS A "PREMIUM" TO THE ISPs!

Not opinion, fact, and with the direction this is going it's not going to stop at video streaming nor at the firm level!


Netflix volunteered to help pay for infrastructure improvements at one ISP, Comcast, to ensure that their content was able to be delivered to Comcast customers in an efficient manner. This was not demanded of Netflix, they chose to do so. I'm not sure if this would have been okayed by regulators, since it might lead to other ISP's neglecting their infrastructure in certain areas until a content provider stepped up to pay for improvements.

The vote today was in favor of considering the best ways of regulating the ISP's to ensure that this sort of thing does not become the commonplace way of doing business. If you were an FCC commissioner, would you have voted with the Republicans to not even consider any regulation at all of the ISP's?
 
2014-05-15 04:21:06 PM  

qorkfiend: Why am I not surprised that you grossly mischaracterize views that differ from your own are not based in fact and are presented by one of Fark's most prolific politics tab party shills?

 
2014-05-15 04:22:43 PM  

BullBearMS: How many people have to point out that allowing comment on something that doesn't require comment to enact is a bullshiat sideshow?


So that's what you're upset about? That the FCC didn't immediately hold a vote that you want to pass? They merely voted in favor of allowing people to comment on it for a period of time and hold the actual vote later?

And you seem to be supporting the side that didn't want to even hold the vote at all?
 
2014-05-15 04:24:32 PM  

BullBearMS: qorkfiend: Why am I not surprised that you grossly mischaracterize views that differ from your own are not based in fact and are presented by one of Fark's most prolific politics tab party shills?


Not based in fact? Don't make me laugh. ox45tallboy as repeatedly provided links and other supporting information (which you appear to be deliberately ignoring), whereas you have yet to present any factual information regarding your position and how voting down today's proposal would have advanced it.
 
2014-05-15 04:24:54 PM  

Mobutu: Nothing convinces the oligarchy of the error of their ways but fire and guillotines.


Nothing convinces the gentiles of the error of their ways but by militarized police forces, and weapons confiscation.
 
2014-05-15 04:26:40 PM  

BullBearMS: Hush you.

He's busy trying to pretend that allowing ISP's to leverage their monopoly position to extort money from their competition and destroy network neutrality is a great victory for us all!

/because comments


No, I'm stating that without the FCC vote today, the ISP's would already be doing this.

The FCC vote today was exactly how to go about regulating the ISP's. There are several different options, one of which is to create special rules for ISP's and allow them to violate certain net neutrality principles. Another option is to regulate them like public utilities. There were also several other ideas for regulations in the proposal.

Democrats voted in favor of allowing the public to comment and debate on which of these is in the best interests of consumers. Republicans voted to not have any regulation at all.

Once again, which of these most closely matches your own ideal situation?
 
2014-05-15 04:27:13 PM  

flynn80: Mobutu: Nothing convinces the oligarchy of the error of their ways but fire and guillotines.

Nothing convinces the gentiles of the error of their ways but by militarized police forces, and weapons confiscation.


I think you spelled peasant wrong.
 
2014-05-15 04:28:14 PM  

ox45tallboy: Netflix volunteered to help pay for infrastructure improvements at one ISP, Comcast, to ensure that their content was able to be delivered to Comcast customers in an efficient manner. This was not demanded of Netflix, they chose to do so.


Surely it's entirely coincidental that Netflix customers paying Comcast for service saw their speeds for that one service plummet right after the courts ruled that the FCC couldn't impose restrictions until after they reclassified ISP's as common carriers.

i2.cdn.turner.com

/That's a nice competing video service you have there.
//It would be a shame if anything happened to it
 
2014-05-15 04:32:17 PM  

BullBearMS: No they didn't.

They already have the power to regulate ISP's as common carriers. It's been written into the law FOR DECADES.

They don't need to consider anything.

What they voted for was another step towards the creation of internet fast lanes.


Yes, they have that authority. They could vote on it whenever they want.

But can you tell me that that is unequivocally the best option? Telephone companies can't do everything the Internet can, so is it in the best interest of the consumers to only regulate the ISP's as telephone companies? Might there be another proposal out there worth considering?

Don't you think the comments and reasoning against the "tiered service" proposal should be part of the public record, so that it more difficult for the FCC to revoke net neutrality the next time a Republican is the one appointing the FCC commissioners?

Once again, I'm a little confused as to why you're so upset at the Democrats, who voted to consider the position you support, instead of being upset at the Republicans, who voted against even considering it.
 
2014-05-15 04:33:38 PM  

qorkfiend: BullBearMS: qorkfiend: Why am I not surprised that you grossly mischaracterize views that differ from your own are not based in fact and are presented by one of Fark's most prolific politics tab party shills?

Not based in fact? Don't make me laugh. ox45tallboy as repeatedly provided links and other supporting information (which you appear to be deliberately ignoring), whereas you have yet to present any factual information regarding your position and how voting down today's proposal would have advanced it.


The FCC voted to regulate ISP's under Section II of the existing Telecommunications act?

Now ISP's are subject to the same common carrier regulations as phone companies?

Stop lying about this.
 
2014-05-15 04:33:48 PM  

Lamberts Ho Man: MadHatter500: Lamberts Ho Man: 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)

Actually, that's exactly what they are suggesting.  You should read the more vociferous net neutrality proponents more carefully.

I'm very interested in that claim - can you provide a reference to somebody that matters on this issue stating that net neutrality means that a 500 person corporate office building should pay the same for their internet connection as a single family home?  Not that exact claim of course, I assume you made that up.  But something like that - that an internet should be unmetered, flat rate, for everybody.  Because that seems to be the concept that you're ascribing to net neutraility with that analogy.

I have read your posts on peering agreements, and asymmetric traffic with interest.  I know this isn't a black or white issue and has got to be far more complicated then the headlines from either side portray.  I just think there's got to be a better way to do this then abandoning the de facto net neutrality that has been in existance.


Maybe I'm being obtuse about understanding the wikipedia description:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

"Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication."

This covers a lot more than you might think.  In particular the first one - "by user".  Another one that causes all kinds of problems is "site".  "modes of communication" also is problematic.  Heck, even "type of attached equipment" has problems.  The difficulty isn't the reasonable layman's interpretation.  Unfortunately rules that govern services like this get into the technical aspects, and it's what it could be construed to mean, not what it was meant to mean that matters.

So what does "not discriminating or charging differentially by user" actually mean?  That could mean Joe and Alice bought the same service, that me the ISP can't rate limit Alice just because I feel like it.  Or it could mean that Joe in NY can't be charged less than Alice on Fitch road in Montana, even though it's 100 times more costly for me the broadband provider to service Alice.

Let's talk about type of attached equipment.  A reasonable interpretation would be I the broadband provider cannot charge Joe more for attaching a PC to the network than I charge Alice for attaching an XBox.  However how it is written could be twisted to mean that I the broadband carrier can't charge any less for a 1G fiber port than a 10Gig Fiber port.

I'm putting up egregious examples not to declare this will happen, but to highlight the problem with the entire approach.  If you want to know more about the problems feel free to dig into the various references the wikipedia page has - just remember that there is very little actual information about real costs in them - the businesses that don't like the idea of network neutrality have good reasons to hide their costs numbers - negotiated deals with vendors carry some serious NDA clauses that keeps all that information proprietary and locked up tight, plus they really aren't supposed to share that kind of proprietary information with their competitors - the FTC and SEC start talking about anti-trust lawsuits when companies do that kind of thing.

Now I want to move onto a few other things you highlighted.  "unmetered access".  Post after post in this very thread biatches about bandwidth caps, and that going over those caps costs more.  Well, that just so happens to be metered access they are complaining about.  If they can live with metered access, why all the noise?  They clearly do not want the broadband providers to differentiate price between someone consuming 250Gbytes a month (family of 4 that loves to stream) and a building that has 500 people (650mbit/sec offered load 160 hours per month, or 13TB/month).  No caps right?  1G service!

They also have complained about the availability of services in various areas.  Every place should have super fast Internet.  And it should be low cost.  Alice in her cabin in Montana?  Maybe my example wasn't that far fetched after all.

Now I want to move onto something you closed with - Defacto network neutrality.  We actually don't have it today.  Applications and sites are discriminated against all the time.  Pick a bad carrier to host your content, you get terrible performance.  The design of the Internet protocols themselves (TCP in particular) favors bulk file transfer over all other applications.  You can't get QoS for interactive or real time applications reliably between any random two points.  VoIP calls on the Internet suffer horrible call quality metrics.  The broadband carriers are saying "Hey, you know we can help with that?"  The only response they get in the network neutrality debate is "Well if you would just give us more free bandwidth that wouldn't be a problem".  The broadband carriers then look at their already big capital budgets and go "oh screw that, we'd go broke.  Fine, live with your sucky performance".  They don't even get past the "must be free" discussion and actually talk about what such services would look like because the network neutrality crowd shows up and makes the discussion impossible.  I reference this thread that's 600+ messages of 1% signal to noise.

Sorry to get slightly exasperated with my fellow farkers there at the end, but it does get tedious after a while listening to the hyperventilating.
 
2014-05-15 04:35:32 PM  

BullBearMS: qorkfiend: BullBearMS: qorkfiend: Why am I not surprised that you grossly mischaracterize views that differ from your own are not based in fact and are presented by one of Fark's most prolific politics tab party shills?

Not based in fact? Don't make me laugh. ox45tallboy as repeatedly provided links and other supporting information (which you appear to be deliberately ignoring), whereas you have yet to present any factual information regarding your position and how voting down today's proposal would have advanced it.

The FCC voted to regulate ISP's under Section II of the existing Telecommunications act?

Now ISP's are subject to the same common carrier regulations as phone companies?

Stop lying about this.


I didn't say they voted to do it. I said they voted to open for public comment a proposal that would regulate ISPs as common carriers.

Your position would be a lot more defensible if you didn't have to lie about what other people are saying.
 
2014-05-15 04:35:50 PM  

Raging Thespian: Just tell Republicans that this is the result of people appointed by Obama. They'll stop it in no time.


Or their heads will explode from the paradox you just created...
 
2014-05-15 04:35:50 PM  

make me some tea: Gunther: mod3072: The Republicans may not be taking any action to correct this, but the Democrats are ACTIVELY ENACTING IT.

Much as it galls me to admit it, you are indeed correct. On this issue the democrats deserve more of the blame.

And if you vote Republican this year, the Republicans will be the ones actively enacting it.


But the Dems might at least then recognise that pulling shiat like this costs them elections.
 
Displayed 50 of 876 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 archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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