Watch the FCC Net Neutrality Meeting Live: Open Internet Passes in 3-2 Vote.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

"Farewell, ye dear partners of peril! Farewell!
Though buried ye lie in one bloody grave,
Your deeds shall ennoble the place where ye fell,
And your names be enrolled with the sons of the brave."

-Robert Tannahill

don't really know how this will affect larger business like Netflix, Google, Amazon etc. but should theoretically make it easier for startups to get into the market. I'm worried about the effects on ISP's and how it will affect consumer usage.

originally posted by: DarkGameGod
a reply to: SkepticOverlord
When they make it a Title 2 communications will it not be subject to the same censorships and controls as TV and radio?

No.

Two very different things.

originally posted by: smarterthanyou
I'm worried about the effects on ISP's and how it will affect consumer usage.

In theory: no effect because ISP's currently enjoy a 97% profit margin on broadband services to consumers.

originally posted by: smarterthanyou
don't really know how this will affect larger business like Netflix, Google, Amazon etc. but should theoretically make it easier for startups to get into the market. I'm worried about the effects on ISP's and how it will affect consumer usage.

Quite the opposite I am afraid.

I mentioned to someone how I have a 5mbps connection and they laughed at me. They informed me that the internet can go *much* faster.

I dunno, all the web pages I go to seem to load fast enough for me. I'm even able to stream 4K UHD Netflix without any problems.

I do wish it were cheaper and that I had more than one company to choose from.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I mentioned to someone how I have a 5mbps connection and they laughed at me. They informed me that the internet can go *much* faster.

I dunno, all the web pages I go to seem to load fast enough for me. I'm even able to stream 4K UHD Netflix without any problems.

I do wish it were cheaper and that I had more than one company to choose from.

Lamentably, if I am correct, you will not get either of those things.

originally posted by: greencmp
Lamentably, If I am correct, you will not get either of those things.

Fortunately, you're not correct.

Google has indicated that if this passes, they will accelerate the rollout of Google Fiber.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
The Open Internet proposal passed soon after Chairman Wheeler's comment: "This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment was a plan to regulate free speech."

Depending on how you think about it, it could be argued that the first amendment is a plan to regulate speech or, at least, a plan to categorically prevent the regulation of free speech.

I hope that helps to clarify my perspective on what I consider to be pure disingenuous sophistry and a blatantly misleading specious comparison.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: greencmp
Lamentably, If I am correct, you will not get either of those things.

Fortunately, you're not correct.

Google has indicated that if this passes, they will accelerate the rollout of Google Fiber.

We will just have to wait and see, whatever we used to have is now gone.

Whatever we now have is unknown.

originally posted by: greencmp
We will just have to wait and see, whatever we used to have is now gone.

I just don't understand where disinformation like that comes from. Seriously.

Every aspect of the summary, and comments from industry insiders in favor of Net Neutrality who have seen the new rules, are the exact opposite -- it preserves what we now have, and prevents the kind of BS Comcast pulled on Netflix.

From what I took out of the decision reached today, it's a win for 'the little guy'.

Take that, throttlers.

The regulatory agency voted 3-2 Thursday in favor of rules aimed at enforcing what's called "net neutrality." That's the idea that service providers shouldn't intentionally block or slow web traffic, creating paid fast lanes on the Internet.
The new rules say that any company providing a broadband connection to your home or phone would have to act in the public interest and conduct business in ways that are "just and reasonable.”

www.ctvnews.ca...

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: greencmp
We will just have to wait and see, whatever we used to have is now gone.

I just don't understand where disinformation like that comes from. Seriously.

Every aspect of the summary, and comments from industry insiders in favor of Net Neutrality who have seen the new rules, are the exact opposite -- it preserves what we now have, and prevents the kind of BS Comcast pulled on Netflix.

It is not disinformation.

I know that you think that because you are a player in the industry, you have a greater stake in the results of this power grab because you think it will help you. Maybe it will and maybe it won't.

Besides my surprise at your unquestioning confidence that it will be the former, I don't think you represent the best interests of industry outsiders even if it is the former.

a reply to: smarterthanyou

I'm worried about the effects on ISP's and how it will affect consumer usage.

Don't worry , we have had net neutrality principles since the beginning of the internet and up to the beginning of this year and it handled the consumer usage without any issues.

originally posted by: greencmp
It is not disinformation.

Unfortunately, it is.

It's parroted sound bytes which were devised by the big corporate ISP's and media conglomerates who want to slow-down unfavored Internet content in a tiered Internet that is subject to corporate censorship.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: greencmp
It is not disinformation.

Unfortunately, it is.

It's parroted sound bytes which were devised by the big corporate ISP's and media conglomerates who want to slow-down unfavored Internet content in a tiered Internet that is subject to corporate censorship.

All of my statements which are not surrounded by quotes are my own.

I would thank you not to presume that I am a plagiarist, a liar or a fool.

Who decides what is "just and reasonable" ? What we have right now (well before this bill was passed) is traffic shaping by all the major ISPs except Verizon, to my understanding. There are Qos protocols, and traffic shaping algorithms handled by ISPs. The physical infrastructure stays the same, so the same hard limitations of the lines exist, the same customers exist, all that may change is marketing strategies, different parts of the equation.

ISPs have different traffic shaping policies, but for simplicity sake, let's assume 95% of users enjoy for the most part limited throttling. This would include pretty much just Qos, so the sites will all load the same, but the individual content may vary in buffer size, stutter depending on line loading, and such. The 5%, power users, as they're called, are given more interest and throttled depending on how each ISP deals with these users.

That's where we were. Now, what exactly was being proposed outside of net neutrality? Just a more open way of throttling. Shifting from the power users, to the power websites, I think. In the process, the marketing could capitalize on this, and repackage traffic tiers at two levels, to my understanding. Content providers, so with the servers going to users, then again with users wishing to reach servers. Right now we have the latter in the form of internet packages ISPs give to end users. I think the proposal was to further tier out relations, or peering between the content provider and their customers/consumers of the traffic.

We kinda already have this. ISPs pay for premium peering with different ranked upstream providers. It's a matter of quality, overall, but comes down to reliability and speed. I guess what I'm trying to get at, is this net neutrality seems to simplify the equation, but I think that puts pressures on the ISP to drop everyone equally to keep their lines from saturating. Somewhere in the equation the variables must be rebalanced.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

SO, I know you've posted your thoughts on this before, but just for the sake of the thread, where do you stand on this?

You want the fast lanes? Or are you in favor of something like we have in Canada, where all of it is treated equal? I know there's been a lot of disinformation on either side.

~Tenth

How have you been affected in Canada?

"Anything deemed legal"

Not to be negative, but i predict massive filtering now.

That pretty much already covers torrents, most youtubes(copyrights), speech that could entcite a riot(for public safety). Banning ats? Whatever new law they can think of.

Kind of like aca. Gaining control of the most powerful system in the country, under the guise of a small problem.
Instead of legislating laws against corp like "no refusal for pre-existing conditions"

A no throttling law can be passed without a complete handover of control to the internet.

That was a bizarre mtg...it looked to be getting destroyed, then they just passed it.

a reply to: TonyS

We haven't been really, everything is the same as it was prior to the whole debacle. We have no fast lane, none of the ISP's here complain about it either. At least not enough for me to have noticed, and I worked in telecom for a lot of years.

The issue we have in Canada is cost, because of lack of competition. Canada pays some of the highest fees in the world from a dollar per Gigabit standpoint.

~Tenth