Slashdot Mirror
FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules
muggs sends word that the U.S. Federal Communications Commission has voted 3-2 to approve an expansion of their ability to regulate ISPs by treating them as a public utility.
Under the rules, it will be illegal for companies such as Verizon or Cox Communications to slow down streaming videos, games and other online content traveling over their networks. They also will be prohibited from establishing "fast lanes" that speed up access to Web sites that pay an extra fee. And in an unprecedented move, the FCC could apply the rules to wireless carriers such as T-Mobile and Sprint -- a nod to the rapid rise of smartphones and the mobile Internet. ... The FCC opted to regulate the industry with the most aggressive rules possible: Title II of the Communications Act, which was written to regulate phone companies. The rules waive a number of provisions in the act, including parts of the law that empower the FCC to set retail prices — something Internet providers feared above all. However, the rules gives the FCC a variety of new powers, including the ability to: enforce consumer privacy rules; extract money from Internet providers to help subsidize services for rural Americans, educators and the poor; and make sure services such as Google Fiber can build new broadband pipes more easily.
4-5 years in the courts...
.
I, for one, welcome our new FCC overlords.
... on my next bill from Comcast
...Just like the utilities.
Is there is no local loop unbundling. This was the real solution. With competition to supply the service who cares if comcast or time warner are pieces of crap. You can drop them like hot potatoes. Instead we have more control and less freedom.
And how do we know this will solve those problems since the whole spec and process has been secret? WTF most open government ever?
So when do they release these 322 pages of new rules? With all this transparency, what could POSSIBLY go wrong?! /s
I mean, after the broadcast flag incident, how is it everyone so comfortable with letting the FCC become the packet police? The regular court system has proved to be inadequate... when?
Wonder what the public key field is for?
Anyone know if this will have an immediate effect on the throttling ISP's seem to be doing to Netflix content unless they make special deals with the ISP's (I'm looking at Verizon specifically)? Does this mean it is now illegal to demand third party websites pay extra for their content to not be throttled (which is exactly the kind of scheme Verizon and other ISP's are currently running)? If so I wonder how this will effect deals already made to speed up content.
this seems to good to be true... it's what the populace wants, what the corporations didn't, and it makes sense.
I can't correlate this with being a current government agency that interfaces between the public and commerce...
after so many time being disappointed by the choices our government makes i guess im in battered wife syndrome type shock.
I'm assuming such deals are now rendered unenforceable.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
What will happen when the FCC decides to use the new powers to "clean up" (i.e. censor) the Internet the same way it's done to TV and Radio? Am I the only person who believes the government will fuck this up the same way they've fucked up everything else they meddle with? People are so very shortsighted.
"IT'S (probably*) A TRAP!"
- Rear Admiral Akquixotic of the Mon Calamari
*: There's a small chance that this will end up actually helping consumers. A broken clock is right twice a day, and a reg-captured FCC occasionally does things that benefit the common man.
For example, the Block C Open Access provisions on Verizon and AT&T's LTE bands (or at least some of them) are what prevented these carriers from preventing tethering or the use of custom devices. Any FCC-certified device, rooted or not, tethering or not, can be on those bands, and there's nothing the carrier can do to stop it without breaking the law.
Those provisions have been a lifesaver for many customers of these two carriers who want to use the LTE from their phone to tether a laptop on the go, but don't want to pay extra or buy dedicated hardware for it. So the FCC definitely helped in a pragmatic sense with those rules.
Then again, I'm sure the industry coalitions have fully formed lawsuits written up, signed, in the envelope, and just waiting to be mailed when this decision hit. Who knows how long it'll be until the results of this trickle down through carrier policy and plan offerings to affect the everyman?
It doesn't go far enough. What we really need is to separate content creators from the network providers. Have a separate utility company that only provides your internet connection and nothing else. That way, every company that wants to sell you product is on 100% equal footing. Make the market truly free for everyone to participate on a level playing field. After all, isn't that what's most fair to everyone? Distributing your cable TV service over your now independent internet link will open it up so you can get your TV service from anyone you want. Think of what the competition will do to the industry and how much better it will be for the consumer.
Oh wait. I forgot that the cable companies will bribe everyone in congress they can in order to keep their municipal monopolies firmly entrenched. So much for real free markets and competition. Rats.
I usually have to pay extra for that but now they can't charge more!
It's the tin foil hat brigade...
Yo douche bag, the FCC is not judging content. Try reading the article sometime.
Now that Federal Government is, once again, judging, what content is fair, a Department of Fairness can not be far behind. And who can possibly be against fairness?
And why not just call it Ministry of Truth? Nobody can be against truth either...
Troll
I'm not sure this will have an effect on those deals. The rules seem to call out throttling and fast lanes specifically, while what comcast/verizon was doing is just not expanding capacity to netflix's provider (Same effect, but they we'rent "limiting" anything, they just weren't building out the needed infrastructure (super cheap infrastructure, but infrastructure none the less))
Open your wallet. All the Netflix viewers and Facebook advertisers are counting on YOU to subsidize them.
There is no capital i in 'internet'
Like most fascists, they think if they repeat something enough, it will become true.
There is a war going on for your mind.
There is no what it "might do" it is what they have been actively doing, and trying to get money out of...Also there is nothing in this that allows the NSA to get taps on it.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
They've been doing that. Where have you've been.
Citation needed... Oh that right, you can't, because we don't even know the rules they voted on!
The FCC is, however, claiming a broad discretion to review non-neutral practices that may “harm” consumers or edge providers and force action. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
Repeat after me: "The FCC is not my friend." These are not "Net Neutrality" regulations, these are Title II rules that claims the Internet is not an "information system." Ha. Haha.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
Comcast:no, ...eh we're more of a callcenter these days anyway.
FCC:...thats a nice internet you have there....
Verizon: No.
Time Warner:NO
Republican party: NO!
POTUS: sure would be nice if it were just....
AT&T: NO GOD NO
FCC:......a little more neutral.
Rogers:
Good people go to bed earlier.
Did Bush’s Broadband Deregulation Upend His Own NSA Wiretapping? Now that the regulations have changed, the situation is different.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
Well, not where I live and no where where family and friends may be living...
Your hatred of Comcast and fear of what it might do has lead to the biggest restrictions on freedom since the Patriot Act
Your sense of reality needs to be rebooted. "Might do?" They've been doing it openly, for a couple of years now, you twit. You're the one pissing your panties over imaginary "might do" and using bullshit conspiracy theorist "reasoning". Look up how much censorship power Title II gave over landlines, for starters.
Jesus Tapdancing Christ. You need your dosage upped.
LMOL ok Potsy. Keep the tinfoil hat on nice and tight. Net Neutrality has been about an OPEN INTERNET. That means ISPs cannot throttle traffic. Cannot block applications from using the internet. Yet somehow you think that means censorship. Wow somebody failed at reading comprehension.
I can think of a zillion loopholes by which this will be evaded.
Is there a definition of what is THE internet? surely comcast can create a parallel construction and sell however they wish like a private toll road. It could have discrete points where it could tap into the "real" internet. Thus amazon or netflix or whomever could connect into this autobahn on the goes-into side and pop out into "the" internet at some Comcast hub in the customers town.
Picture it like FED Ex, transporting a package 90% of the way, then mailing it. the postoffice might not charge differently for different customers and Fed Ex might not either (or they could) but only customers with valuable deliveries would be willing to pay the cost of the combined service, which would be dominated by the Fed Ex high speed service.
That's effectively what companies like Akamai sell already and those are not part of the discussion of Net Neutrality.
It might be easy to regulate comcast if comcast is the parent company of both halves of this real and shadow internet. But if these services are split into two companies then what? Even if the shadow company is privately held by comcast this is going to be hard to regulate.
Eventually the shadow compaines won't even bother with their own hardware. They will lease a certain number of dedicated switches from Comcast for their own uses. these will be cut out of the real internet.
An alternative way around this is by selectively enforcing the tragedy of the commons. In principle Netflix could prioritize its packets on a neutral interenet by emitting 100 times as many packets where each packet is sent 100 times. the receiver ignores all but the first one of the redundant packets. This of course would be retaliated by others now squeezed out doing the same thing resulting in 100x the traffic for the same data and no gain for anyone. COmcast would come down hard on these miscreants but would it be selective?
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
The first thing I'm going to do when they start calling for limits on politically oriented sites is to file complaints against every idiot left wing site that beat the drum for these regulations. Media Matters, Reddit, etc...
Because fuck 'em.
Like most libertarian pseudo-intellectuals, you think that calling someone you disagree with "fascist" makes it so.
Haterz gonna hate...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
So I guess that means it can't possible be happening to other people *cough* *Netflix* *cough* - dumbass.
Yeah, their faces sure will be red once the...something that stopped the NSA from doing what they've been doing is gone.
I favor Net Neutrality, assuming it is as was commonly known. I haven't read the new regulations, so it may be something entirely different with the Net Neutrality title slapped onto it.
What I objected to in general (prior to new ruling) was the trend for ISP's to charge me as an end user for "guaranteed" speed rates, then charge the content providers a second time for the same bandwidth that I already paid for. IOW I will be paying for the speed I want two times, because the content providers will have to pass the cost on to me.
My 3 cents.
"Democrats force through socialist regulations." Nothing Obama does in the next year will make durable law, not amnesty, unnatural marriage, communication regulation, healthcare subsidies... A conservative President and congress will set things right in 2010
I sure can't wait for 2010 for this to happen. I expect we will have flying cars by then as well.
If the Federal Government can't determine what's fair, then who can?
Is it fair for someone to have exactly one choice of "broadband" ISP, when that choice is extremely unreliable, outdated, overpriced ADSL?
Is it fair that corporations get to ignore what customers want and only sell what's the most profitable for them, paying absolutely no attention to customer satisfaction, with a three-pronged "bend over and take it / don't have Internet / move house" ultimatum?
If the Federal Government won't stand up for its citizens, what recourse do citizens have left? Organize and march up to some corporate office and demand (peacefully or otherwise) to get what they want? Give up their job and completely change their life around to move to one of the handful of locations in the entire country that has actually good Internet?
Connecting to and participating in the global economy shouldn't be a privilege reserved for the upper crust elite. It should be accessible to everyone. Hell, there is an *enormous* financial incentive to do it, since without that connection, you won't sell nearly as much stuff on the 'net. Games, video, software, you name it.
You corporati would gladly tear down the national highway system to avoid paying taxes on roads, even knowing full-well that without roads, people won't be able to drive to Best Buy or Target or K-mart or Walmart to buy your shit.
Infrastructure is a special type of good. It's a GDP and productivity and economy multiplier. Infrastructure deserves special protection. Ever since man discovered the mechanical lever, we've been using infrastructure to enable us to do more than we could without it. The capitalist system has a significant weakness in that, if left completely unregulated, no one will pay for the infrastructure. Categorizing Internet service as infrastructure is exactly the move that needed to be made. IN PRINCIPLE.
Now what remains is to see what actual changes fall out in practice. The principle of the matter and the actual implementation may turn out to be very disjoint, which would be unfortunate. But leaving the system as-is would all but ensure that the current bad state of affairs would continue, since the old way was backwards *just in principle*, let alone in practice.
If that's all it was, it would not have required 300+ pages to spell the rules out. Nor would it be necessary to keep the new regulations secret — despite repeated attempts to publicize them before the voting took place.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
We have a Conservative President. He is far more Conservative than Reagan or Bush Sr.
We only have Conservative parties at the moment. There is the just right of center Democrats, and the holy-shit-complete-nutbag so far to the right as to be off the fucking charts Republicans. And then we have the Tea Party subset that make THEM look sane.
Disregarding your rant against Fox News, the EFF had some serious objections too:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/dear-fcc-rethink-those-vague-general-conduct-rules
I do not know what the status is of the general conduct rules. Do you?
Citation needed... Oh that right, you can't, because we don't even know the rules they voted on!
They voted whether to classify ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. And they eschewed some of the restrictions, like TFA said, so if you want to know then GOOGLE THE FUCKING LAW. The new restrictions are a subset of that.
Christ, people just spew shit out and don't even bother TRYING to inform themselves.
From your own link:
The Fairness Doctrine was abolished in 1987. So you're frothing at the mouth over a doctrine that was discontinued almost 30 years ago, and was intended to promote discussion of public issues on a scarce medium, and you think it is somehow relevant to the Internet in 2015.
But hey, don't let actual details get in the way of your breathless hyperbole.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
... the biggest restrictions on freedom since the Patriot Act...
Go on....
This will be a mass of restrictions, requirements, taxes, subsidies, and pay-offs to favored groups. I'm sure trial lawyers will be happy, because there will no doubt be lots of new things they can sue about.
Like what exactly?
And now that the regulations have changed, the NSA will have a freer hand with wiretaps.
How would reclassifying as a telecommunications service change that?
What a nice birthday present the FCC has given me! I would have never belied it a year ago that we get this result from Tom Wheeler.
Umm, no that is FOX news SOP, I was agreeing with you if you hadn't noticed!
There is a war going on for your mind.
And you know this how? Are you a lawyer? Do you know how hard it is to make rules such as this?
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Mod parent up +6 gorillion. FAUX NEWZ!!!!!!!!11111 ROFLZLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
Silicon Valley not only backs it, they created it.
The father of the internet supports it.
It's nothing secret, its simply the codification of the current status quo.
As for "what Comcast might do" ... they've ALREADY DONE IT. Several times. Tried several more. Its why they oppose NN in the first place, and if they could have gotten NN declared totally dead (instead of merely struck down on technicality a few years ago) they wou;d have been even more brazen more immediately.
"This whole thing" (your post) is a pile of BS written by an ignorant, incompetent shill trying to lie for the telcos.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
This could be the best decision in the world and actually benefit everyone, however....
I'm so completely over this dictatorship and executive fiat BS that I have to disagree with the way these rules came to be.
And finally if this is anything like the last sweeping overhaul of industry impacting 1/6+ of the global economy hold your head and your asses because the next few years will be a funky bumpy ride for everyone while we 'learn about the details' that were so blatantly hidden.
Will you be back here to refute your own dire predictions when they prove false? I'll not hold my breath.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VrCCpaEoxI
I'm happy with my cable provider.
Said no one ever.
It was not an objection to the rule, it was worry and wanting clarification. those are not the same thing.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
The sad thing is about 100 different commenters have pointed out that it's 8 pages of regulations & ~300 pages of justification & background to these guys & they just keep on spewing bullshit.
https://twitter.com/GigiBSohnF...
There is a war going on for your mind.
I approve of the FCC decision, but I have a concern about lack of regulation on pricing matters.
I suspect this will end up like POTS. Here is a sample of a future bill.
25/5 Broadband Service Base Fee $39.99
Advertising Fee $20.00
Plant maintenance Fee $20.00
Regulatory Capture Fee $20.00
Washington Lobbying Fee $20.00
Bandwidth Fee for data over the cap limit 100.00
Total amount due this month: $219.99
Some action on the FCC's part to limit these fees will be required in the future.
I have read Slashdot almost every day for 14 years, but never felt the urge to post a word, until now. I teethed on a 4k PDP-8e, wire wrapped my first PC, and today am happy just struggling with .NET. But really, when Google can comment on the text before the rest of America gets to see it, it's pretty sad. As a radio amateur I understand the need for spectrum allocation, but Internet bandwidth is not finite. Having failed previously in the courts this is just another way to achieve the same control. The proper way to handle this is through congress. Given the lobbying that goes on, maybe that is impossible, but an Executive decision is not closer to the will of the people either.
Last year netflix was paying comcast extra fees to not be in a 'slow lane'. I imagine by now Netflix is going to stop payment.
Much to Illiberals' chagrin.
I'm "frothing at the mouth" over the reintroduction of it in 2015. It was wrong then, it is wrong now...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Your trust in the Federal Government is noted and your posting moderated up. You are also eligible for one additional beet-ration this month. Congratulations, comrade, and keep up the good work of pro-government shilling.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
As soon as the regulations are available, search them for terms like âoehate speechâ and "disparate impact." This will be a mass of restrictions, requirements, taxes, subsidies, and pay-offs to favored groups.
Exactly, my Title II regulated Phone line is constantly being censored.
it's what the populace wants, what the corporations didn't
All sorts of corporations wanted this passed.
It's 300 pages. Does what *you* wanted take 300 pages to express? No? HMM.
Good luck with that, as the saying goes. I am really looking forward to you all finding out what has really happened today.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
None of that will matter because they won't be able to throttle my VPN traffic anymore.
When you have many very highly paid lawyers who are about to use every trick they have to shred the newly formed rules, then 300 pages sounds right.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Sorry, I've been arguing with a lot of idiots today (cf. xkcd.com/386) and I got Poe'd.
You are must certainly be on drugs because Obama is certainly NOT more conservative than Reagan or Bush Sr.
Who, Fox? Yeah, I know.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Wheeler is the FCC chairman, from article "Wheeler has refused to release the 332-page plan he wants the commission to approve on Thursday, citing FCC tradition as the reason."
Imvestors Daily Article
Everyone knows this is just the start of the regulations! There will be more to come in the future.
Also from the article
"It's unlikely making the rules available would change the vote's outcome - Democrats have a 3-2 advantage. But the public deserves nothing less than to see what FCC has in store for the Internet before the commissioners cast their ballots."
Good or bad, not sure. Just my 2 cents.
anyone have an idea?
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
An "Open Internet" doesn't need 300+ pages of FCC Packet Police powers! All you have to do is go to a court and say "This person promised me 20Mbps to the Internet and I'm only seeing 1Mbps/nothing at all" and the court says "Yep, looks like fraud." Why have the courts been insufficent?
Can you point to ONE example of a "Net Neutrality" violation happening today? Ever? Can you then be so confident that the same people who brought you the Broadcast Flag are the right people to be enforcing this?
Wonder what the public key field is for?
Let's all set a calendar alert to meet in five years to assess.
Actually the telcom rules protect the providers from having to regulate content. But hey don't let your paranoid fantasies interfere with a good conspiracy.
I notice that the summary of these provisions apply to "lawful internet traffic". And just WHO is the arbiter of "lawful internet traffic"? One interpretation could be "domestic US traffic". And "traffic from approved, lawful partners."
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
How companies like Time Warner will defeat Net Neutrality: Self-divestiture.
The "Time Warner Cable/Internet" you know of today becomes a myriad of companies specifically designed to continue on with business as usual while still adhering to the letter of the law:
- Time Warner Broadband - a company which does nothing more than operate Hybrid-Fiber-Coax outside plant (the actual wires on the actual poles).
- Time Warner Cable - a company which leases spectrum from TWB (above), and provides cable-video service on that outside plant
- Time Warner Transit - a company which does nothing more than provide wholesale (non-retail, non-mass-market) internet connectivity to ISPs and other service providers. As a wholesaler, TWT is not encumbered by net neutrality regulations.
- Time Warner Internet - a company which leases spectrum from TWB (above) to provide IP connectivity to end-users. It obtains *all* of its internet connectivity from TWT (above), and charges metered billing to all its end-users (you pay a flat rate PLUS you pay "by the bit", the same way you pay for water or electric today).
Netflix, et al, will have to tithe properly to TWT if they want access to TWI's customers, since TWT is the only path to GET to TWI's customers. The FCC can't really punish TWI for this move, without opening up an even messier Pandora's box of trying to tell ISPs "which upstreams they HAVE to obtain connectivity from".
Yes, it'll all be a LITTLE more complicated than that, but they've got teams of lawyers to work out the details.
Another FCC commissioner seems to disagree:
And if it's really responding to public comments to the rules... WHY IS RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT BEING KEPT SECRET?
Help, stop, the transparency, it's blinding me.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
Oh looks its mi back to provide more lies, while backing his arguments with links to sites that actually disprove everything he says.
Mi, the gentleman who declares "I'm not a bigot, I love (insert random slur here)."
Seriously though. Yet again, from your links:
The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.
Let us remember that the FCC exists because "the spectrum" is seen and treated under law as a public resource owned by the nation's citizens. So the FCC was
created to administer it (in lieu of created the Federal Minitry of Truth you mention and worry about) in a collaboration between government (and the public's) interests in having the spectrum used in the publics benefit, and private interests in making money while doing so. A middle ground, a middle way, between government provided (and potentially abused) content, and private use (and potential abuse) of the spectrum. A compromise.
That's background. Onto the Fairness Doctrine:
No part of the Fairness Doctrine had anything to do with determining "what content is fair".. So right off the bat you're spouting BS. Rather, it simply requires that broadcasters talk about "things in the public interest", which essentially means news. Like right now, there is a major trade deal going down, the TPP, that not one news channel is talking about. OR during and after citizens united, they rarely talk about the money in politics. Such ignoring of important issues would be a valid basis for a complaint to the FCC. And complimentary to the first part of the rule, when discussing or presenting these "things in the public interest", the presentation couldn't be one sided. IE, no Fox News. This so far is logical, straightforward, and completely reasonable.
But lets dig further. More from your link:
In 1974, the Federal Communications Commission stated that the Congress had delegated it the power to mandate a system of "access, either free or paid, for person or groups wishing to express a viewpoint on a controversial public issue..." but that it had not yet exercised that power because licensed broadcasters had "voluntarily" complied with the "spirit" of the doctrine.
So it was never actually enforced. Broadcasters, chiefly the big 3 until the advent of cable, implemented a similar policy internally and voluntarily.
I could point out your stupidity and ignorance on these topics all day long, but I'm running out of time and need to cut the history and facts lesson short. But the history even gets more interesting: when the FCC revoked the doctrine, there was significant opposition to it. They feared one sided mouth pieces for companies, politicians, or other special interests. A de-evolution of political discourse fed by the chief mechanic people rely on to be informed. Any of that sound familiar, like a news channel or two you know about? Hmmm?
In short: go away you ill informed troll.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
It depends on what was actually occurring. If Verizon / Comcast were degrading performance based on IP ranges or traffic type than this would help them. If, as it seems was the case, this was a peering agreement issue than the rules would do nothing to improve the situation.
It absolutely was an objection! I don't see how you could possibly read the EFF's letter and think anything else.
Snippets:
Our message has been clear from the beginning: the FCC has a role to play, but its role must be firmly bounded.
But we are deeply concerned that the FCC’s new rules will include a provision that sounds like a recipe for overreach and confusion: the so-called “general conduct rule.”
First, it suggests that the FCC believes it has broad authority to pursue any number of practices—hardly the narrow, light-touch approach we need to protect the open Internet.
We are days away from a final vote, and it appears that many of the proposed rules will make sense for the Internet. Based on what we know so far, however, the general conduct proposal may not. The FCC should rethink this one.
The EFF clearly has a problem with the general conduct rule. Leave the partisan group-mindedness behind--there are clearly some not-black and some not-white (grey, you might even say) shades here.
So, this is about my person and character flaws, huh?..
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I'm dying to know what exactly the ISPs have done to "bring this upon themselves". Yes I know there has been talk about Netflix and others negotiating dedicated pipes and all but how has this affected anyone else? My DL speeds have been around 15 mps for years and I don't notice any delays on any particular websites I visit.
This is nothing but another big gubbermint power grab. They're going to use this as an excuse to regulate the internet, something I think a majority of Slashdotters oppose. Then again, a majority of American Slashdotters voted for the socialist in the White House so I'd say the American people brought this upon themselves.
>search them for terms like “hate speech” and "disparate impact." Nope not there, nothing like them either.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Tweet from the FCC Text of #netneutrality rules are only 8 pages. Rest of proposal responds 2 record submitted by millions of Americans, as required by law.
Now don't you feel ridiculous?
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
So you're a crazed wingnut. Big deal, you fools are a dime a dozen in the less educated parts of the country.
Actually, my source of info is wired... http://www.wired.com/2014/06/n...
When did the Fairness Doctrine get reintroduced?
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Serious, who but a government agency would hide behind a ideal called neutrality? I doubt its going to be neutral when the government get's involved. Let's call it what it is. Government calling the shots on the internet.
I guess your health care has finally become affordable after the vote on the Affordable Care Act... ;-)
Elections matter :)
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
Except the likely hood of the right taking the presidency in 2016 is slim. The fact they keep distancing themselves from minority voters is going to keep them out of the White House for several election cycles.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
The FCC *is* judging content... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
and for the fun part... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Three people - three people in the entire world - people who you didn't even vote for have enacted rules and regulations that apply to how you can use the Internet. Rules that have not been defended in public, rules that you have not been able to read or react to, passed by people you have zero influence over (but massive lobbyists, of course, do).
When this thing comes back to bite you all in the ass I'd like you to remember: You were warned and you went ahead and blindly supported it anyway.
Troll alert, Idiot found.
Right-wing media has put some effort into misleading the easily-misled Conservatives on this topic.
It's not really their fault that they lack critical thinking skills; They're frothing because their masters tell them to froth.
Living in constant fear of imagined enemies is a terrible way to spend your life, but a quarter of the country chooses to be terrified by lying far-right-wing media that plays them like a fiddle, and the rest of us just stand by and let it happen.
The Republican party of small business and free markets tried to block it.
Operation Choke Point is a good example of government "fairness"...
Lol, as if an ignorant conservative can win a national election when we can so easily see their complete insanity on display via the Internet. We're not all terrified conservatives living in a Fox-News-constructed false-reality designed to make us froth and hate civilization.
Too many Conservatives only care about things that directly impact them. They seem to be a more limited, primitive form of man.
It was not an objection, it was a request for clarification.. Here is the snip it you conveniently left out:
Late last week, as the window for public comment was closing, EFF filed a letter with the FCC urging it to clarify and sharply limit the scope of any “general conduct” provision:
When you cant win, ad hominem.
More importantly, will their be a Ministry of Silly Walks?
How do you make an "unnatural marriage" ? Marry a ghost ?
Were you an extra in the Kingsman movie ?
Am I the only one concerned that Google's lobbyist had something slipped into the proposed regulation LAST NIGHT? We the people weren't allowed to see the regulation before it was voted on, but SOMEHOW Google's lobbyist got their hands on it and proposed a change to PART OF the committee. Not even all five of them, just the three who voted yes. Of course, since the original draft wasn't public, there's no way to know exactly what sweetheart deal was slipped in to benefit Google. That's all this Title II regulation will be... A handout to special interests.
I'm friendly towards the idea of net neutrality, but this feels like a "hold my beer and watch this" type move on the part of the FCC. Using 1930s era regulatory framework that wasn't even remotely designed for what the FCC is trying to do seems like just asking for unintended consequences. The FCC admits as much when it talks about how it is going to use forbearance to try and shoehorn this thing to fit regulating the Internet. That said...is it a situation where the FCC decided to act because Congress declined to take the issue up and craft something more appropriate?
Did you read your own quote?
The rules are eight pages.
Then there is 79 pages detailing rules that will not be actionable. More rules that the companies will not have to comply with and so on...
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Title 2 has been around since 1996. If you don't know what it says, that's on you, not the FCC. All the FCC did was reclassify internet services as common carrier, covered by Title 2; the 300+ pages is an account of their justification for doing so, not 300+ pages of new rules.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Nice in theory, but has been used in the past to subsidize the running of cable to the remote mansions of the 1%.
Wireless spectrum is limited.
Wireless spectrum is NOT very limited at ALL.
If you are willing to put a microcell on top of every phone pole (which is basically what NTT DOCOMO has done in Japan), you can pretty much have high speed wireless for everyone, everywhere.
You just have to be willing to invest in the necessary infrastructure, rather than continuing to amortize 5ESS switches and imilar equipment over a period of 20 years.
There is no what it "might do" it is what they have been actively doing, and trying to get money out of...Also there is nothing in this that allows the NSA to get taps on it.
While NN provides protection against overt violations such as outright blocking or throttling of competing interests this hasn't been the vehicle used. There isn't some machine at the ISP explicitly designed to slow down or block all traffic to somewhere the ISPs dislike...it is all much more subtle than that. Hey look x victim interconnects with y,w and k so we will pref z,o and p to keep links g,h,i,j saturated. Then we will claim it isn't "our fault" your *** is slow.
I still believe the only solution that at all stands any chance of working are focused efforts to restore a competitive market. Break up monopolies, FRAND access to last mile, erasing anti-competitive legislation, etc.
Also there is nothing in this that allows the NSA to get taps on it.
I will assume you have carefully read all 317 pages which is great. I'm embarrassed to say I can't even find the text.
They can't do anything without finding a new way to tack a fucking fee on things.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
no, we have two sets of corporate parties that take money and work for diffrent lobbying groups. At the moment they are both more than happy enough to take swipes at eachother's money source and nothing else. But its entirely unfair to say either party is more "capitalist" than the other. Social issues sure, the republicans in general are slightly more socially conservative, but that is slowly changing, as both parties are moving away from token images they pretend to care about to simply offering protection from "the other".
Because they should somehow give a shit about your needs?
Don't worry, Jeff. I'm sure someone will hire to to keep shilling for the government monopolies after the next revolution.
Could you please explain why you are not capitalizing your sentences? It is sloppy and rude to the people reading.
Is it a iPhone design issue or something? Too hard to push a shift key without a physical keyboard.
Waiting for the far-right example of what's wrong with the TEA Party? Oh that's right, you're stealing money through taxes and we're somehow zealots for not wanting to pay for your existence. Fuck you.
Netflix.
" 18.2-427. Use of profane, threatening, or indecent language over public airways or by other methods.
Any person who uses obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or makes any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threatens any illegal or immoral act with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, over any telephone or citizens band radio, in this Commonwealth, is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
"Over any telephone" includes, for purposes of this section, any electronically transmitted communication producing a visual or electronic message that is received or transmitted by cellular telephone or other wireless telecommunications device.
Now its about the existence of spray painted fish.
So then WHY IS RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT BEING KEPT SECRET? That wasn't a rhetorical question.
Nor was the inquiry as to what actual effect this would have now, except that the FCC gets more power to control the Internet, something we've fought long and hard AGAINST in the past?
Wonder what the public key field is for?
It absolutely was an objection! I don't see how you could possibly read the EFF's letter and think anything else.
Snippets:
Our message has been clear from the beginning: the FCC has a role to play, but its role must be firmly bounded.
But we are deeply concerned that the FCC’s new rules will include a provision that sounds like a recipe for overreach and confusion: the so-called “general conduct rule.”
First, it suggests that the FCC believes it has broad authority to pursue any number of practices—hardly the narrow, light-touch approach we need to protect the open Internet.
We are days away from a final vote, and it appears that many of the proposed rules will make sense for the Internet. Based on what we know so far, however, the general conduct proposal may not. The FCC should rethink this one.
The EFF clearly has a problem with the general conduct rule. Leave the partisan group-mindedness behind--there are clearly some not-black and some not-white (grey, you might even say) shades here.
You really caught my attention, so I checked. Front page of EFF had a link to: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/fcc-votes-net-neutrality-big-win
Maybe I'm missing the subtle sarcasm, but I get the impression that the EFF is overall pretty happy with this decision. Yes they note we need to be careful that the FCC doesn't overreach, but I don't see very much hand wringing in this particular press release.
300+ pages of justification, like Eric Holder's secret justification on how it's constitutional to shoot down unarmed American citizens without any charge or trial.
They voted on the entire thing, Title II the FCC an enormous amount of power over whatever system it covers (and it does not include the Internet imo - If the FCC is right, can you name any company that'll fall under the "information service" label, now? No?), and at least one of the FCC commissioners who wants to publish the rules seems to disagree with that assertion anyways.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
The short-sightedness here is breath taking. You clearly think your boys are going to be in charge of this machine forever and there's no way they'd ever fuck you over.
I've got bad news for you there kiddo: the FCC is on your side by one measly little vote and sooner or later someone you don't like is going to get elected to the White House. Then they nominate their BFF to the FCC and guess what? You get all kinds of crappy regulations that you're just gonna hate. All nice and legal like because: TITLE II BITCHES!
Like pr0n? Nope, can't have none of that; the Moral Majority now rules and all ISPs will block that by default. Want to criticize the government, maybe blow the whistle on some illegal activity? Nope, sorry, your ISP's gonna shut that right down for you. ('terrists don't 'cha know...)
You're living in a fantasy land if you think you're going to go live in the government's house and then not have to play by their rules. And who sets their rules? People with a shit load more money than you or me. People who don't give a shit about you or me.
In the end, your ISP is still gonna do all the bad things you were wetting your panties about and on top of that you'll have Uncle Sam fucking things up too (and taxing you to boot).
You all were warned but you never seem to learn.
The commenter who replied to you pretty much pointed out where you're wrong, so I'm not gonna waste my time. I'll add one bit that he missed, though; the relevant 8 pages are a subset of Title II's 33 pages. Have a nice day.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Libturds think the TEA folks are insane because:
- Don't know what TEA stands for
- Watching folks like Maddow has them brainwashed into thinking republicans were actually conservative
- Don't know what a neo-con is other than a bad word
Libturd might be someone who thinks we have two conservative parties when both parties have been spending so liberally that we are not only in the most debt as a nation that we've ever been, but we've now after Q3 2014 borrowed as much as if not more than we were already in debt for.
Libturd version of 'we are too conservative':
The house is worth $100,000 and you own it. Take out $120,000 loan against the house and spend every penny of it. Rather than reigning in spending at this point the libturd takes out another loan for $120,000 on faith (credit card).
Tell said libturd now 240k in debt about to lose his or her house 'hey man you should consider making a budget', 6 years in libturd still hasn't passed a budget.
Have congress tell said libturd 'hey man you can't spend that money, we don't approve of it which is our job to do so', and then libturd spends the money anyway.
There is nothing conservative about our current government or either major party. The TEA folks (Taxed Enough Already) are screaming about it, but you dips are so busy tooting your own horns about how everyone else are holy-shit-complete-nutbags and you aren't that to real conservatives you appear insane.
When the kiddies demonstrate they can't play nice on their own, the parents usually end up getting involved and start laying down the rules. The more intelligent ones realize this early on and self-adjust their behavior accordingly so they retain some say so in how their day to day activities are governed. It allows them a bit more freedom.
:|
It's interesting the corporate interests can't see past their quarterly profit statements to figure out that THEY are the reason broadband in this country is about as pathetic as it gets. Not a f*cking clue on their end. Then again, poster children never realize that they're poster children I guess
Personally, I hope they break the companies up. Folks who control the backbone shouldn't be in the content business and vice versa. Too many moral and ethical issues for the average US company to deal with correctly. ( Why offer a superior product when I can just degrade a competitors instead ? )
If my bill for internet service goes up and the service goes down, I'm coming back here and rip all of you a new one.
This is a government power grab, pure and simple. Mark my words - you will regret it.
Ah, the simple-minded. Aren't they precious? And so easily led.
Remember, if you like your internet, you can keep it. Period.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Although the rules are secret, based on what has been revealed so far, it will have no effect. The Netflix agreements are standard paid-peering agreements, which will exist always and forever because they are fundamental to the design of packet-switched inter-networks.
The Netflix deals were essentially we will buy an internet connection directly from you to carry traffic to your customers. This was done despite the fact Netflix openly peers for free at shared peering locations. Deals like this however won't be completely blocked but will be looked at carefully. Basically they will be looking at a couple of things.
1) Is the ISP intentionally allowing interconnect links be saturated as a way of forcing Netflix to pay for a connection
2) Is the ISP refusing to fix the problem by other available means (if both the ISP and Netflix are at a common peering location but the ISP refuses to peer for example)
The problem is not that "Right-of-way access is limited" as much as that it has been historically allocated very inefficiently. Bury conduit and let multiple providers lease conduit through which to blow their fiber or copper.
The scarcity of radio spectrum would not result in a single radio broadcast corporation monopolizing the spectrum.
Apparently you've never lived in a city whose FM radio band was dominated by Clear Channel. Or when all four major U.S. cellular carriers raised their SMS pricing from 10 cents to send and 10 cents to receive to 20 cents to send and 20 cents to receive, in near lockstep.
Idiots like you like to misapply the "ad hominem fallacy" because you are a fucking asshole and a troll.
We don't have to take your ideas seriously. You ARE a fucktard.
elect Obama for a 3rd time cuz he going get you a Obama smart phone and dat interwebs.
Cuz no ones gots time fo dat slow-azz dialup. Now I gots to go feedz my foe kidz...where'd I leave da EBT ats...
It was not an objection, it was a request for clarification.. Here is the snip it you conveniently left out:
What? The very snip you just pasted says that they wanted clarification and limitation of scope. They're objecting to the scope, and want it clarified.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
which has little to do with reality. My apartment complex has an "exclusive contract" with AT&T. Per the FCC, that's been illegal since 2007. Do they care? Not in the least. Do the actual apartment owners care? Not at all. Is there anything to be done about it? Move? Even presenting my apartments with the FCC decision just gets blank stares like they can't read.
I'm not affected, I know of nobody who is affected.
This is a power grab pure and simple and all you retards fell for it.
Liberty.
You might be right that this is a loaded Trojan horse.
However, I have no problem with what is on the surface. These are good ideas -- the internet is very much deserving "public utility" status. I'm not worried about fast lanes, I'm worried about intentionally making competition-owned services slower. The internet is a freaking power outlet, it should not matter what brand of hair dryer I plug in. If I need more power, I buy more power (bandwidth). But it doesn't matter what I am using it for.
The thing is we're worried about what comcast "might" do. And you're worried about what the NSA/government "might" do. Well maybe we're both right, did that ever occur to you? Maybe the government wants to overreach, to spy on your ebay shopping and snoop on your email. Maybe private industry wants insert extra ads while I web surf, or slow down Skype so that I am more likely to use iMessage, or make Amazon faster than Netflix in return for a little cash on the side. or whatever. Lots of maybe here.
We have to attack on both fronts. Neither party is trustworthy here.
YEA! THAT WILL SHOW THEM! Joe Biden is a square shooter! Joe Biden 2016!
is actually the actual RULES. The FCC illegally did this by holding the vote BEFORE publishing the proposed rules and waiting the legally-required 30-days for the public to review them and comment on them. The 3 Democrats voted "yes", the two Republicans voted "no" (which was "good" is up to you, depending on your views).
This will now go to the courts for at least two cases:
One will be procedural... the issue I previously mentioned of not following the legally-required procedures (and there must be SOME reason why they felt it so necessary to break the law (I doubt this bodes well for what's in those 200+ pages of initial rules we are not allowed to see)
A second legal attack will be on the same lines as the earlier attack on the previous FCC attempt to regulate the net... the courts previously tossed the FCC over whether the 1990's legislation they acted under provided them broad enough powers over the net; the courts said "no" and this new action does not actually overcome the basic objections that led to THAT ruling.
One thing we DO know however, is that by wrapping themselves in the old rules aimed at telephone and television services, thay are invoking the same rules that let them stifle content on television - you cannot get the one sort of power from those rules without also inheriting the other. If this new set of rules survives the inevitable court challenges, you can expect the FCC to start ruling that all sorts of content will be banned from the net starting in about 5 years (swearing? images of peoples' "naughty bits"? it's banned from broadcast TV under those same authorities.)
Comcast is a HUGE funder of Obama and Hillary, they will be granted a waiver.
Where is the fucking document?
The FCC said they were not going to release it until they voted; well, they voted, and now I want to see the 322 page document.
I already downloaded thweir opinions.
Is the FCC going to start this off by a lie? Are they going to hold it until they send it out to the ISP's?
I want that document in the next 24 hours, PERIOD.
If you honestly don't believe that the EFF objects to the general conduct rule, I guess we'll just have to disagree. I suspect you're being disingenuous, however.
It was not an objection, it was a request for clarification.. Here is the snip it you conveniently left out:
No question that the EFF is happy overall (after all, they've been fighting for net neutrality for years). (And see my other posts on this article if you care about what else I've said.)
What I'm objecting to--or at least curious about--is why so many posts here are so rabidly partisan and specifically attacking Fox News. I must have missed the memo that Fox News was responsible for anyone and everyone who objects to the FCC's net neutrality rules. Even the EFF objects to parts of the rules and has complained about the FCC's lack of transparency. Are they too just lackeys of Fox News for uncritically objecting to the FCC's rules?
It is virtually certain that the contract Netflix signed with Verizon includes a provision specifically covering the eventuality of net neutrality regulations being passed. Both those companies know what they're doing, would have realized the possibility, and would have wanted to negotiate explicit terms for it rather than leave them to litigation.
The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
not having been released yet is not the same thing as being kept secret...
When you cant win, ad hominem.
In 1996, there was competition in Internet Service, because the ISPs didn't own the local loop; the local loop was owned by a party that was, at the time, disinterested in our transaction: they didn't care if I used Acme, Apex, Brandex or Joe Schmoe for my ISP. Hell, they didn't care if I even had an ISP at all.
By 2000, broadband connections had rolled out. They were irrevocably tied to a given ISP, and that ISP was therefore able to put all but the most resilient of dialup ISPs out of business. It would have been better if they offered connectivity, like the telco before them, and let us pick our ISP, especially if we could now, as then, do it on a whim by choosing a different number to dial.
I don't expect ever to get back to that level of flexibility, but I think the current clusterfuck monopoly is bullshit. Don't cry to me about the plight of the small ISP: you aren't available to me. I have a choice between massive corporation A or massive corporation B, and I'm luckier than most Americans to have that.
www.wavefront-av.com
As several others pointed out, the best way to address any net neutrality problems, real, percieved, or (cynically) wished for, would have been last-mile local loop unbundling. Aside from being the simplest, most logical, and fairest solution not requiring reclassifying most of the Internet under Title II (My newspaper is not a goddam telecom service. Hell, DNS is not a telecom service. What was that about Congress shall make no law, etc. in the 1st amendment? FCC is WAY off base here), it actually fits the bill of common carrier service, and responsibilities attendant to being a telecom monopoly, and would not have required this mealy-mouthed wholesale power grab by the government of a whole 'nother sector of the electoral process, not to mention of the economy . (yeah, part of that sector was begging for it. Still wrong.)
But we all see there are hidden agendas being pursued here. Don't worry, the pursuers will be sorry. This will blow up in their faces. It can't help but do so. Don't say I didn't tell you so. Enjoy you're victory while you still can, before you realize you've just screwed yourselves.
Bandwidth is absolutely a physical thing. There is a physical hard limit on bits per second of information transmitted through any medium. There is also a significantly tighter (though growing) technological limit on our ability to transmit, route, and receive those bits in the physical transmission media we currently employ.
Saying "transmitting a lot ... data uses nothing" is ridiculous. It uses part of the limited supply of bandwidth. This bandwidth can be expanded by installing more transmission media (cable, fiber, microwave antennas, network switches, etc.) wherever the bottleneck happens to be, but that costs money too, and companies won't do it unless they expect to be able to capitalize on the increased capacity.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
i guess denial of service attacks and viruses are now legal as well.
i wonder if you can get quality of service for internet surgery or if you have to compete wit youtube videos of cats
http://www.theamericanconserva...
Or is that source too liberal for you?