FCC approves plan to regulate Internet

Originally posted by Aquarius1
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

What a nightmare Proto, contracts don't mean anything in this day and age, you have to be a New York lawyer to even begin to understand these contracts, as you know they are always in their favor, sure they didn't expect someone like you to come along and enforce their ridiculous contract, good for you for not letting them get away with it.

I am sure most people just go along feeling they have no alternative, you should start a business helping people get their contracts enforced.

The companies have said the rules would provide some regulatory certainty. In private, they have acknowledged the proposal could have been much worse. If approved, they “will give some assurances to the companies that are building Web applications — companies like Netflix, Skype and Google — that they will get even treatment on broadband networks,” Ms. Arbogast said.

www.nytimes.com...

All kidding aside this is what was happening, companies such as the ones above were having their services severely impacted and then economically threatened because certain Internet Service Providers were deliberately limiting the broadband width of their customers to these sites, often because the Internet Service Providers were discovered to have similiar competing services.

They felt if they limited your bandwitdth to these sites that you would eventually use their own paid applications for similiar things, instead of your FREE MARKET CHOICE to do bussiness with who you choose.

Now when you test your connection speed and it's at 1.5MB on a test, but you check your download speed from Netflix and it's at 28K well obviously something is going on.

When you then call Netflix to inquire why the broadband is so slow, because your connection speed is currently testing at 1.5 MBs and you are only downloading at 28k from them and they say "Oh you are using _________ and they are limiting your bandwidth to our site" then you now know where the problem is.

What does this have to do with George Soros and Wikileaks, not a thing, in fact it prevents companies from limiting bandwitdth for your Wikileaks experience.

Further the great thing about legislation it's all part of the Public Record, you can access it online from places like the Library of Congress, and you don't have to be hostage to Bill Matthews or Glen Becks reading comprehension skills or their ratings schemes.

No one loves a good conspiracy better than I do, but the truth is when 'conspiracy theorists' get so far out there in left field, that when the conversation is about apples, that they are talking about oranges it gives those of us who are serious conspiracy theorists a bad name.

Net neutrality in a nut shell is to keep your own ISP from deciding how much speed they will allow you to have in accessing, browsing, and downloading from certain sites.

Now as someone who has confronted at least one corporation about this, listened to their BS denials, had their lawyers attempt to double talk around the issue, and realized that my ownly remedy is either allowing the company I award with my business to dictate to me (the customer is always wrong) or undergo expensive lawsuits to enforce injunctions this is in fact the government for a rare change doing something useful, why? Well evidently they like Netflix too!

reply to post by SilentStigma


The people of the internet will react though. It will lead to a scattering of the net. There will be a demand for net that isn't controlled. I would bet that new internets start to pop up. Just completely independent. :Like "deep web" but not as dedicated at sharing vile stuff like what the "deep web" is know for.

will allow Internet service providers to charge customers based on the amount of bandwidth they use.

this will cause big problems.
Sites with a lot of flash advertising or other high bandwidth hogs will cause you to pay a lot more.

What if your service provider starts feeding you a lot of high bandwidth flash advertising just to increase there profits

Another problem is sites like ATS use Advertising to pay for there site.
Because of this people coming to ATS will ether have to pay more or drop ATS.

like all government regulatory agencies the FCC will have a advisory board for input from Internet users to help them come up with there regulations.

I have seen first hand how advisory boards work.
I have been on forest service and Bureau of Land Management public land use advisory boards.
they are loaded with Special Interest Groups and run so that the public is the ones that have the LEAST INPUT.

With the Internet there is no public group that represents the general public Internet users.
(here is something that ATS could help with. I am working on a thread to fallow)

Religious groups will try to send there representatives.
Big business will send there's and payoff the FCC to get there way.
The IPSs will try to control the Internet to maximize there profit

The least represented will be the public Internet users because if no group is strong enough the claim the represent the public the FCC WILL put there own shill in that will do just what the FCC and special interest groups want.

I call for a PUBLIC INTERNET USERS UNION to represent the PUBLIC

If the public does not have a group to represent the PUBLIC there is a group that will stand up and claim the job.

That group will be ANONYMOUS and we WILL have a INTERNET WAR.

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by Bunken Drum

 

Good line of thought. But when that foot belongs to the fedgov, it best be more than a simple stomp.

Indeed. Still, they got Al Capone but they didn't get what became the Chicago Machine that put Obama in office, did they? Ordinary people can do extraordinary things, when sufficiently motivated. The thing to remember is that The Government doesn't really exist in the way it portrays itself. Its just a bunch of people, most of whom are just implementing decisions they dont even understand. They are vulnerable, just like anyone else.

This opens up a deep path to limiting the information flow and the quality of information. Irregardless of what this initial statement says, it will allow those agencys in the event of an emergency or crisis such as 911 to "regulate" traffic over the internet and limit what you could possibly learn about anything related.

See Proto's earlier post.

In fact, from what the Fox article says, it seems like the exact opposite, ie the regs are to stop private companies from censoring content. The Govt will always find ways to censor media. Thats a given. It doesn't matter what the law is, now that tech exists to analyse data packets for content, the Govt will use it. Even if it takes some MIB to turn up to an office & say "Do as you're told or its Gitmo."

In the meantime, sites like ATS where we can openly say that the most humane thing to do with Rupert Murdoch would be to divest him of all wealth & exile him to a small island where he cant do any more harm (I'd suggest Elba as ironically appropriate) can now not be disadvantaged by ISPs being leaned on by the likes of Murdoch.

I guess some of those self described "serious theorists" have missed the core on this. It isn't about bandwidth as thats an old issue that anyone who pays their DSL or T1 bill can determine is a joke when compared to other ISPs if they travel at all and connect in different parts of the nation. One ISP in Myrtle Beach limits what they sell to customers because they divy it up into 3 different tiers offered and thus, 3 different price rates compared to what I refer to as a legitimate ISP business in Montana who provides their customers with unfiltered, un-tampered with DSL at its full speed.

However this isn't what this is about and if "some folk" were indeed serious conspiracy types as they like to state then they could see the storm brewing on the horizon in terms of what this represents in regards to big bro control, consumer limitations on their internet experience and just plain ol' freedom of the internet as we have known up to this point. Any government regulation will result in manipulation of consumers via price wars, speed/bandwidth pricing tiers, surveillance and so on. This is a bad deal all the way around regardless of who you are or like to think you are.

reply to post by Bunken Drum


I see a certain few attempting to take one part of the story then run with it all the while being blinded by their own "intelligence" which is preventing them from seeing the bigger picture here. Bandwidth is the starting point for other things of regulation that will manifest itself within a nefarious context. This is the first step to control just like Obama stated he wanted to do in regards to conspiracy theorys.

reply to post by ANNED

will allow Internet service providers to charge customers based on the amount of bandwidth they use.

this will cause big problems.
Sites with a lot of flash advertising or other high bandwidth hogs will cause you to pay a lot more.

Once again this is a mistatement, service providers arlready charge different rates for bandwidth use. Most providers sell 'packages or bundles' based on bandwidth speed, the cheapest programs cap the download speeds the most expensive allow for the fastest download speed.

Having said that, some download speeds offered are actually faster than some older computers ability to process them rapidly.

What really is at stake here is are wireless providers going to be as competitive as land line networks as streaming apps take up more and more bandwidth to use.

Right now the landlines have he advantage in typically they don't limit download speed to some apps.

However as more people go wireless application companies like Netflix and Amazon are facing huge hurdles as people using wireless accounts are typically gated and limited in their down load speeds.

Suplly and demand then becomes a key issue, why would I want to pay 69.95 a month to sprint to limit my speed on select apps, while for 29.95 on Comcast they aren't limiting the speed on select apps. So yeah sprint can try to say for 89.95 a month they won't limit the speed, but now they are priced way above other competitors that don't limit speed.

The long and short of it, is it has nothing to do with net-censorship.

Some of us are old enough to remember when AOL was the only dial up service provider and you paid by the minute for Internet Access, ever seen a 800.00 per month AOL bill? I have!

"To the extent that Netflix’s growth plan anticipates significant mobile subscribership, wireless carriers’ network management decisions could have a material impact on Netflix’s mobile offering," he wrote

voices.washingtonpost.com...

This is what's really at stake for some companies, Netflix would like to increase market share, but is facing a tough environment if increasing market share means obtaining more wireless costomers if those wireless customers aren't being given adequate download speeds from wireless services to watch netflix.

So this leaves a couple of possibilities, one is can the wirelesc companies come up with a reliable and fairly priced service to allow people to do that, makes people foresake cheaper land lines for more convenient wirless lines.

Two if not, will netflix subsidize these companies and offer to pay a premium themselves to not have bandwidth limited to wireless customers so they can expand their market. (once again it's all a cost based versus profit issue).

Three if people are willing to pay more for mobile connections that will allow them unlimited speed on all apps, how much more will they pay.

Right now Congress is looking at this as an 'unfair trade practice', are wireless providers deliberately penalizing companies like Netflix that they have no profit sharing from, while in essence looking for ways to up the price of service to other you the consumer or them the app provider to ensure whether you have a 3.0MB land or wireless connection you are getting the same bandwitdh speed from either, using the same application like Net Flix.

Because all these corporations are huge, and layered in lawyers who basically forumulate the policies that they then impose on the consumers who are under 'contract', you do need a more powerful entity with deep pockets who can take them on, lawyer for lawyer hearing for hearing, and that's the U.S. Government in this case.

Ultimately any private funded action by a consumer watch dog group needs Government approval through the courts anyway to make it binding.

No finally, here is the rub, because it's the government at the end of a bitter election cycle you have different politicians selling this legislation which is in fact still in the committee stages in different ways, some say it will be derailed and it will be left up to the service providers who will dictate to you anyway what the terms are going to be, if they aren't regulated.

Some politicians claim it doesn't go far enough because it considers that the wireless companies have more costs involved than land line companies and should have more leeway.

Some want to not touch it at all.

Yet at this stage each politician and each news outlet is simply representing it how they want their constiguents or viewers to react to it.

Best advice, wait to the legislation gets out of committee and comes up for a real vote.

Read the legislation yourself and see what it's wording really is based on your own assessment and not the politicians or media hacks posturing.

There really is a real problem right now in how broad band companies especially wireless ones are delivering their product. They are limiting bandwidth to companies that require a lot of bandwith to use their services.

I personally don't consider that right, if they bandwitdth being advertised is available then it should be used regardless of the app, and not just the apps they want you to have fast access to.

Something needs to be done.

I am as anti-government as anyone on these boards, the corporations are just as bad and in some cases worse than the government, the more of a monopoly they have, the more dictatorial they become, the more they attempt to price gouge, the less service they provide, and the more grief they give you when trying to get service.

They the corporations have their customer service reps, supervisors and managers so hamstrung with policies written by their attorneys that it really has gotten to the point you practically have a law degree and the ability to convince the reps, supervisors,and managers you are going to make their life a living hell, if they don't just put you with their lawyers to solve the problem.

There is not much difference between the sheppard (the corporate monopoly) and the Government (the wolve).

They both need addressed, because they are both sucking the life out of us, fortunately there are a few things politicians are still dependent upon, airlines and internet service providers are two of them.

I think we are all missing the point... Who gave the FCC the athority to do this in the first place?

Congress didn't but then again who knows with those trators.

It's like the ATF deciding to regulate bows and arrows.

The FCC must reverse this course let the Consumer decide and put pressure on the ISP's.

We do not need the FCC to play the role of the babysitter Goverment does enough screw things up as it is already.

Two things I have learned from my stay at ATS:

1.) A lot of people here are extremely religious. Which is not unsurprising considering the close ties between conspiratorial thought and religion (see the Wikipedia page on the psychology of conspiracy theories for further details). This extremely religious nature is also closely tied with Christian evangelicalism and right-wing views in the United States especially. Right-wing views lead to people hating on Obama (although he is a bad president) and anything remotely looked at as interfering with their rights (despite their moral policy interfering with society's rights). Hence why so many here are ranting against this.

2.) No one here really understands anything about I.T. or I.T. law. Slashdot covered this issue too and the consensus is that the telecom industries' propaganda is making the masses that much more ignorant (as you can see in this thread) considering net neutrality is DESIRED and NEEDED for a free Internet. And guess what, the FCC caved in to most of the telecom industry's demands, making their vote on this matter pretty much lip service alone. So please America, if you haven't learned to question your sources, your reasoning, and objectively examine the evidence, please don't vote. You're screwing up the country with your uneducated and illogical reasoning...it's not the fault of the "liberal" media, Obama, or the "homosexual agenda."

Here is an explanation of what the FCC could do.

The Commission has three options for going forward. First, it can decide not to reclassify the Internet at all, continuing to treat it as an information service. Second, the FCC can completely reclassify the Internet as a telecommunications service, granting the Commission broad powers over it. Third, it could seek a middle ground, reclassifying the Internet as a telecom service but exempting Internet providers from most of the regulations associated with other telecommunications services.

This last approach, presented at the hearing as the “third way,” is the preferred avenue of Genachowski, who unveiled the plan in May.

The “third way” approach would still allow the government the authority to heavily regulate the Internet because it would be classified as a telecom service. However, under this approach, the FCC claims it will exercise “forbearance,” a regulatory doctrine whereby the government promises not use its regulatory authority in most cases.

Commissioner Michael Copps, at the FCC, sought to frame the issue in terms of consumer protection, claiming that “consumers find themselves in quite a box” because government, he claimed, had been “all but shorn” of the authority to regulate Internet service.

Copps said he was “worried” about relying purely on the private sector for Internet-based innovation, saying that the problems of such an approach could be seen in the 2008 financial collapse and the recent Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

“We need to reclaim our authority,” Copps said.

FCC seal
Robert McDowell, the commission’s longest-serving Republican member, said the commission should preserve the free Internet of today, adding that more Internet freedom would be in the public interest.

CNS

reply to post by Evanescence


1- Get off your pedestal.
2- Obama said he wanted to do this. very well documented if you care to do some reading.
3- Post within the thread topic or stay away.

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by Evanescence

 

1- Get off your pedestal.
2- Obama said he wanted to do this. very well documented if you care to do some reading.
3- Post within the thread topic or stay away.

edit on 12/21/2010 by mikelee because: Spelling

1.) Read a little about what net neutrality actually is.
2.) The telecom industry's lying and propaganda really works well on the people here. Believe whatever your corporate overlords and demagogues tell you like good sheep.
3.) The thread topic is on net neutrality, what I said was entirely relevant to the assertions therein.

Net neutrality is good. The industry's innovation and regulation complaint is completely misleading. Net neutrality REGULATION is against telecom industry's doing WHATEVER THEY WANT to make your Internet surfing LESS FREE.

Everyone here woke up on the wrong side of the issue.

EDIT: The current requirements and such set forth by the FCC is a cave-in to telecom industry demands. In its current form it is ridiculous.

reply to post by Evanescence


Neutrality of the net IS good but thats not the point of REGULATION of the internet.

Definition of Regulate (Wikipedia Dictionary) -

is "controlling human or societal behavior by rules or restrictions."[1] Regulation can take many forms: legal restrictions promulgated by a government authority, self-regulation by an industry such as through a trade association, social regulation (e.g. norms), co-regulation and market regulation. One can consider regulation as actions of conduct imposing sanctions (such as a fine). This action of administrative law, or implementing regulatory law, may be contrasted with statutory or case law.

Regulation mandated by a state attempts to produce outcomes which might not otherwise occur, produce or prevent outcomes in different places to what might otherwise occur, or produce or prevent outcomes in different timescales than would otherwise occur. In this way, regulations can be seen as implementation artifacts of policy statements. Common examples of regulation include controls on market entries, prices, wages, Development approvals, pollution effects, employment for certain people in certain industries, standards of production for certain goods, the military forces and services. The economics of imposing or removing regulations relating to markets is analysed in regulatory economics.

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by Evanescence

 

Neutrality of the net IS good but thats not the point of REGULATION of the internet.

Definition of Regulate (Wikipedia Dictionary) -

is "controlling human or societal behavior by rules or restrictions."[1] Regulation can take many forms: legal restrictions promulgated by a government authority, self-regulation by an industry such as through a trade association, social regulation (e.g. norms), co-regulation and market regulation. One can consider regulation as actions of conduct imposing sanctions (such as a fine). This action of administrative law, or implementing regulatory law, may be contrasted with statutory or case law.

Regulation mandated by a state attempts to produce outcomes which might not otherwise occur, produce or prevent outcomes in different places to what might otherwise occur, or produce or prevent outcomes in different timescales than would otherwise occur. In this way, regulations can be seen as implementation artifacts of policy statements. Common examples of regulation include controls on market entries, prices, wages, Development approvals, pollution effects, employment for certain people in certain industries, standards of production for certain goods, the military forces and services. The economics of imposing or removing regulations relating to markets is analysed in regulatory economics.

My point is that people are getting the two mixed up.

I agree with everyone here that regulation is bad in most cases. But no regulation gives free reign to telecom giants to prioritize content how they see fit. The 2008 financial crisis occurred because of a lack of regulation entirely! The OTC derivatives market was a black box of unregulated problems that brought the world to its knees.

The telecom industry is playing the "regulation card" though to deceive so many by saying it will inhibit their freedoms to expand and increase their costs. They aren't innovative because they don't have to be! They are lying through their teeth and deceiving so many. They like the power to screw consumers over however they wish and they don't want the FCC to actually restrict them doing so. So their PR campaign worked wonders on both the public and the FCC members.

Of course I would like to see minimal regulation as possible, but we need net neutrality regulations to guarantee consumer freedoms. The EFF and most of the tech community agrees on this and those groups are about as minimal Internet regulation as you can get.

From 2009 article:

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

Source

Regulation was the next step in this bill and by doing so it gives the fedgov total control at all times rather than just during an emergency or one deemed by the fed. This is control people and its getting out of hand but into our daily lives. Deny it all you wish to but it is what it is.

what exactly is going on here? I have had no complaint on the workings of the internets since its inception.
It is free open ,My connection is almost 24X the speed i had when i had prodigy dialup in the 90s.

Sir these fcc people are lieing about neutrality of any sort.

I have had no problems navigating to anything on the internet. These government pigs are out of there mind creating problems where none exists.

reply to post by mikelee

The rules would prohibit phone and cable companies from abusing their control over broadband connections to discriminate against rival content or services, such as Internet phone calls or online video, or play favorites with Web traffic.

Looks like net neutrality won. They regulated it right into freedom for the end user. No 'toll roads', so to speak.

reply to post by mikelee

I see a certain few attempting to take one part of the story then run with it all the while being blinded by their own "intelligence" which is preventing them from seeing the bigger picture here.

I'm going to get to the rest of your post later. For now, I see you pretty much ignoring the arguments I've put to you & now attempting subtle ad hom to distract from that.
Notice I'm not being subtle. Its a cultural trait from the North of England: we say what we mean & mean what we say (in my case, I'll use subtlety when it'll do a better job - still, I've travelled a lot ). This trait was reinforced in us as kids by whats known as "a clip round the ear". Tings is diffrent now, seen? Coz we is all like gangsta, innit? If you catch my drift. Hey ho. The pendulum swings. I just hope it doesn't swing back too far towards how things were when I was growing up.

Its the same with the US Govt. There was a time when an American hard working, productive member of the community could have a couple of unfortunate problems, get foreclosed on by a bank, unceremoniously booted off land their ancestors had literally had to defend & left as a bum with no prospects other than pan-handling & crime. The pendulum swung. By the 60s, a blue-collar worker could reasonably expect to support a wife & 3 kids on his wage alone, have a reasonable standard of living with mod cons, 2 cars & put the kids through college. If the wife worked it was usually part-time for a little extra for treats &/or b/c she was bored. The pendulum swung...

Yes, your govt is screwing you. Its doing its best to screw me too, its just having to wait in line behind the twisted freaks we've got in Westminster that are making the most of having me over a barrel. Its just that govts also have to give a little now & then, or we peasants revolt. IDK if this is such an occasion, but its worth exploring for possibilities.