Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook Watch us on YouTube
Register
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21

Thread: Net Neutrality

  1. #1
    Atomic Punk
    Join Date
    01.29.02
    Age
    49
    Location
    somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    22,946
    Last Online

    12.11.17 @ 04:37 PM
    Likes
    842
    Liked 1,229 Times in 448 Posts

    Default Net Neutrality

    Tell the FCC to save our Net Neutrality! Before it is lost to big business looking to steal your internet for their own profits.

    I'm sure you've all heard the term "net neutrality" and many of you don't know what it means and those that do assume everyone else will take care of it. In the most basic terms it means the internet will be "pay to play." That means there won't be any cool new content because the only ones who CAN play are those that can afford it. Cool indie blogs will wither in the wind, small businesses won't reach anyone and even more scary, Amazon will have to pass on charges from ISPs to us. Here's a link with a shit load of links for us to take action. Please, call, email, whatever you can. The internet is about to become a mall where there's nothing new, nothing different and ALL content is controlled by a handfull of corporations. Please, call and smack them all in the nuts.

    http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/c...ity_before_it/

    --------------------------------------

    Contentious net neutrality proposal gets FCC green light, public comments wanted

    The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has voted to release a hotly debated proposal to reinstate net neutrality rules, asking whether it should move forward a proposal allowing broadband providers to engage in “commercially reasonable” traffic management or whether it should regulate broadband as a common-carrier utility.

    The FCC’s vote Thursday to approve a notice of proposed rulemaking now opens it to public comment for 120 days. The notice, or NPRM, asks whether the commission should bar broadband providers from charging Web content providers for priority traffic, which some net neutrality advocates have feared Chairman Tom Wheeler’s proposal would allow.

    Wheeler’s proposal would prohibit broadband providers from selectively blocking traffic, but his proposal also would allow the controversial practice of allowing broadband providers to manage traffic in “commercially reasonable” ways, creating what opponents call a 'fast lane' for Internet traffic.

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/21557...-proposal.html

    What is net neutrality?

    Net neutrality is the basic premise that all Internet traffic is treated equally whether it's a basic search on Google, a visit to a personal blog, or watching a video on Vimeo. ISPs will not slow down one kind of traffic in favor of speeding up another.

    There are some nuances this definition ignores, but that's basically the core net neutrality ideal: Equal treatment for all traffic packets traveling across the Internet.

    Net neutrality only applies to wired broadband providers such as Comcast, Cox, and Verizon. As has always been the case, wireless providers would not be subject to the FCC's net neutrality regulations.

    Why is net neutrality considered so important?

    Although not enshrined in law, the idea that all packets should be treated as more or less equal has been a defining principle for the Internet so far. Without an open Internet, small companies would have a harder time competing against entrenched interests with big pockets that can afford to have their traffic prioritized over others. That could result in less competition and a less vibrant Internet economy where small businesses are wiped out by crushing traffic fees.

    Why is the FCC proposing new rules?

    The latest FCC regulations are meant to replace net neutrality rules that were struck down by a Washington appeals court in January.

    What is the FCC proposing?

    The FCC wants to replace its Open Internet rules that were struck down by the court with a new set of rules that have yet to be made fully public. We do know that the new rules will have three broad goals:
    1.
    That all ISPs must transparently disclose to their subscribers and users all relevant information as to the policies that govern their network;

    2.
    That no legal content may be blocked; and

    3.
    That ISPs may not act in a commercially unreasonable manner to harm the Internet, including favoring the traffic from an affiliated entity.


    That sounds reasonable, what's so bad about that?

    The issue that has critics up in arms is the idea that ISPs would be allowed to give preferential treatment to some types of Internet traffic under "commercially reasonable" terms. What, exactly, that means is not clear.

    Wheeler says companies will be held to a high bar for what is considered "commercially reasonable" and that the new rules will not result in "anti-competitive price increases for consumers." Presumably, this is why the FCC will require broadband providers to commit to a "baseline level of service" for customers as a kind of guarantee against runaway price increases. But it's not yet clear how that "baseline level of service" would be defined.

    Wheeler's promises aside, the fear is that this proposal will gave tacit approval to a pay-to-play model. Under this scheme, the ISPs can collect fees from online content providers and provide a speed advantage over the content provider's competition—unless the competition also pays for priority speeds. If that happens, it's likely that websites and content providers that can pay the fees will survive, while those that can't will disappear. Studies have shown that users are more likely to leave websites with each second of lag.

    The worst case scenario would be if the ISPs were also allowed to institute various speed tier packages for home Internet users. Want to watch online video like Netflix, YouTube, and Vimeo? That'll be either the baseline silver or gold speed plans. Oh, you want your Netflix in HD? That's the extra pricey platinum package.

    That may not happen if the FCC's "baseline" guarantee requires particularly robust service. But again, until the full proposal is public we can't be sure.

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/21483...you-a-faq.html
    "Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack.” -- Gen. George S. Patton

  2. #2
    Atomic Punk lovemachine97(Version 2)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    06.05.03
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    13,981
    Last Online

    12.13.17 @ 01:22 PM
    Likes
    814
    Liked 3,114 Times in 1,825 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default Net Neutrality

    Maybe I'm not understanding the concept, so if I am not, please correct me...

    But basically this pits two different groups of corporations against each other. On one side are the Amazons, Googles, Facebooks, etc., who want the government to shield them from business practices they don't like. The other side are the ISPs—the Comcasts, Verizon's, etc., who want to run their businesses as they see fit, which could include different prices, rationing bandwidth, or blocking content.

    Now one major example of this happening, which scares the bejeezus out of some people, is when Comcast rationed the bandwidth of BitTorrent users. A small amount of users uploading videos were using virtually all of the available bandwidth and slowing way down 99% of their other users, so Comcast took steps to slow down the small amount of BitTorrent users in order to preserve quality internet connections for 99% of their other users.

    Net neutrality would prevent this.

    Similarly, recently, Verizon slowed Netflix way down. At certain times of the day, Netflix users are using incredible amounts of bandwidth. Verizon wanted to charge Netflix according to their massive use of bandwidth. (I have Verizon Fios and experienced quality issues during this. Basically watched the second season of House of Cards in less than standard definition. Load times were ridiculous.)

    Eventually, Verizon reached a deal with Netflix to pay for the massive amounts of bandwidth it takes up. My service has returned to normal.

    Net neutrality would prevent deals like this, where an ISP charges the biggest bandwidth users for the strain they put on the system.

    But those costs have to be recouped somehow, yes? So won't net neutrality result in higher rates and slower connections for the general public?
    Last edited by lovemachine97(Version 2); 05.16.14 at 07:48 AM.

  3. #3
    Atomic Punk
    Join Date
    10.11.09
    Posts
    10,537
    Last Online

    12.13.17 @ 08:07 PM
    Likes
    571
    Liked 1,481 Times in 1,010 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    I hope this prick Tom Wheeler really suffers when it's his time to go.
    Last edited by rocknblues81; 05.16.14 at 04:30 PM.
    Michael Caine on Jaws: The Revenge:

    "I have never seen it, but by all accounts it is terrible. However, I have seen the house that it built and it is terrific."

    Samuel Johnson 1775 : “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel”

    "McDonalds is The Antichrist" - Bill Hicks

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSH6ofHbeUw

  4. #4
    Atomic Punk bklynboy68's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.10.12
    Posts
    18,785
    Favorite VH Album

    The Magnificent 7
    Last Online

    12.13.17 @ 06:19 PM
    Likes
    12,892
    Liked 11,754 Times in 6,511 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default FCC Commissioner: ‘Unprecedented Involvement Of Executive Branch In Our Decision-Maki

    WASHINGTON — Republican Federal Communications Commission Commissioner Ajit Pai hosted a press conference on Tuesday to discuss with reporters about his concern about President Obama’s proposal “to regulate the internet.” Pai cited concerns ranging from the proposal causing heavy-handed FCC regulations on the internet to the plan being a “gift to trial lawyers.”

    Under the idea of net neutrality the president, along with FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, is pushing the plan forward prior to the Feb. 26 FCC vote on the matter. However, Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson appears concerned about the influence the White House may have on the agency decision making with this policy. Johnson sent a letter to the commission requesting information on the issue, as did House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz.


    Johnson told reporters after Pai’s presser, “We certainly want to find out to what extent [WHEELER’S] change of heart was actually his own or whether there was influence by the White House. [The FCC] is supposed to be an independent agency and so we’re trying to find the information. We want to find the communication between himself and the White House—his agency and the White House and see whether this truly was an independent act.”

    The Daily Caller sat down with Pai following his press conference to discuss these matters and other issues relating to the president’s net neutrality proposal:

    TheDC: How will content possibly be censored when the government moves in on this and treats the internet as a utility?




    http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/10/fc...cision-making/
     "He has a swaggering retro machismo that will give hives to the Steinem cabal" -Camille Paglia on Donald Trump

    "Make way for the bad guy"- Tony Montana

    'This hamburger don't need no helper"- David Lee Roth

    "I wish Bon Jovi would've given me a call before he recorded all of his hits, because the lyrics would've been smarter, the melodies would've been much more smashing, and they would've sold a lot fewer records." -David Lee Roth

    "My beef is people thinking Bon Jovi is good cuz they sold lots of records to housewives." -tango

    "But being number one doesn’t really mean jack fuck all. We sold twice as many records as other records that year (1984) that landed in the Number One position." ~Eddie Van Halen

  5. #5
    Atomic Punk bsbll4's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.18.03
    Age
    34
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    8,643
    Favorite VH Album

    Van Halen/ADKOT
    Favorite VH Song

    Hot For Teacher
    Last Online

    12.13.17 @ 12:57 PM
    Likes
    571
    Liked 2,229 Times in 1,124 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    I'm not sure where I stand on this. I think it's bullshit that people that stream Netflix on 4 devices next door slow down my online searches, so the idea of charging them more (or Netflix) because of the bandwidth they use seems justified. On the other hand, no one wants companies to be able to show favoritism to certain websites, so for example, Comcast wouldn't be able to show favoritism towards MSNBC.com while slowing down connections to FoxNews.com.

    Can't we just, like, keep things the way they are without creating negative, unintended consequences?
    CNN may think my opinion matters, but you shouldn't.

  6. #6
    Hang 'Em High Hurricane Halen's Avatar
    Join Date
    07.17.03
    Age
    49
    Location
    Shreveport Louisiana
    Posts
    6,600
    Favorite VH Album

    All of them
    Favorite VH Song

    All of them
    Last Online

    12.13.17 @ 10:30 AM
    Likes
    3,044
    Liked 2,299 Times in 1,256 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bsbll4 View Post

    Can't we just, like, keep things the way they are without creating negative, unintended consequences?
    Remember who we're talking about here, Big Business, Big Government. They go out of their way to fuck shit up.

    HH<-------VH Links vs. DLR Army is coming!!!!---------------
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    VH LINKS Resident Paramedic/Firefighter
    #officialhashtaghater
    Copyright holder of all things, "<-----------------"

    UC<------Goal in life to be included in an HH sig-----

  7. The Following Member Likes This Post:


  8. #7
    Baluchitherium
    Join Date
    06.02.09
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    4,749
    Favorite VH Album

    Fair Warning
    Favorite VH Song

    Respect my Wind
    Last Online

    12.11.17 @ 09:44 PM
    Likes
    143
    Liked 1,139 Times in 649 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bsbll4 View Post
    I'm not sure where I stand on this. I think it's bullshit that people that stream Netflix on 4 devices next door slow down my online searches, so the idea of charging them more (or Netflix) because of the bandwidth they use seems justified. On the other hand, no one wants companies to be able to show favoritism to certain websites, so for example, Comcast wouldn't be able to show favoritism towards MSNBC.com while slowing down connections to FoxNews.com.

    Can't we just, like, keep things the way they are without creating negative, unintended consequences?
    I don't know if odummy can resist getting his hands on another thing that he can fuck up for us, too much temptation for him.
    "Alcoholism, is like, the only disease you can get yelled at for having" - Mitch
    Hedberg

  9. #8
    Atomic Punk bsbll4's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.18.03
    Age
    34
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    8,643
    Favorite VH Album

    Van Halen/ADKOT
    Favorite VH Song

    Hot For Teacher
    Last Online

    12.13.17 @ 12:57 PM
    Likes
    571
    Liked 2,229 Times in 1,124 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    Well it seems like both sides are wanting to do something different because they think it will better serve their own interests (assuming they win), but I'm guessing there's a reason why this is coming to a head. The first post mentioned a lawsuit or something, so is that what caused all of this?

    It just seems every time the government makes a sweeping policy like this, negative unintended consequences happen that are almost impossible to prevent. It seems most consumers are happy with the way things work right now, so hopefully they can just keep things as they are without fucking it up in the process.
    CNN may think my opinion matters, but you shouldn't.

  10. #9
    Atomic Punk edwardv's Avatar
    Join Date
    12.13.01
    Age
    59
    Location
    hanover pennsylvania
    Posts
    10,034
    Favorite VH Album

    diver down
    Favorite VH Song

    drop dead legs
    Last Online

    12.13.17 @ 03:35 PM
    Likes
    4,482
    Liked 2,386 Times in 1,488 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hurricane Halen View Post

    HH<-------VH Links vs. DLR Army is coming!!!!---------------
    Didn't we make peace with them at Cafe Wha? James in NY and WARF???
    EVH 1979: Well, actually it's not much of a vacation, because we run everything ourselves. We design our own album cover, we have to be in the office every day to sign checks - the whole corporation revolves around us. Nothing can be done without our approval. We even have photo approval.

  11. #10
    Atomic Punk lovemachine97(Version 2)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    06.05.03
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    13,981
    Last Online

    12.13.17 @ 01:22 PM
    Likes
    814
    Liked 3,114 Times in 1,825 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    I've read a lot about this, and I think it is a huge mistake. First, there isn't really a case where Comcast has slowed traffic to one news site in favor of, say, MSNBC. So we're going to create a huge regulatory scheme to protect against something that has yet to happen?

    Of course, the fear is that, with a lack of choice, these companies can do this and consumers won't be able to do anything about it. But that's just not true. Even the FCC admits that 80% of households have access to two or more Internet Service Providers that provide speeds of 10Mbps — their highest rating — or better.

    But in an entirely unpredictable statistic as recently as the day before the iPhone was announced, 2014 saw mobile Internet usage account for 55% of all use, surpassing desktop Internet use for the first time. So we likely no idea how we will be accessing the internet a few years from now. So why create a cumbersome regulatory scheme that will likely kill innovation?

    That innovation has been "killed" is tough to prove, and there is hardly ever an apples-to-apples example to look at. But we do have something close: network TV versus cable/pay/streaming TV. The FCC heavily regulates network television, but has little to no influence over cable/pay/streaming. Where has there been more quality and innovation, in cable/pay/streaming TV, which is mostly influenced by market forces, or network TV, which mostly answers to the FCC? I think the answer is clear. So do we want the Internet to continue to be more like cable/pay/streaming TV, or more like network TV?

    Besides, content is unlikely to be the pinnacle achievement of the Internet. The future is likely in applications that will revolutionize health, safety, medicine, and transportation. Imagine a world-renowned surgeon consulting in surgery via a 4k HD feed or an emergency room doctor consulting paramedics on the scene of an accident via a 5G mobile feed.

    Now understand that 50-90% of all Internet traffic is in file sharing like BitTorrent and other like software. Netflix accounts for one-third of all traffic during prime time.

    Under net neutrality, Netflix, bootleggers, and medical feeds must have their data packets treated equally. So imagine that surgeon or ER doctor sitting down after 8:00pm to consult via HD video feed, and that feed endlessly buffering because, ya know, bootleggers and Netflix are just as important as medicine!

    Future applications will likely require high speeds for them to work. And if those people want to enter into agreements to ensure those speeds, we should allow it. To do otherwise is to thwart innovation. I feel better in a world where a hospital can pay for priority over someone illegally downloading the season premiere of Game of Thrones. I don't feel better in a world where medical advances are thwarted because of "equality."

    Besides, "traffic shaping" already happens. Your ISP is already manipulating traffic speeds to give the majority of people a pleasant experience using the Internet. On any given night, there is only so much bandwith. Five bootleggers should be able to make miserable the lives of all other ISP customers because the ISP cannot slow down those people.

  12. #11
    Atomic Punk bklynboy68's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.10.12
    Posts
    18,785
    Favorite VH Album

    The Magnificent 7
    Last Online

    12.13.17 @ 06:19 PM
    Likes
    12,892
    Liked 11,754 Times in 6,511 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    Eleventh-hour drama for net neutrality rules


    By Julian Hattem - 02/24/15 12:00 PM EST


    A Democrat on the Federal Communications Commission wants to see changes that could narrow the scope of new net neutrality rules set for a vote on Thursday.

    Mignon Clyburn, one of three Democrats on the FCC, has asked Chairman Tom Wheeler to roll back some of his provisions before the full commission votes on them, FCC officials said.

    The request — which Wheeler has yet to respond to — puts the chairman in the awkward position of having to either roll back his proposals, or defend the tough rules and convince Clyburn to back down.

    It’s an ironic spot for Wheeler, who for months was considered to be favoring weaker rules than those pushed for by his fellow Democrats, before he reversed himself and backed tougher restrictions on Internet service providers.

    Clyburn’s objections complicate the highly anticipated vote and add an extra bit of drama to the already high tensions on the five-member commission.  

    Wheeler will need the votes of both Clyburn and Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel to pass the rules, since the two Republicans on the commission are expected to vote against anything he proposes.  

    Clyburn’s changes would leave in place the central and most controversial component of Wheeler’s rules — the notion that broadband Internet service should be reclassified so that it can be treated as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act, similar to utilities like phone lines.

    Proponents of net neutrality have said such a move is the surest way to prevent Internet service providers from interfering with people’s access to the Web.

    However, she wants to eliminate a new legal category of “broadband subscriber access services,” created as an additional point of legal authority for the FCC to monitor the ways companies hand off traffic on the back end of the Internet.

    Those deals, known as “interconnection” arrangements, became a point of contention last year, when Netflix accused Comcast and other companies of erecting “Internet tolls” before easily passing Web traffic from one network to another.

    The initial plan sought by Wheeler would allow the FCC to investigate and take action against deals that are “not just and reasonable,” according to a fact sheet released by the commission earlier this month.

    Eliminating the new legal category could make it trickier for the FCC to police those arrangements, said officials with the agency, who were granted anonymity in order to speak freely about the ongoing negotiations. 

    Other FCC officials have previously said that the broader act of reclassifying broadband Internet service would, in and of itself, give the commission enough power to oversee interconnection deals. That opinion has been backed up by lawyers at Google, among others, who made the argument to FCC officials last week.

    Matt Wood, the policy director at the pro-net neutrality organization Free Press, disagreed with officials who thought the change could weaken the rule. Clyburn’s edit might actually make the rules stronger by getting rid of “unnecessary baggage” in Wheeler’s early draft, he said.

    Clyburn’s changes also would replace a new standard for Internet service providers’ conduct, which was meant to act as a catchall rule for any future behavior that might abuse consumers. That standard would be swapped out with potentially narrower language from 2010 rules that prevented “unreasonable discrimination.” A federal court tossed out those 2010 rules early last year, setting the stage for the FCC to write new rules. 

    The full text of the rules will not be revealed to the public until after the FCC’s vote on Thursday morning.

    Clyburn declined to discuss specific changes she was supporting on Tuesday.

    “This is a process that is an interaction with all five members of the commission and their offices,” she said after remarks at a policy forum hosted by Comptel, a trade group.

    “I will just say that I am attempting to strike a balance and whatever you hear, whether it’s accurate or not, is a reflection of my enthusiastic willingness to do so.”

    In a speech at the Federal Communications Bar Association last week, the commissioner said that she was “pleased” with the initial draft but also hinted that she might need some fixes to strike that balance between “strong” protections for consumers and “clarity” for investors.

    “Some have expressed concerns about allowing private rights of action in court, failing to consider the impact on smaller [Internet service providers], that including interconnection goes too far or that the case-by-case approach does not go far enough, and that the new conduct rule may not be as strong as the previous unreasonable discrimination rule,” she said.

    The requested changes come as FCC lawyers are spending hours poring over the text of the rules.

    In keeping with FCC procedural rules, the four other commissioners got their first look at the rules just two and a half weeks ago outside of Wheeler’s office. Now they are scrambling to make edits ahead of the vote on Thursday morning.




    http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbyi...utrality-rules
     "He has a swaggering retro machismo that will give hives to the Steinem cabal" -Camille Paglia on Donald Trump

    "Make way for the bad guy"- Tony Montana

    'This hamburger don't need no helper"- David Lee Roth

    "I wish Bon Jovi would've given me a call before he recorded all of his hits, because the lyrics would've been smarter, the melodies would've been much more smashing, and they would've sold a lot fewer records." -David Lee Roth

    "My beef is people thinking Bon Jovi is good cuz they sold lots of records to housewives." -tango

    "But being number one doesn’t really mean jack fuck all. We sold twice as many records as other records that year (1984) that landed in the Number One position." ~Eddie Van Halen

  13. #12
    Atomic Punk bklynboy68's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.10.12
    Posts
    18,785
    Favorite VH Album

    The Magnificent 7
    Last Online

    12.13.17 @ 06:19 PM
    Likes
    12,892
    Liked 11,754 Times in 6,511 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default FCC approves sweeping Internet regulation plan, Obama accused of meddling

    The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday adopted sweeping new regulations sought by President Obama for how Americans use and do business on the Internet, in a party-line vote that is sure to be challenged by the broadband industry.

    The commission, following a contentious meeting, voted 3-2 to adopt its so-called net neutrality plan -- a proposal that remained secret in the run-up to the final vote.

    On its surface, the plan is aimed at barring service providers from creating paid "fast lanes" on the Internet, which consumer advocates and Internet companies worry would edge out cash-strapped startups and smaller Internet-based businesses. Chairman Tom Wheeler said it would ensure an "open, unfettered network."

    But the rules, more broadly, would put the Internet in the same regulatory camp as the telephone by classifying it like a public utility, meaning providers like Comcast or Verizon would have to act in the "public interest" when providing a mobile connection to your home or phone.

    Republican Commissioner Ajit Pai, who delivered some of the most scathing criticism of the plan Thursday, warned the policy represents a "monumental shift" to "government control of the Internet."

    Further, he accused the FCC of bending to the will of Obama, who last fall came out in favor of such a sweeping regulatory plan.

    Pai said the FCC was reversing course from past positions for one reason: "President Obama told us to do so."

    He warned of a litany of negative consequences, intended or not, from the net neutrality plan. He said it allows rate regulation -- and, ultimately, rates will go up and broadband service will slow.

    Pai said that while the plan defers a decision on applying a service fee to Internet bills -- much like is applied to phone bills -- that surely will change.

    "The order explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes," he said. "Read my lips: More new taxes are coming. It's just a matter of when."

    Further, he pointed to slower Internet speeds in Europe, which largely treats the Internet as a public utility, in warning that the additional regulation will lead to less investment and slower speeds in the U.S. as well.

    "The Internet is not broken. There is no problem for the government to solve," Pai said.

    Fellow Republican member Michael O'Rielly called the plan a "monumental and unlawful power grab."

    Republican lawmakers, as well, blasted the proposal as an antiquated solution that would hurt, not help, Internet innovation.

    "The Obama Administration needs to get beyond its 1930s rotary-telephone mindset and embrace the future," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement.

    While the broadband industry is expected to sue, Republicans in Congress said they will try to pass legislation scrapping the rules, although it's unlikely that such a bill would be signed into law by Obama.

    But Democrats on the commission hailed the plan. To charges that the plan represents a secret scheme to regulate the Internet, Wheeler said: "Nonsense."

    He claimed it was no more a plan to regulate the Internet "than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech."

    Democratic Commissioner Mignon Clyburn -- despite reports she was seeking last-minute changes in the plan to scale it back -- also voted with Wheeler on Thursday. She said it "strikes the right balance."

    At stake, Clyburn said, is the risk of businesses getting preferential treatment over start-ups by getting better Internet speeds, or teachers having to worry about whether students can do research online without websites loading at "dial-up speeds."

    Twitter said the new rules were a matter of protecting free expression.

    "Safeguarding the historic open architecture of the Internet and the ability for all users to `innovate without permission' is critical to American economic aspirations and our nation's global competitiveness," Twitter wrote in a company blog post this week.

    Net neutrality is the idea that websites or videos load at about the same speed. That means you won't be more inclined to watch a particular show on Amazon Prime instead of on Netflix because Amazon has struck a deal with your service provider to load its data faster.

    For years, providers mostly agreed not to pick winners and losers among Web traffic because they didn't want to encourage regulators to step in and because they said consumers demanded it. But that started to change around 2005, when YouTube came online and Netflix became increasingly popular. On-demand video became known as data hogs, and evidence began to surface that some providers were manipulating traffic without telling consumers.

    By 2010, the FCC enacted open Internet rules, but the agency's legal approach was eventually struck down. FCC officials would erase the legal ambiguity by no longer classifying the Internet as an "information service" but a "telecommunications service" subject to Title II of the 1934 Communications Act.

    That would dramatically expand regulators' power over the industry by requiring providers to act in the public's interest and enabling the FCC to fine companies found to be employing "unreasonable" business practices.

    The FCC says it won't apply some sections of Title II, including price controls. That means rates charged to customers for Internet access won't be subject to preapproval, though critics warn of future regulation. But the law allows the government to investigate if consumers complain that costs are unfair.




    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...used-meddling/
     "He has a swaggering retro machismo that will give hives to the Steinem cabal" -Camille Paglia on Donald Trump

    "Make way for the bad guy"- Tony Montana

    'This hamburger don't need no helper"- David Lee Roth

    "I wish Bon Jovi would've given me a call before he recorded all of his hits, because the lyrics would've been smarter, the melodies would've been much more smashing, and they would've sold a lot fewer records." -David Lee Roth

    "My beef is people thinking Bon Jovi is good cuz they sold lots of records to housewives." -tango

    "But being number one doesn’t really mean jack fuck all. We sold twice as many records as other records that year (1984) that landed in the Number One position." ~Eddie Van Halen

  14. #13
    Atomic Punk Dave's Dreidel's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.10.05
    Age
    47
    Location
    Kate Upton's Closet
    Posts
    37,878
    Favorite VH Album

    Alex, Dave, Ed and Mike
    Favorite VH Song

    The songs with Ed on them
    Last Online

    12.13.17 @ 12:19 PM
    Likes
    3,505
    Liked 18,131 Times in 8,955 Posts

    Default

    Only the USA could screw up something so simple.
    Taylor Swift is nice to look at. Adele can sing.

    Emperor Brett - "I can't believe you guys are analyzing song-by-song Van Halen III? What next, analyzing the script of Stroker Ace looking for some shred of Citizen Kane?"

    David Lee Roth did the impossible. He made Van Halen better. Deal with it!

    Preferred pronouns: he/him/his

    Hurricane Halen - Let's all gingery touch our sword tips!!!

    DONATE TO THE LINKS YA CHEAP BASTARDS!!!!

  15. #14
    Sinner's Swing! evhintexas's Avatar
    Join Date
    11.12.11
    Age
    49
    Location
    Tx
    Posts
    3,039
    Favorite VH Album

    Fair Warning
    Favorite VH Song

    Push comes to shove
    Last Online

    12.09.17 @ 03:43 PM
    Likes
    1,425
    Liked 1,107 Times in 675 Posts


    Premium Member

    Donor

    Default

    New taxes is what this is !!!!
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    “A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.”

  16. The Following Member Likes This Post:


  17. #15
    Atomic Punk lovemachine97(Version 2)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    06.05.03
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    13,981
    Last Online

    12.13.17 @ 01:22 PM
    Likes
    814
    Liked 3,114 Times in 1,825 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    We're being so short-sighted here. We just gave the Nipplegate people all sorts of authority over the Internet. This will lead to more taxes and I think it will eventually lead to content regulation, much like network television.

    As I said above (I think), this regulation is treating the Internet as if Netflix is the pinnacle of what the Internet will ever have to offer. It's not. We know as little about the future of applications as we knew when we had no idea by 2014 that cellular would surpass desktop/laptop access to the Internet.

    Even when Comcast throttled Netflix in a way that net neutrality enthusiasts fear, the end result was good. Comcast wanted more money from Netlfix because Netflix takes up more than a third of all bandwidth during prime time. In order to make sure other customers had reasonable Internet access, Comcast was going to have to throttle Netflix. So Netflix paid them. Each user's average Mbps rate had dropped from 2.0 Mbps before the throttling to 1.5 Mbps. Right after Netflix paid Comcast, the average rate went up to 3.0 Mbps. Will Netflix pass this cost on to their users? Eventually, yes. But doesn't it make sense For Netflix users to ultimately pay, not Comcast users who don't use Netflix? Comcast then has incentive to continue to innovate and provide faster connections.

    The other side of this is, and Mark Cuban is really the only guy out there fighting against this with logic, what happens to TV? As Cuban has pointed out, bits are bits. Data packets are data packets. Your ISP is also a TV provider. They use the same "pipes" to deliver digital TV as they do Internet. It's just that ISPs give TV much greater bandwidth to avoid any buffering. Well, wouldn't someone immediately sue and say that if this is all the same thing, bits are bits, and they are running through the same pipes, then doesn't this all fall under net neutrality? And they'd probably be right. So now you'd need a separate device to hook up to your TV to recognize channels in that pipe and put them on your TV or you'd have to go to their website to watch. And if it is all treated equally, does that mean CBS Evening news through my provider may start buffering on my TV if there is heavy traffic?

    And if it is all the same now, why does the FCC only have content control over the networks? Wouldn't they now have content control over all data in these pipes? The FCC was losing authority with so much going to cable and streaming. Was this also a backdoor way to have control over content across the digital board?

  18. The Following 3 Members Like This Post:


 

 

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •