Slashdot Mirror
Confirmed: FCC Will Try To Regulate Internet Under Title II
An anonymous reader writes: FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has published an op-ed explaining how and why the FCC will "use its Title II authority to implement and enforce open internet protections." He says, "These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone's permission. ... To preserve incentives for broadband operators to invest in their networks, my proposal will modernize Title II, tailoring it for the 21st century, in order to provide returns necessary to construct competitive networks. For example, there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling. Over the last 21 years, the wireless industry has invested almost $300 billion under similar rules, proving that modernized Title II regulation can encourage investment and competition."
Where's the "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense" tag? Actually useful for once!
"I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
It could have been easy to get along and keep doing what they were doing, but no, Verizon has to go and sue in court. They had to challenge the weaker rules, force Wheeler's hand and cause this to happen.
It's their own fault here.
They brought it on themselves in a very real, legally binding way.
I couldn't be gloating any harder than I am right now.
Oh god I think I am going to have decent internet!
srsly
> my proposal includes a general conduct rule that can be used to stop new and novel threats to the internet
Confirmed for SOPA 7.0.
I'm not sure I'd be bragging about the FCC making AOL possible. Just saying...
http://www.dailydot.com/politi...
I do worry about what the whole "lawful content" thing is about and will really mean down the road.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband.
Anyone worried that this is already starting to water down?
The current mess is mostly due to local government (municipalities) imposed monopolies. So yes, government can do no right. This whole net neutrality is just trying to regulate the regulation, ie. bad policing.
...that the FCC now endorses Net Neutrality? It was unclear from reading the above. Will I still have to buy a TV service to view footage available on the internet?
The government actually did something people wanted, the president actually supported, and the FCC actually agreed with that a republican controlled house and senate couldn't shit on? Im shocked but I think i can shed a little light on what this regulation actually means for us Americans.
1. "Its Comcastic" can no longer be a punchline or an exclamation of furious rage
2. the libraries of congress will download at the same speed, but the ghost of Grover Cleveland will no longer be present to slow down the ASICS in the switch fabric.
3. healthcare.gov will now work for up to 9 simultaneous connections at speeds of up to 14.4kbps
4. Myspace's "Tom" will now attend funerals in person and apply blingies to the casket at no extra charge
5. The Supreme Court will now be given actual tubes of fresh, warm internet to help learn what it is. Clarence Thomas will now be rotated twice during his naps to prevent sores.
Good people go to bed earlier.
The op-ed is promising. Can we see the text of this proposal?
Now let's see if it actually happens. There's plenty of time yet for lobbyists and donors to flood the final process with blood money. The D.C. news (not talk) radio station WTOP already runs big biz shill organization ads carping about "innovation" and "serving our customers".
Of course, we'll also get a big dose of nonsensical Randian rhetoric about the Imaginary (oh, sorry, "Invisible") Hand of the marketplace, all .gov is teh evilz, etc.
So it remains to be seen if this is a real prelude to a long-overdue action or just a PR stance designed to quiet the lowing populist herd and get the money pumps running again.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
If paid prioritization isn't permitted, does this mean Netflix has to pull their servers and routers from Comcasts' data centers? And how does that benefit me again?
I'm concerned about the wording used in the announcement when he says "I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband". Does this mean the Terms will only apply to mobile users?
HERE'S ONE NOW. You lot are like conspiracy theorists: we can poke holes in your pet theories all day, but there's always one more angle you can think of to preserve your epistemic bubble.
Same old, same old.
The FCC has good intentions with this, and it will nominally achieve what it intends to: uniform pricing for Internet content without prioritization.
However, it will also have unintended and negative consequences. For example, it removes the incentive for providers to switch to VoIP, since they can continue to charge differently for non-Internet services. They may even resurrect non-IP delivery of video, available only on their own special handsets.
And it disincentivizes companies from giving you a deal like free service in return for prioritizing their content and ads. Now, they have to operate like any other carrier, meaning they will charge like any other carrier too. We'll never know whether Netflix, Google, Facebook, or other companies would have offered cheap or free Internet access that way because they aren't even going to try.
Finally, this kind of interference also causes uncertainty: once the FCC has started regulating the Internet this way, a line has been crossed. Though they promise that they aren't going to do this or that because they don't want to discourage investments, the situation is now that the FCC can pretty much change the rules whenever they like, with no warning and no legal recourse. Companies will be less likely committing large amounts of money on long-term projects if the value of those investments can be decreased dramatically overnight at the whim of the FCC chairman.
Overall, these FCC rules basically just cement what geeks right now consider the best scenario given the status quo. It's unlikely that that's a good long-term solution.
Where nothing was actually blocked?? Bullshit. You never tried hosting a mail server on a Comcast residential cable modem, did you?
Wheeler is talking about applying these rules to MOBILE BROADBAND. That means Sprint and others are at a disadvantage compared to Comcast, who will benefit from the more intense regulation of their competitors.
Unbelievable: the regulation is to have no regulation now that competition has been squashed.
(1) Take our existing monopolies,
(2) Let them tie their TV and entertainment services to any internet access
(3) Let them to charge people as much as they want
In wireless, the main incremental cost of a new customer is marketing and support, but in broadband you have to lease or build your own wires, so there is a huge advantage for first movers (hence the current local monopolies held by 3-4 companies). Now wireless is the only competition for broadband. Oh, and it's controlled by... 3 monopolists.
Now I see why the same companies overpaid in the last wireless spectrum auction: to control both the wireless and the broadband markets. That was prescient.
And now I see why net neutrality grew as a meme in government: it provides political cover and confusion as the government herds consumers into the arms of the monopolists. Much like the "Affordable Care Act"
Step 1: Torrent Linux releases
Step 2: Wait for ISP to throttle downloads
Step 3: Sue the ever-loving bejeezus out of them
I've been following this rather passively, but all of this talk seems to only mention specific internet access methods: broadband and/or mobile broadband. However, we know there are a myriad of parallel methods, from satellite to dial-up. Unless all US Internet access is brought under Title II, the market will attempt to shift toward whichever methods are most exploitable for profit.
As a Libertarian fucktard - I support net neutrality.
Would I have preferred corporate America came to that decision on their own? Sure! And I'll take a unicorn, as long as you have enough for everyone.
Keep in mind, before you go whining about those more fiscally responsible than yourself, that that the very abuses that net neutrality address exist because of government interference - Giving the telecoms local monopoly powers, limited right of eminent domain (an outright abomination in any context), and in many states, flatly banning public competition even in towns (like my own) that won't see cable or DSL until the next infernal ice age because the telecoms have zero interest in serving the "last mile". Not to mention that whole "incorporation" bullshit in the first place.
Rant on, though! Never let facts stand in the way of demonizing your political enemies.
Next you'll be complaining how the big providers have bought off the regulators.
And you will deserve that when it happens.
FEDGOV regulators including FCC are in a monologue with themself. No recourse.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=20668883&postcount=180
That wasn't blocked due to any government action.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
how will they freely spy on the peasants and they need the internet to provide the entertainment needed to keep the peasants occupied while they do they spying and rights eradication.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Bingo. Bitorrent is not and never has been illegal. What people put on it might be but the protocol is not. Just like someone hacking into the white house does not make my computer an illegal device due to it having the ability to do something illegal.
...but we already know that Comcast and Verizon are the Antichrist in corporate form. I am concerned about the details of the implementation but this *should* be a very positive thing for those who actually use the Internet instead of just acting as its tolltakers.
Against your terms of service by any chance?
That is the last thing we need is the government interferring and not allowing us to get service or upgrades. Here in Seattle we have probably the strongest control of access by any city, and much of the city is still on dial-up. The block where I live can't get cable TV or cable Internet because of the city's iron-fisted rule. Google for "director's rule seattle internet" and you'll find millions of results. Not all are valid, but there are thousands and thousands of complains about the government not allowing us to have fast access. I have 160 kbps CenturyLink DSL at home:
http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3840461248
And, that is the fastest connection I can get. As in most of Seattle, satellilte is not an option because you need a very low line of sight to the southern horizen. The city knows that isn't an option.
Oh, so its ok then if your ISP blocks it as an anti-competition measure and claims its "for your protection?" That's the exact type of crap to which Title II is meant to put a stop.
And you're exactly like them.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...
Don't want to rain on the parade, but I'm hoping someone more knowledgeable can chime in here: Isn't last mile unbundling the main thing we need? Doesn't this reduce competition? (the main thing that the FCC needs to artficially induce in the natural monopoly that is telecommunications?)
I'm really hoping these "modernizations" of Title II aren't just a "compromise" where the industry makes out better anyway.
He says "Mobile Broadband" That suggest to me that DSL, Cable and Fiber are not included. Which, in turn means that google and the likes cannot hang their Fiber on the existing poles and towers free of charge, or a minimal controlled or reasonable charge. Let's wait until 2/26 for the full-story before over exercising those knees? :)
Well, if this was high school debate, you'd get a point for that. Meanwhile, in the real world...
Wheeler is talking about applying these rules to MOBILE broadband. That means Sprint and others are at a disadvantage compared to Comcast, who will benefit from the more intense regulation of their competitors. Two years from now, when the new president appoints a new FCC chairman, Wheeler can go back to working directly for the cable companies and be treated as a hero.
The point being that it will be illegal to make standard usage against the terms of service going forward.
In the real world, the criticism is unanswered: hardcore libertarians are indistinguishable from conspiracy theorists.
This sounds too good to be true. And we all know what that means...
So I've got this suspicious feeling that there's some devil in the details that is gonna be a major drawback to this. Anyone got any insight into some key word or tricky phrase that might indicate an ulterior motive?
The current mess is mostly due to local government (municipalities) imposed monopolies
No, the current mess is mostly due to the fact that we've been treating the Internet like a private entertainment service rather than public telecommunication infrastructure. You're never going to get real "free market" competition out of infrastructure. By its nature, public infrastructure needs to be treated as... well, public infrastructure.
This week, I will circulate to the members of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed new rules to preserve the internet as an open platform for innovation and free expression.
Keep your fingers crossed:
Originally, I believed that the FCC could assure internet openness through a determination of “commercial reasonableness” under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. While a recent court decision seemed to draw a roadmap for using this approach, I became concerned that this relatively new concept might, down the road, be interpreted to mean what is reasonable for commercial interests, not consumers. That is why I am proposing that the FCC use its Title II authority to implement and enforce open internet protections. Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone’s permission.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
It certainly isn't the answer here in Seattle! The City Council is very anti-business and even more anti-Internet. There's a reason ISDN is still so popular here. My wife is a CenturyLink installer, and she certainly speeds more time installing or repairing POTS and ISDN lines than DSL. Of course, even when DSL is available because CenturyLink is not allowed to upgrade equipment if the replacement equipment is larger because of the city's director's rules, most people are limited to 1.5 Mbps, at best. I have CenturyLink fiber near my home, but they are not allowed to use it to provide service to the neighborhood because the city won't allow them to install a pedestal for the equipment.
My connection at home is 576 kbps. That's after my wife spent days moving around pairs of wires to get us the best ones she could. It's sad, but I consider myself lucky given what a lot of people here are suffering with. I've seen the results of strong government control. It is not good for the Internet.
I don't see anything he made a declaration of addressing any real problem that exists, at least not any wide scale or high public problem. For example, the Netflix/Comcast or Netflix/Verizon spat that seems to be the darling child of why net neutrality is needed. In order for regulation to address that problem they would need to either prohibit direct connection between networks, which essentially breaks the Internet without highly nuanced rules on top of only preventing the direct connect arrangement between Netflix and Comcast from ever being established, or they have to mandate minimum bandwidth being necessary at interconnects unless you want to get into the assinine statement that an oversaturated link is throttling.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Realistically, it makes no difference. Dynamic IP ranges are on the SORBS RBL, so even if your ISP let you send SMTP traffic off net, you'd find very, very few mail servers which would accept your mail. And, the FCC action being discussed won't change that.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Sorry, but no. It's not a fallacy if I'm not using fact of your hypocrisy as an argument. Which I wasn't. And you know it.
Your decision to imply that I was, on the other hand...
Well "net neutrality" nuts, you finally have eroded all of the efforts we pushed in the 1990's to keep government hands off of the Internet.
There many other ways this could have been avoided (such as requiring municipalities to grant franchise rights to new last-mile ISP entrants, for instance), but now the Federal government is in charge.
Lest people in other countries think you are immune, you should well know that the US Federal government will basically put its rules on the entire planet.
I hope you will be happy with the results!
You're still dodging the fact that no libertaritard is going to admit the government can do right things.
This is a legislative issue. Period. To have a "department" enact such a broad and far reaching decree is a slippery slope; and not many people in this forum seem to care.
This is yet another example of a department usurping the powers of the legislative branch, operating under what is currently the most infamous administration this country has had to endure.
Sad, sad, sad.
While it is a nice thing to allow all the startups which may challenge Netflix, etc to have a level playing field, I am puzzled as to how this is going to help the consumer.
I read "no last-mile unbundling" as a continuation of the virtual monopolies which exist today. Without competition, I am stuck with my current ISP as it has a geographic monopoly for all broadband.
Lost in space at an early age. Survived the vacuum. Now rebuilding castle in air.
Cheap, reliable, and sustainable telecommunications networks & services exist under virtually all regulatory environments imaginable from one end of the spectrum to the other. We can make any of them work as long as we aren't beholden to the few entities that stand in the way, which is essentially the current arrangement the pervades the US industry.
Apparently the opportunity to turn any and all workable solutions into an ideological shit show is more important than functioning government and quality services.
No way. He works for Obama and this is executive-overreach and will cost jobs.
There. Anyone in congress who doesn't credit me with this is line and applies it to this case is a plagiarist.
Did you people forget who's running this country? Who pays for the people that makes the laws? No way this is going to happen. Comcast is going to get a tax cut to stimulate job growth, and the FCC will be defunded before this happens.
I fear that if the Right loses on this issue (and face it: siding with the most-hated corporations of a most-hated industry is awful retail politics), they have one arrow they will pull from their quiver.
If it is re/classified under Title II, the right will quickly insist there be bans on every type pornography (with a definition that will even encompass old National Geographics), hate speech (read: not approved by their paymasters), and of course: effective, non-backdoored encryption.
Got to pound those bibles while thinking of the children, after all. #CarefullWhatYouWishFor
> local government (municipalities) imposed monopolies
Absolutely. Here in Seattle, the city council has given Comcast an iron-clad monopoly without requiring them to offer service to the entire monopoly area. Also, the city’s rules prevent CenturyLink from installing fiber to the curb without having a 60% affirmative agreement from the local residents. That is nearly impossible in most areas because of the number of empty places due to foreclosures or churn from steeply increasing rents. Also, most areas have a lot of renters so it’s hard to get to the owner to get their yes vote. CenturyLink has campaigned several times to be allowed to offer DSL in my building, and they simply couldn’t get enough votes yes. In my building, a few people have dial-up and the rest use the wireless across the street from Tully’s. It’s pretty crappy, overloaded, and kicks you off after a while, but it is the best access available where I live in Seattle. It’s sad how much government-imposed monopolies has hurt this city.
This was predicted within the past week by Cenk of The Young Turks. I thought it was an interesting analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxB8r8ls_xE
His point at the end was that the media will big it up as "Oh, the American people spoke and actually made a difference." Keep an eye out.
Apparently the opportunity to turn any and all workable solutions into an ideological shit show is more important than functioning government and quality services.
Welcome to Fox News.
Actual good news to reply to...I have no practice with this.
Actually, much of the mess is now because the state, not the municipality, imposes a monopoly preventing municipalities from competing.
You mean just because my construction crew built the highway, we don't get to charge tolls for it and choose which traffic drives? How is that fair?!
I'm not dodging anything, because I don't need to. At no point have I defended libertarianism. All I have done is point out the fact that you are acting just like you say they do. And all you have done is prove me right.
No last mile unbundling! That's the core issue. That's what causes this nonsense is no real competition in the marketplace! This means you still have to deal with shitty companies like Comcast and Verizon because in many cases you have no other choice. It's a broken market. They should have forced last mile competition that would not only solve the net neutrality issue it would have lowered cost and increased speed and access.
I feel like he's really saying well look ISPs looks like our swindle is not going to fly with the icky proles but at least I will protect your duopolies so be thankful for that.
I'm a little confused. You've recognized that the free market wouldn't have come to this conclusion on their own, implying that government intervention was necessary. But then you condemn the government for bowing to free market demands for things like local monopoly powers, banning public competition, etc? So you'd prefer that local governments boycott big business until they cow to the demands of Small Town USA, and deprive their residents of access to what is arguably a modern necessity?
No, you won't. Do you get a choice for power provider? Water? Gas? If ISPs are going to be regulated like utilities, expect they'll keep their monopolies.
This just prevents them from getting too tyrannical. (Some tyranny not excluded, only applies to offers available in your area, etc, etc)
Our options:
A.) Incompetent government regulation causing some inconveniences and waste.
B.) A corporate boardroom full of sociopaths telling me what I can and can't do with an "unlimited" network connection that I require to do my job.
Option A is the lesser of two evils. Internet service is no longer a "luxury", it's basically required to do business and even attend public school now. It's a utility and needs to be regulated like one to keep those greedy bastards from gouging us, killing innovation and hampering network performance for profit.
As screwed up and brutal as our government is, and as much as I think regime change is necessary..... I trust Verizon and AT&T even less.
If Netflix and other content providers are paying the cable companies costs, but aren't allowed to pay the mobile providers' costs, that means mobile providers have to charge the customer more than Comcast does.
In other words, Netflix customers using mobile broadband pay Netflix, then Netflix uses that money to pay Comcast. In effect, mobile users will be subsidizing Comcast.
There is no TRY.... Only DO.
Get off your asses, tell the CEO of Comcast to stuff it in his pie-hole and just do it.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I'm afraid you're right, sir. The KKK still runs the party.
Well "net neutrality" nuts, you finally have eroded all of the efforts we pushed in the 1990's to keep government hands off of the Internet.
Yeah, because the government isn't involved at all in regulating the internet until now. NOT. The DMCA is but one example of existing regulation, and monopolies _require_ regulation for a market to function at all in the interests of the purchaser (and not just the monopolist). In many areas broadband is a monopoly offered by one provider, and in most others the choices are so few, and the collusion on pricing and contract details so massive (don't try to tell me Comcast having the same contract clauses, limitations, and similar pricing to Verizon and RCN is a coincidence ... only a libertarian with his head firmly in the sand could believe that for a moment), that there is little effective choice.
The internet should have been made a common carrier, but failing that, falling under Title II is about as good as it gets. The alternative would be a continuation of the strangling of the internet as a free space for all to participate, in favor of toll roads only the wealthiest can afford to use, while the rest of us are relegated into either passive content-consumer roles, or throttled presences whose posts on facebook are about the only content we're allowed to serve up without paying ComCast, TimeWarner, et. al. a fortune.
All I'm hearing is "la la I can't hear you", admittedly a time-honored tactic among the Austrians, whose credo is "if our model doesn't match reality, then reality is wrong".
Yeah, the obvious way the industry was heading without regulation was WAY BETTER than what will happen now. NOT...
As a Libertarian....And I'll take a unicorn, as long as you have enough for everyone.
Socialist libertarian, eh? You're the unicorn that you want everyone to have!
Well its government regulation vs. the affects of prior government regulation, to say that at some point there was really no regulation of broadband in some facility would be misleading.
You're hearing that because you want to hear it, not because I said it.
You are as dogmatic as you say Libertarians are. You are exactly like them. Just as I said.
This will be the end of the internet, Handing it to the government on a platter. No surprise the left has been pushing this everywhere, now magically the FCC is pushing for it? Yeah no.
Not only that, but the FCC originally had set in place extremely weak net neutrality regulations. Keeping those rules would have essentially meant the big ISPs would have had free reign to do whatever they wanted to do. Verizon didn't like this though. 99% free reign wasn't enough for them so they sued and forced the FCC to make new rules.
So not only would it have been preferable for the corporations to do this on their own, but one of them is to blame for these stricter regulations because they got too greedy.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Don't get too confused. All libertarians support government intervention in markets. They are only complaining about regulations that they don't like. Instead of admitting that they are have different priorities about what government should regulate than other people (you know, just like all people do) they use an obviously hollow rhetorical device (regulations bad) to try to convince others that their way is the only objectively true way. It just occasionally becomes obvious like in GP's post.
NO U. Do you have something intelligent to add? This is like arguing with an eight-year-old.
Why? Is it because they have an actual theory as to why your paternalistic government policies seem to always fail unless continually fed off of the very lives of those who can not escape?
I don't think you're libertarian, even if you identify yourself as such.
Government regulation can be both bad and good. You know this. You've pointed this out in the very post I'm replying to. There are situations that deal with the public good and interest where government has to step in. There are situations where government should sit the fuck out. In this situation, even you recognize the government has to regulate. You've also recognized that the government shouldn't have regulated local communications monopolies into existence. The key is knowing when the government should regulate, and when it shouldn't.
The writers of the Article of Confederation found this out the hard way. That's why they rewrote it into what's now the Constitution. This country needs a strong central government. Just not too strong. Industries need government regulations. Just not too much.
That's not a libertarian ideal. But it is a sensical one.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Yeah, that's very much in line with what I'm pointing out.
I don't have a problem with a private contractor being used to actually build and maintain the road. I would be very uneasy allowing the private company to then "own" vital sections of road and charging whatever tolls they like. It would be so much worse if they could block some vehicles, charge different tolls for different vehicles, and set different speed limits for different vehicles, without even needing to provide a reason or rationale.
So imagine that I own a company called "Road America Inc." and we own the roads going in and out of your town. Imagine I'm allowed to say, "Tolls for Ford cars are $1, and Ford cars can go 70 MPH. Tolls for Dodge are $20, and Dodge cars have a speed limit of 35 MPH." You see, I'm not owned by Ford, but I've made a deal with Ford where I get a payoff to promote their brand.
I do, however, own some of the grocery stores in your town, and I'm charging very high tolls on any vehicles that carry groceries. Somehow, all of my grocery stores have cheaper goods. Maybe it's because I use the tolls on groceries to fund those grocery stores. I've outright blocked any incoming shipments of electronics, so my electronics stores are doing very well.
Now does that seem fair?
Even with a comcast business connection, you occasionally get blocked because it's a comcast IP and people forget they actually have business service.
I host my own mail server on a comcast business package and it's a real pain sometimes.
As long as by "Free Market" you mean I can cut down Verizon and Comcast's cables off the street pole, string my own wires and shoot at Verizon or Comcast employees if they come back into my town then I am all with you... But until then I'd rather have some reasonable regulations on what the evil monopolies can legally do with the service that my government enables them to operate and that I pay for..
Ironically, they actually let you SEND mail. They just don't let you *receive* it.
Ironically, they actually let you SEND mail. They just don't let you *receive* it, so while what you're saying is technically accurate, its actually also completely irrelevant to my argument.
As an anarcho-capitalist, libertarian / objectivist I support free market, thus any government intrusion into private affairs of individuals and their business is oppression and an unwelcome development, but obviously you are within your rights to support whatever government oppression you like but that conflicts with your 'libertarian fucktardness'.
You can't handle the truth.
I did say I was only a little confused. But I do appreciate you looking out for me.
This is why the government "interference" is required in the first place, Libertarian fucktard.
I don't respond to AC's.
such as requiring municipalities to grant franchise rights to new last-mile ISP entrants, for instance
BTW, That's been law since the 1992 Cable Act. Raise your hand if you have the billion dollars or so required to wire up a metropolis from scratch! Oh! I see Google has their hand up, anyone else? Anyone? Uh, Tucows, is that you? You do know that Charlottesville is more of a town right?
Last-mile ISP entrants aren't being held back by the government (except in Seattle which has "Unique" rules) . Last mile ISP entrants are held back by the fact it costs a fuckton to lay connection material, and the incumbents have already demonstrated against Google that they will cut their prices and increase service (or just pretend to, see ATT "giga" "power") to compete, so investors are wisely hesitant to throw that billion dollars to an unproven company that will probably be driven out of business then bought out by the incumbents who will dig the fiber back up and stick it on pikes to serve as a warning to the next idiot who thinks that offering a better service at a cheaper price will be able to compete.
Great, Socialism for the Internet... I can't wait to see how this one turns out. I wonder when the "individual mandate" is coming?
The people will not allow it. An attack on communications is one of the final steps before an invasion. I suspect a lot of Americans would immediately respond against the FCC with military force. I really don't want to see that happen in my country, so I hope all those dumbasses in Washington DC, change their minds.
What this really means is this:
"What's that? Internet service? We don't sell an internet service, we sell a website service."
Goodbye the rest of internet services. They can block everything but port 80. No breaking anything.
Nobody needs to sell whole-internet access.
Actually, he wouldn't get a point, since his accusation of tu quoque on my part is false.
That said, pointing out logical fallacies in someone's argument is a perfectly legitimate thing to do in a real-world discussion (that's why debate classes exist, after all). The fact that the GP completely failed in his ill-conceived attempt to do that is beside the point.
I fear that the one size fits all approach from the antiquated Title 2 will cause undue regulatory burdens on small ISPs and WISPs that provide internet service to the areas not covered by the bigger companies.
At very least customers will see a rise in prices due to filing fees and Universal Service Fund tax. If it is implemented as it is now, there could be much more serious upstream interconnection fees.
How many small businesses will be put out of business and how many rural customers will be left without service?
http://wispa.org/news/2015/02/04/wispa-urges-regulators-to-defer-vote-on-net-neutrality-rules
No, his statement says it will also apply to mobile broadband.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Don't worry, for the media is owned by the same entities who's officers are now regulators at the FCC and will put on quite a show for everyone through the outlets they own. Be it Fox or be it NBC the fight will be a spectacular one the likes of which have only been seen on WWE wresteling. I bet they get whatever they want on the other side of it while putting on a show that they are trying to settle and compromise. Either way you pay more for mediocre at best service
Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking. Local loop unbundling is what enables competition between telecom companies.
I mean, ok, this is a step in the right direction, but without the requirement that local carriers must lease lines I'm not so sure this does a whole lot. I imagine if this goes through then some carrier will bring them to court over Title I of Telecommunications Act of 1996, wouldn't they? It's clear to me the competition the chairmen is talking about is new online sites like NetFlix or Twitch. They'll be free to start new services and not need to pay ISPs to carry their traffic, which is the big problem without net neutrality. It's competition of companies using the network, not competition of companies selling access to the network.
I suppose that will the next thing we'll have to do if this sticks.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services.
With that wording in place it opens the door to define the legality of content and regulate accordingly.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
We are, because the current status of internet providers has always left a lot to be desired. Hell half of you thought internet providers were already common carriers at least that was the argument here 5 or more years ago. So we are finally going to get to the point that everyone was screaming for last decade.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
They have a religion "supported" by various conspiracy theories, yes, but nothing that holds up in the real world.
And applying title II will invalidate these local rules and regulations. The FCC is already investigating them because the FCC has the authority to make such things, not local governments.
Verizon, Comcast and others block inbound and outbound access to port 25 and inbound access to 80 and 443. Will that be illegal under the new regulations?
Actually the interconnection fees between netflix and all dont need to exist. Again comcast in this case is acting as a last mile ISP, but charging netflix as though it is acting as a transit carrier. If the data was just crossing comcasts network and ending someplace else, say verizon, then the deal would make sense. But an ISP has an obligation to the customer to let them view what they want. It is their business model. Doing this is essentially having netflix pay for the infrastructure to support their shared customers. Great if you can get away with it, but totally immoral.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
It's true, and actually necessary. For one thing, one can read the Wikipedia article on "perfect competition" to get an idea of why that doesn't and won't exist without some people being forced to play by the rules. One can also read the "natural monopoly" article to understand why the government is a service provider.
But more generally, an extremely practical definition of government is "a local monopoly on the use of force". You can pretend like the use of force will go away if we just got those durn guns away from the gubbmint, but [a] all men are capable of it, and [b] it's super effective. What's even more effective is a group of men with guns. But of course one has to have rules about not shooting people in the group. Anarchy gives way to mob rule, starting the cycle of government again.
It's the people that don't see libertarianism as an unreachable ideal that are the problem.
As my current state rep said on TV, Thom Tillis, He supports removing regulations that force resturant owners from requiring their employees wash their hands, as long as they have to tell you if they dont enforce it via a sign.. To me that sounds like removing a sound and proper regulation with one that is really very silly.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
such as requiring municipalities to grant franchise rights to new last-mile ISP entrants, for instance
And how exactly did you plan on doing that without the government getting involved anyway?
I fear that the one size fits all approach from the antiquated Title 2 will cause undue regulatory burdens on small ISPs and WISPs that provide internet service to the areas not covered by the bigger companies. At the very least customers will see a rise in prices due to filing fees and Universal Service Fund tax. If it is implemented as it is now, there could be much more serious upstream interconnection fees. How many small businesses will be put out of business and how many rural customers will be left without service? http://www.wispa.org/news/2015...
Along with what ogdenk said...
http://www.netindex.com/download/allcountries/
Seems like SOMETHING is wrong. So, either continue down your path... or try something else.
Side note... there are countries ABOVE the US that I have no idea where they are on the map. Now, I know country size is a factor... but I really don't think we should be that low.
I'm not saying it's the "correct" definition, but some people use "Libertarian" to mean "Republican but not happy with the R-weirdos who somehow got elected".
Ahhh...so you only agree with government regulation when it supports your own agenda...I see.
That's the problem I have with many Libertarians (the fucktard variety or other). Rather than just state "these are the areas we believe should be regulated, and these not", they often scream nosily about any regulation when it is something they disagree with and just remain silent if it is something they support.
It'd be nice if there was an actual position they took that described how they expect the government to function that was something other than "government bad. less regulation good. free markets good. deficits bad".
Is that intentionally ironic?
Both A) And B) are populated by human beings.
Being in one or the other does not change basic human nature. Option A would only be the lesser of two evils if it were not also run by people.
If a Republican wins the White House with Republican Majorities what's to stop a newly appointed FCC chairman from using Title II to the advantage of Verizon and AT&T?
Good news, he is using Title II to obtain authority to fix the problem
Bad news, there are no clues that he is proposing to use the authority to improve things.
We need competition in the ISP space.
I don't see how this improves this and it may make it worse.
Hopefully he has a plan to encourage ISP competition and as he says more it will become clear.
You have neither a right to a job, nor to a suitable Internet connection to accomplish it.
The Federal Government needs to get involved because it has been shown the Major ISP's are not interested in providing a quality network unless they make insane profits from doing so. Were it not for regulation, the POTS system would have been the same way. Telco's would have expanded the networks only to those areas where high profits were guaranteed and left the rest of the nation in the dark.
Considering the Internet and Voip are pretty much replacing the old telephone network as standard means of communication between folks, we need SOME regulation in place to make sure the Telcos / ISP's aren't just acting in their own be$t intere$t$.
If you prefer no regulation, then you must be ok with the whole " Paid Prioritization " thing. The throttling of specific types of data ( Bit-torrent ), and the degradation of other traffic because it's a competitive service to what the ISP offers. ( Netflix, Voip, Hulu, etc )
The major players have had more than ample opportunity to get their acts together. This is pretty much the end result when you let large Monopolies / Duopolies run things. They get away with it for a while but, in the end, they get to face the music.
no it will not. The issue is not that they cannot block, but if they dont let it though then they cannot discriminate. There are other laws that dictate about blocking.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
And you have no right to a landline phone but the populace considers it a basic need, thus Title II.
And if my kid HAS to have internet access to attend public school these days, that's also qualified as a "need".
AT&T and ComCast don't have the right to bully local governments into giving them monopolies either. So yeah, they can get bent. They brought this on themselves with scummy business practices and douchebaggery. If you do business unethically, it comes back to bite you. And since people have no options to switch in most areas for wired service, they have to go the legislation route to avoid being abused.
So yeah, fuck those bastards. They should be getting dinged for imposing limits on "unlimited" service anyway. If they can't even give me what I paid for without trying to screw me behind the scenes and degrade my service..... and I depend on them for my daily routine..... it's legislation time.
Wow it sure didn't take long for a "ibertarian fucktard" to show up, just as the gp promised. Very good!
Don't forget that just a while ago the FCC reclassified what "broadband" is.... 25Mbps downstream. So for those areas that don't already have that, will these Title II rules apply? If not, then it provides a great DISincentive for companies to upgrade their networks, as they won't want to be considered "broadband" and have to abide by the new rules.
The problem is lack of competition. Title II does nothing to address the underlying problem. It only mask symptoms making it more difficult to gain consensus necessary to correct problem of monopolization of the last mile.
What are the downsides? Should we now expect USF line items on our bills? Do mom-and-pop operations have to deal with new red tape disproportionately favoring larger organizations? Will it be leveraged to provide cover for "information sharing" regimes affording customers no legal recourse?
How will Title-II prevent underhanded techniques to maximize leverage such as Comcast intentionally keeping links saturated? There must be an endless stream of "creative" ways to circumvent intent of net neutrality under other plausibly legitimate banners.
Whenever I find myself rooting for government to step in and fix a problem it makes me nervous. For all I know it may end up being better for everyone but I sure as heck wouldn't bet on it either way.
Shouldn't this be awful news for Comcast?
Shouldn't this be great news for NetFlix?
Ahhh...so you only agree with government regulation when it supports your own agenda...I see.
Force AT&T and Comcast and PG&E to legitimately negotiate for the land they've stolen from my front yard, and we can talk about the merits of "no regulation" vs "undoing damage already done". Until then, don't waste my time setting up some "purist Libertarian" strawman.
Net neutrality counts as a very small step in the right direction. Not because "these are the areas we believe should be regulated", but because we've already "regulated" them into nearly uncontrollable parasitic monopolies.
You forgot to mention that option B comes with incompetent corporate policies causing inconveniences and waste.
No, that's step 2. There's always a step 1 with emotional appeal to create the regulatory power, so that that power can then be used for steps 2-N without further involvement from anyone elected.
Last I checked the FCC already exists. Furthermore no emotional appeal is necessary here. Treating the ISPs (Comcast, AT&T, etc) as the monopoly utilities they are is pretty much business as usual and frankly a good idea on its merits. We already do it for telephone service because a monopoly of a vital service without regulatory oversight = abuse. Plus the rules for telephone service regulation pretty much predate the internet. This is just catching up to the state of technology.
The point being that it will be illegal to make standard usage against the terms of service going forward.
This is a great point. It's a great point because it illustrates what absolute MORONS people are who back "network neutrality". They think every possible thing good they will imagine is covered by it, including running your own mail servers...
It will be QUITE enjoyable to watch unfold the realization just how very, very wrong you and others equally stupid as you, are on this point.
I personally don't care because I can afford the workarounds, both technically and financially. But OH how people like you will suffer. And I'm going to back the government the whole way as they twist the knife, so to speak. I fully welcome our authoritarian regulatory overlords.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
As an anarcho-capitalist, libertarian / objectivist I support free market, thus any government intrusion into private affairs of individuals and their business is oppression and an unwelcome development, but obviously you are within your rights to support whatever government oppression you like but that conflicts with your 'libertarian fucktardness'.
So what you are saying is you prefer to get raped by companies instead of governments. Fair enough. Personally I prefer approaches that minimize the chance of me getting raped by either governments or companies but to each their own.
A) has an army and can throw you into a cage if they don't like what you downloaded.
B) can't force you buy anything from them (though A) certainly can, thanks ACA).
You have an odd perception of trust.
This is a perfectly legitimate concern. Remember the Broadcast Flag? Yeah, that was the FCC.
The FCC claiming it can regulate the privately owned individual networks, and the peering agreements between them, that make up the Internet, is totally illegal and unconstitutional.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
I guess I had never read their comments section before. It's a cesspool of ignorant, vicious comments!
As a fellow libertarian fucktard, I'm ashamed of you. Really? Really?
There's never going to be an infinite supply of unicorns! That's why we have markets, so that the buyers and sellers of unicorns can meet and negotiate prices at the intersection of the supply and demand curves, ensuring that everyone who's willing to pay the price for a unicorn is able to get one! Come on! Adam Smith! Invisible Hand! Milt Friedman! Nozick! Rothbard! PAUL KRUG--
-- wait, hold on, belay that last one. My bad. But the rest, yes, carry on!
(Note to the humorless: this is all tongue firmly in cheek.)
except that there is a revolving door between point A.) and point B.)
In the article it states EXPLICITLY Mobile broadband under Title II. Not the whole internet, all service providers, etc. So why are people discussing this as if all ISPs would be governed by this change if it were to happen? Who gives a crap about mobile broadband net neutrality, if it's used by terrestrial ISPs. I don't tether my phone to my home router.
You are resorting to abuse because you know that you have no facts or logical basis to stand on. This is a further demonstration on your part of the same irrational, quasi-religious fervor you accused Libertarians of having, and that I pointed out in you. And the abuse isn't even effective. Even if you were arguing with an eight-year-old, you'd still be losing.
It's amazing how quickly that post was voted down. Internet access here sucks, but the Comcast shills suck worse.
As a Libertarian fucktard - I can't really grasp the real issue
TFTFY.
Keep in mind, before you go whining about those more fiscally responsible than yourself, that that the very abuses that net neutrality address exist because of government interference - Giving the telecoms local monopoly powers...
Riiiight. Because it totally makes sense to let all comers string their own wires, bury their own fiber, etc. That doesn't need any regulation at all.
you'll be able to keep your internet . . . period.
Yeah, sure. We're used to being lied to by now.
See, that's just what I mean: you're incapable of honestly denying what I said, so you have no choice but to accuse me of the things that you fucktards are guilty of. Nice job aping Fox News' tactics.
The average person is too stupid to see the writing on the wall?
A.) can go off the deep end and try to do that now.
B.) can force me to buy services only through their approved "partners" and shut out companies I actually like by throttling them into oblivion if they aren't allowed to double dip and get money from both sides. B can also raise an Army pretty easily.
B scares me more than A.... though A scares the shit out of me, I can thwart their efforts through technological means and good security discipline if they get obnoxious. I can do so even better if B can't legally screw with my traffic.
So imagine that I own a company called "Road America Inc." and we own the roads going in and out of your town. Imagine I'm allowed to say, "Tolls for Ford cars are $1, and Ford cars can go 70 MPH. Tolls for Dodge are $20, and Dodge cars have a speed limit of 35 MPH." You see, I'm not owned by Ford, but I've made a deal with Ford where I get a payoff to promote their brand.
Thankfully the real Road America only owns a road that goes around in a loop, does not price discriminate by manufacturer, and the speed limit is as fast as you can handle it.
The legislative branch gave the FCC these powers.
Congress is not equipped and is not intended to run every tiny administrative office directly.
I always wondered about that. I was a contractor doing hookups for Comcast. In some housing developments the main cable ran through the backyards of adjacent houses instead of in front down the street. I had to go into one house's backyard to hook up cable for the house next door. One homeowner was very angry with me and the cable company because by law I was free to walk into her backyard and dig in a cable to her neighbors house.
Riiiight. Because it totally makes sense to let all comers string their own wires, bury their own fiber, etc. That doesn't need any regulation at all.
Funny thing about that... I currently use 4G as my primary ISP, because the local cable monopoly decided my town won't make them any money. Not "my town won't let them steal my front yard to run wires", but "no one wants to steal my front yard to run wires". Except, adding insult to injury, I still have my front yard "occupied" by a utility pole, for power lines. Wow, best of both worlds!
So in this case, yes, the market has actually managed to beat the government-sanctioned monopolies in addressing the "last mile" problem, for me at least. Though make no mistake, I don't consider Verizon any better than Comcast - Just a rare example of two once-upon-a-time monopolies in different markets accidentally managing to compete with each other in an otherwise-unexpected ballpark. Make no mistake, I'd give my left nut to have Google offer FTTP in my town, but that detail does more to *make* my point than refute it.
It means "hate speech" will be illegal (pretty sure it already is) and any site with hate speech will be blocked. The definition of "hate speech" will become "things we don't want people saying; think of the children". Oh, also, streaming sites. They're gone. Podcasts? You betcha'.
You'll notice that they've been using this wording for a LONG time. All of the proposals have featured "lawful content" and I'm sure that's not an accident.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
It is a sad day when we need the FCC to regulates the Internt,
Crowdsourced mesh radio PHY capacity will eventually overtake the last mile monopoly and make this irrelevant.
On the contrary, the world often works out exactly as predicted by libertarians.
Tell us, ye of great wisdom, how's that war on drugs working out for you? How about the war on poverty? How many tens of millions are still uninsured after your health care act? Are we mission accomplished on that global war on terror yet?
The fact you can't foresee or accept the predictable consequences of your religion isn't a problem with the libertarians...
Self hosted mail servers, the #1 cause of spam prior to port 25 being blocked. Most ISPs I know allow you to unblock that port without question or cost.
Net neutrality supporters seem to have a static view of the internet, which is strange because they normally consider themselves "tech-savvy" people. This issue is about scarcity. People are demanding more bandwidth than is available. So, there are areas where prices might go up, or traffic more in demand than other traffic gets prioritized. But, even with the current not so perfect system, bandwidth is growing like crazy. The issues we're seeing now are growing pains for a still-young internet. Growing up can get a little bumpy. But people demand a smooth road, NOW! They want to permanently subject the internet to a huge regulatory apparatus in order to "solve" a transient problem. Tech-savvy people are supposed to be able to grasp the difference between static and dynamic systems. I guess impatience overcomes rationality.