Net neutrality

PROVOST

Colonel in Chief
Officer Club
Jun 28, 2011
30,582
39
48
Terra Australis
#3
Thankfully both sides of politics here in AUS does not want any one to make the net faster or slower for anyone dependent on $$.

The internet should be unfettered in this regard.

I would call myself an internet socialist.
 
#4
G.I. Eddie
NBC Comcast wants to charge people more for using Netflix. Even though they already charge too much for their services. There are other such greedy companies who want to do away with net neutrality. They somehow are convincing the FCC to join their side.

I hate Comcast but they are a monopoly and the only choice in my area.
Example:
I can watch TV shows through them online if I miss them. Oh wait the CW shows do not come up until 2 or 3 weeks later. Yet their NBC shows go up very fast.
 

MAJOR BLOOD

Size matters
Staff member
Mar 13, 2011
13,574
6
0
40
#5
G.I. Eddie
NBC Comcast wants to charge people more for using Netflix. Even though they already charge too much for their services. There are other such greedy companies who want to do away with net neutrality. They somehow are convincing the FCC to join their side.

I hate Comcast but they are a monopoly and the only choice in my area.
Example:
I can watch TV shows through them online if I miss them. Oh wait the CW shows do not come up until 2 or 3 weeks later. Yet their NBC shows go up very fast.
Well it will not stop with Netflix. Anyone that they deem uses too much of their service the ISP's would be able to charge so that they can be in a "fast lane" and their services will run smoothly.

This causes issues for smaller companies that want to try and start up. They will not be able to afford using these fast lanes most likely. ISP's can also deem who they want to have to pay. Basically, it is a new version of SOPA without the dialogue for online piracy.

Best part is, our fearless leader was against this very thing going down when he went for president. You can see how good that is going.....
 
Mar 20, 2014
105
1
18
Leesburg, VA
#6
I hate Comcast but they are a monopoly and the only choice in my area.
Example:
I can watch TV shows through them online if I miss them. Oh wait the CW shows do not come up until 2 or 3 weeks later. Yet their NBC shows go up very fast.


I live right next to Verizon, but I only pay for internet so I don't have much of an issue outside of Netflix buffering. At my second job I am pretty sure it's Cogent so I have no issues during downtime.
 

MAJOR BLOOD

Size matters
Staff member
Mar 13, 2011
13,574
6
0
40
#8
So basically, the Walmarts of the net world want to eradicate the little guys in a similar fashion?...nice...f*%#ing a$$holes...
Actually, they will want to charge companies to use their pipes and in turn will get passed on to us. Commiecast is the worst of them but AT&T and Verizon will be right behind them jacking consumers.

At this point internet is not a luxury. It is a huge commerce arena where tetail can still survive. It is also how people can make ideas happen. Creating "lanes" for companies to travel is just the start. Once they do that it opens doors to censor content. Allowing the internet to not have restrictions is how abuse can be avoided.

Imagine if there was a revolution. These companies could then say websites promoting information or gatherings use too much so now they must pay. Same goes with companies. What if Commiecast does not like a place? All of a sudden they have to pay more on their ISP to not be like dial up. There are supposed to be rules in the law Wheeler wrote to stop such things but we have seen how big business gets their hand slapped when they do illegal activities.

TL; DR: Money talks

http://youtube/8OkoQv9Onoc
 

PROVOST

Colonel in Chief
Officer Club
Jun 28, 2011
30,582
39
48
Terra Australis
#24
What is interesting from my POV is that if you're paying for a specific service/speed of that service then how it is legal contractually to limit the speed for certain sites?

Would it be that this would be made legally permissible in any future legal agreement between end users and the ISP's?
 

MAJOR BLOOD

Size matters
Staff member
Mar 13, 2011
13,574
6
0
40
#26
Net Neutrality FCC Proposal Now Available to Read | BGR

There is some more info in that article along with places to contact.

Slowing down what you pay for is not something they can do. Illegal content can be though. Problem with that is the abuse of the DMCA notices. Google receives probably about 100,000 a month. The fast lanes they want to create only benefit those with the money.

What can happen though could be "network slowdowns" during peak periods. This already is a practice most of the big US carriers do. You can not really prove they are either.

At the end of the day, this hurts all of us in the states. The potential for abuse highly out weighs any possible benefit for which there is not. Until September the FCC is taking public comment (in theory) about this. If you use the Internet at all I would suggest speaking up.

Think of this..if a revolution was going on and people wanted to communicate it would be easier to shut down communication. It has happened in other counties already. Financially, the buck will get passed right to the consumer because they do not want to cut into their multi million dollar profits.

If you look at who wants fast lanes it is service providers. Look at who is against it and it is just about everyone else.
 

G.I.*EDDIE

gobbles a LOT of cock
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
42,545
354
83
S.E. Mich :(
#29
There isn't anything done in the government that's in the publics best interest...everything done there is in all their wallets best interest...

Our government shouldn't be treated as a business...

I don't know much about politics, but gosh dang do I hate our lobbyist system! :mad:
 

Meddatron

I am what I am
Apr 19, 2011
11,383
5
0
44
York, Pa
s1193.photobucket.com
#31
Hopefully this means that since I pay Comcast my money each month they need to stop capping my bandwidth for using Netflix and WWE network. I had to cancel WWE because after 20 minutes of watching they reduced my speed to shit and it froze every 5 seconds. A simple reboot of my router flushing the Comcast packets out proves Comcast is doing it.
 

Videoviper

illuminati
Officer Club
Aug 15, 2012
4,911
55
48
Behind a camera watching you!
#32
either way it goes down, my cable bill will go up.

I see a lot of Bell parallels here,

On one side you have content providers trying to give out more data than the networks can handle without the network providers being able to recoup costs for usage. - My bill goes up

While network providers charge me more for services to upgrade their networks to handle more data usage reguardless of whether it can reach my in the middle of nowhere home - My bill goes up

Network providers potentially may be deniged blocking problem data users, leading to data outages - My bill goes up

The phone system is a public utility because the government built & payed for most of it. & despite what most people believe the internet is not free & it was a lot more government money that built it than they'd like to admit. (That's why Google & yahoo became as big as they did while others faded into obscurity.) So believe no one when they say its about privacy because nothing on the internet is truely private.
 

K-Tiger

All solutions are final.
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
30,900
126
63
#33
That they're trying to do it under a law from 1934 (boy, was THAT a shitty year for freedom) should tell you all you need to know.

The "unintended" consequences of this thing should the courts not slap the FCC's pecker on it will be baaaaad.
 

nacho

"Big Guns"
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
7,301
181
63
On the river...
www.teletraanone.com
#35
It's really good that comcast, TWC, verizon, AT&T, etc cannot become the gatekeepers of content. If they had their way, they would toll-road content from the big guys and slow down everyone else. It would have been a mess and we'd have paid more for crappier service that seriously favors deep-pocketed existing businesses. This way, the next youtube, netflix or whatever service has a fighting chance. Imagine you start a business, but you can't get your digital content out to your customers without paying a premium fee to every ISP... in addition to your own bandwidth costs. Fuck. That.

The bottom line is that the ISPs watched Amazon's, Netflix's, Youtube's packets flow through their networks and make those businesses tons of money... and ISPs couldn't stand the idea of it happening without them getting a piece of the action (in addition to all the fees that companies pay for bandwidth and that consumers pay for connections). They saw an opportunity to create a digital toll-road and skim off every single packet.

The down side is that the government is taking a larger role in the whole thing, and that leads to oversight, paperwork, bloated bureaucracy, and ultimately some kind of royal government clusterfuck. But in this case, I think that's the lesser of the two evils.

The FCC says they aren't trying to regulate it like a real utility but rather keep the ISPs from effectively having the power to hold the entire internet hostage. I can't see that as a bad thing, no matter what downside might tag along with that level of government interference. I applaud any government action that gives Comcast/TWC/Verizon/ATT the middle finger on behalf of consumers.
 

XOC2008

Caution: Troll Ahead!
Mar 14, 2011
4,690
3
0
42
Plainfield, IL
#36
How much you wanna bet Anonymous will react rather angrily to this?
Why? Anonymous has always been about freedoms, and I would think having a 'free and open internet', which is what the whole basis of this is, would appeal to them. Preventing the big corporations from saying who gets what kind of service is of benefit to their usual standard, not against it.

Now, granted, if they find things that are going to negatively impact the internet in the 300 some page secret document that has yet to be released, they will probably act.

But, I think this is, right now, a good thing. If there are downsides, we'll have to wait and see. I DO think that leaving things as they were without some regulations on these companies was going to spell doom for an easily accessible internet.
 
Last edited:

G.I.*EDDIE

gobbles a LOT of cock
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
42,545
354
83
S.E. Mich :(
#37
It's really good that comcast, TWC, verizon, AT&T, etc cannot become the gatekeepers of content. If they had their way, they would toll-road content from the big guys and slow down everyone else. It would have been a mess and we'd have paid more for crappier service that seriously favors deep-pocketed existing businesses. This way, the next youtube, netflix or whatever service has a fighting chance. Imagine you start a business, but you can't get your digital content out to your customers without paying a premium fee to every ISP... in addition to your own bandwidth costs. Fuck. That.

The bottom line is that the ISPs watched Amazon's, Netflix's, Youtube's packets flow through their networks and make those businesses tons of money... and ISPs couldn't stand the idea of it happening without them getting a piece of the action (in addition to all the fees that companies pay for bandwidth and that consumers pay for connections). They saw an opportunity to create a digital toll-road and skim off every single packet.

The down side is that the government is taking a larger role in the whole thing, and that leads to oversight, paperwork, bloated bureaucracy, and ultimately some kind of royal government clusterfuck. But in this case, I think that's the lesser of the two evils.

The FCC says they aren't trying to regulate it like a real utility but rather keep the ISPs from effectively having the power to hold the entire internet hostage. I can't see that as a bad thing, no matter what downside might tag along with that level of government interference. I applaud any government action that gives Comcast/TWC/Verizon/ATT the middle finger on behalf of consumers.
Gotta agree with ya here, nacho. Basically what's being prevented are the ISPs from becoming the Internet Mob. "We're here to collect our cut for doing nothing."
 

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
7,254
254
83
44
VA
#39
I have come to understand the following to be most often true (based upon previous results): Whatever the majority government group names a bill or law or however it publicizes it to be, it will in practice do something akin to the opposite.
 

PROVOST

Colonel in Chief
Officer Club
Jun 28, 2011
30,582
39
48
Terra Australis
#40
Been following this subject of late and there's obviously two camps on it.

From what I can gather there's no regulation of the Internet Service Providers in USA?

Aside from some basic holding to laws relating to commerce they can do what they want with it?