Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality Repeal Is Official (cnet.com)
The Federal Communications Commission's repeal of net neutrality rules, which had required internet service providers to offer equal access to all web content, took effect on Monday. The rules, enacted by the administration of President Barack Obama in 2015, prohibited internet providers from charging more for certain content or from giving preferential treatment to certain websites. CNET: FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has called the Obama-era rules "heavy-handed" and "a mistake," and he's argued that they deterred innovation and depressed investment in building and expanding broadband networks. To set things right, he says, he's taking the FCC back to a "light touch" approach to regulation, a move that Republicans and internet service providers have applauded.
But supporters of net neutrality -- such as big tech companies like Google and Facebook, as well as consumer groups and pioneers of the internet like World Wide Web creator Tim Berners-Lee -- say the internet as we know it may not exist without these protections. "We need a referee on the field who can throw a flag," former FCC Chairman and Obama appointee Tom Wheeler said at MIT during a panel discussion in support of rules like those he championed. Wheeler was chairman when the rules passed three years ago. We expect to see some protests today as the tussle to convince House representatives to reinstate the regulations continues. Some members of Congress are still fighting to overturn the ruling, so there's hope for a net neutrality return if legislators agree to it.
Further reading: The Washington Post published an interview of Pai over the weekend. In the interview, Pai remained bullish that the FTC could stop abuses. He also criticized Senate Dems and others for spreading misinformation during net neutrality debate. Over at CNET, Ajit Pai has written an op-ed, in which ... he is defending his move. Fight for the Future: The FCC repeal of net neutrality goes into effect TODAY, but Congress can still stop it and save the Internet.
But supporters of net neutrality -- such as big tech companies like Google and Facebook, as well as consumer groups and pioneers of the internet like World Wide Web creator Tim Berners-Lee -- say the internet as we know it may not exist without these protections. "We need a referee on the field who can throw a flag," former FCC Chairman and Obama appointee Tom Wheeler said at MIT during a panel discussion in support of rules like those he championed. Wheeler was chairman when the rules passed three years ago. We expect to see some protests today as the tussle to convince House representatives to reinstate the regulations continues. Some members of Congress are still fighting to overturn the ruling, so there's hope for a net neutrality return if legislators agree to it.
Further reading: The Washington Post published an interview of Pai over the weekend. In the interview, Pai remained bullish that the FTC could stop abuses. He also criticized Senate Dems and others for spreading misinformation during net neutrality debate. Over at CNET, Ajit Pai has written an op-ed, in which ... he is defending his move. Fight for the Future: The FCC repeal of net neutrality goes into effect TODAY, but Congress can still stop it and save the Internet.
They wont start actually acting on the repeal until after the 2018 elections. So we got time before everything goes to hell.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
"He also criticized Senate Dems and others for spreading misinformation during net neutrality debate"
Like using bots to spam comments in your favor, or fake a DDoS attack to stop people petitioning against you?
And when the political power flips again in the future, the new administration will bring back the regulations.
This is why Internet regulation shouldn't be run by the FCC in the first place with their 5 votes. It's always going to flip flop based on which party controls the president.
I'd like to see congress pass some Internet regulations and let the FTC enforce it.
Changes of administration bring changes of executive branch policy.
Until this is codified by statute or case law one way or the other OR one "side" concedes to the other politically, businesses and industry should be prepared to have their chains yanked every time the White House changes parties.
Not just with Net Neutrality but by any other issue with an active political tug-of-war. Health care, environmental rules, trade and tariffs, the list goes on.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Ireland enjoys the EU's equivalent of Net Neutrality. As well, South Korea has its own equivalent of Net Neutrality regulations, and in fact fosters competition by helping fund last-mile development.
Obviously they want to keep their bandwidth costs low. Yeah, they make lots of money, but margins could easily evaporate in a bad regulatory climate.
But their large financial stake in this (and their other well-known issues) don't make them wrong in this.
You say this as if there's some conspiracy going on. Anyone can read the laws. Google and Facebook are in favor of it because they don't want to be charged twice by ISPs.
What more do you think it is?
I hate having to choose between rupuklicans and deomancrates when it comes to our general election.
I would really like a candidate who believed in laws that discouraged the centralization of wealth and power with a few individuals and who thought it should be accomplished with laws that create fair competition rather then having the central government collect all that money a redistribute it. Right now we basically get to choose between a party that believes the rich elete should control society and a party who believe the government should control society and every aspect of our lives. Of coarse it is worsened because one party pays lip service to morality and the other party shows out right disdain for it, to the point of booing at the idea of mentioning God in tier parties platform. So we are stuck either voting for the worshipers of the worldly wealth, who slowly erode basic freedoms and make things hard for people of color because is serves better the almighty dollar or the worshipers of murder, and bestiality and sexual depravity and it is hard to tell which one is worse. Of coarse both of them contribute in there own way to the problems with 1 in 3 women being raped or attacked. The republicans by ignoring the problem and acting like the powerful can do no wrong and the democrats by promoting sex as toy and by proxies women as play things.
The whole things reminds me that if there is no God, there is no hope because no human being or human action is going to save us from this mess.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Before somebody wonders, the poster is being sarcastic. South Korea, Ireland and Finland are poster examples of countries with strong net neutrality regulations and very fast, affordable, and reliable internet access.
Now I can get my free AT&T TV over my AT&T cell service.
Oh, you innocent, sweet summer child.
Agreed, the Constitution gives Congress the power to make law, not Ajit Pai. Pai's contention that the FCC doesn't have the authority to make NN laws isn't completely unfounded. There are arguments both ways, but any time it's unclear whether an unelected bureaucracy has the authority to do X, I'd rather them not do X. I get a chance to vote for or against my Congressman every two years. I don't get to vote on FCC commissioners.
I hope whatever does get passed, whenever that happens, has a lot of input from people who really understand carrier-grade networks. One draft bill proposed in Congress would have actually made it illegal to block spam. "Treat every packet the same" would be disastrous, making VoIP virtually impossible. Some of the goals related to NN are certainly good, and I'd like to see them happen, but writing a law will be tricky because the technical details are very complex.
Pretty much, it's almost as if the party is suffering from some sort of brain damage that prevents them from understanding that the voters don't actually have to vote for their candidate.
It's astonishing to me that not that many years ago the GOP was more or less on the ropes. What they were doing wasn't winning elections and was showing no signs of improvement. Then the Democrats decided to bail them out by behaving like feckless morons that couldn't conceive of the fact that you have to offer more than vague platitudes, you have to promise to improve things for the voters and actually follow through on it.
Right now I don't see much point in voting as the Democrats have made it quite clear that they aren't going to do a damned thing to help the voters out and the GOP is even worse.
Is it just me or when people say his name I always hear "A Shit Pie". Which is strangely appropos because it usually makes sense in the context of the rest of the sentence.
At the very least, it gives challengers to Republican incumbents who are against Net Neutrality another vector to assail the general Republican complicity in the Trumpster Fire.
So many people have predictions of doom-and-gloom or rainbows-and-roses. I'm willing to give it some time and see what actually happens. I'm no fan of Pai but I'm also not a fan of US Govt intervention. I've seen too many past instances of the "Modified Midas Touch" where govt involvement turns everything to s**t.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
And here we have the prolific "useful idiot" serving at the behest of the corporatist propaganda they've been brainwashed with.
I prefer to vote for political candidates on their individual merits. However, I think I'm going to have to start voting straight Democrat until this net neutrality thing is fixed.
I think it isn't just bandwidth costs, but legal ones. Under NN, Netflix/Facebook/whoever only really needs to negotiate with the ISP they get their access from (plus any they want to put in additional dedicated connections),.. without NN they have to negotiate with every little ISP that wants to make accessing their customers difficult. That is a lot of deal making and a lot of contracts to keep together.
Agreed, the Constitution gives Congress the power to make law, not Ajit Pai.
You fail to understand how laws are actually made. There are in broad strokes three kinds of law. Statutes, regulations, and case law. Regulations ARE laws. Congress passes statutes which then delegates the authority to the administration (the FCC in this case) to make regulations which are the details about how the law is to be implemented and they have substantial discretion in doing this in most cases. Congress doesn't have the expertise to fill in all the details so they leave much of the heavy lifting up to the executive branch. Regulations ARE laws so the FCC has (within their mandate from Congress) the power to make law. Since Ajit Pai is in charge of that particular agency he has been delegated law making power from Congress.
Now a judge or Congress can constrain his actions through further statutes or case law, but otherwise the FCC absolutely can make laws and does so routinely every time they make a regulation.
to stop sending a party to Washington that opposes Net Neutrality? You're talking about the Whitehouse, but it seems to me the entire country flips every decade. But more importantly the country's been moving to a right wing, pro-corporate politic since Clinton. So even if the other party's in charge it's not like it matters if they act exactly like the Republicans when push comes to shove.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
And also much, much smaller than the USA.
#DeleteFacebook
You know both his parents are Mormon? He was raised Mormons Trump's parents. And his grandparents. Mormons believe that women cannot make it to the highest level of Glory in the afterlife unless attached to a man. I also believe that every male has the potential to come the god of his own Universe one day. Now if you look into Financials. Mormon church owns and operates many llc's which Avast are forbidden from revealing who their Master is. Well we know businesses you hide information for up to no good. And businesses that conduct business ethically don't give a damn who knows what because it doesn't affect their bottom line. He learned everything from Mormonism. I grew up Mormon. Study unit in detail is what actually got me to give it up. I said I want to be a balanced person not a person who can only find security in inappropriate control of other people's money and actions.
So, in other words, you haven't a clue as to what Net Neutrality is.
They're private companies that use the Internet for connection. Net neutrality is about the connectivity. You seriously think that every website on the Internet with a public forum should have to accept every single post that they get? There's no expectation that newspapers have to publish every letter to the editor, so why is it you want to force Reddit, Twitter et al to keep up every post? If you don't like their TOS, then start your own website.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Uh, how do you figure that treating all traffic on the internet the same way locks out competitors?
The majority of Americans live in urban centers, so yes, while it sucks to be out in the backwoods of Montana and not have great service, it doesn't really apply to the majority of Americans, so this really is an absurd counterpoint.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Has the POTUS ever had COITUS with the FLOTUS?
Need to go back and get a refund on your education. We don't now, or ever have lived in a democracy. And, you better PRAY we never do!
If throttling can seriously effect google's search engine, then they need to go back to their roots.
I remember switching to google from yahoo when I was on dial up because I'd already be well into my search results while yahoo.com was still loading
I'm AT&T shareholder! Between this and the ruling tomorrow on the Time Warner merger by a George W. Bush appointed judge (Gee, I wonder how a Republican appointed judge is going to rule? For the corporations or the consumer?
This one must be very conflicting for you since the Trump administration is against the merger.
You clearly don't know what you are talking about. Throttling was indeed a thing in areas with perfectly good pipes in the past. There were lawsuits by some, payoffs by others. Now that "rent seeking" behavior is all back on the table
Comcast could block Cloud Gaming unless you buy an tv package just like how ATT blocked facetime on some plans.
Nonsense. Did Faux News tell you that? The purpose of Net Neutrality is to prevent the Comcasts of the world from going to the Netflixes of the world and saying "That's a nice business you got there. It'd be a shame if Something Bad happened to it...".
Nah. But he sure would have given us an elegant teleprompter speech to make us feel good about the round-ups.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
He was first appointed to the FCC by Obama. It's not like he gets an extra vote for being Chairman.
I'm just guessing here.. But it seems to me that returning to a pre-NN regulation environment won't be a huge issue even then.
I'm sure companies like AT&T and Comcast are fighting hard against Net Neutrality with no further goals and only the most altruistic of intentions. I'm sure that Comcast will be thrilled to compete fairly against Netflix and Google and countless tiny companies.
I see "patriots" forcing people to stand for the national anthem and pledge of allegiance. Forcing one to stand or kneel...whatever, it's basically the same thing.
This. Just wait until Netflix subscribers experience a few bufferings per show on a consistent basis. Political heads will roll.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
> regulations, which are details about how the law is to be implemented
That's the way that comports with the Constitution. Congress makes laws, the executive *implements* the law passed by Congress. Which includes details of *how* the Congressional law is implemented. How, not *what* the law is.
> the FCC has ... the power to make law.
The Constitution, and common sense, disagree with you on this. IF Congress passed a NN law, we could discuss at what level of detail Congress should act and what level the can legitimately leave to the FCC. In fact Congress chose NOT to make NN law. Therefore the FCC cannot possibly be implementing NN law, since there is no such law. If and when Congress passes a NN law, the FCC can implement it, so long as the FCC is making determinations of HOW it's implemented, not unilaterally deciding WHAT the law is.
Wrong, that wasn't the purpose of it at all. You believe what the left wing media tells you to believe.
Fuck the judicial "branch" and their rewriting of laws. They have no place and no value in our society. Lame ducks.
So let me get this straight. The judiciary is granted by the Constitution the power to interpret laws and decide between conflicting opinions regarding those interpretations. This is a vital part of the checks and balances in our government but you are uncomfortable with that fact. So you are effectively saying we should not have a Judiciary with the power to keep the Legislative and Executive branches in check or to correct Congress when they make laws that are contrary to the Constitution.
Yeah... let's just say I don't agree with you.
They will improve it by throttling and offering innovative new social media access plans. They will try, it will blow up in their face.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
That's the way that comports with the Constitution. Congress makes laws, the executive *implements* the law passed by Congress. Which includes details of *how* the Congressional law is implemented. How, not *what* the law is.
That's a distinction without a difference. Any decision on a means of implementation (a regulation) de-facto IS a decision about what the law is. Congress delegated law making power. If Congress does not like a particular interpretation of the law they are empowered to pass legislation to clarify the powers they are delegating to the legislative branch or to give them further constraints. Congress is empowered to be as specific as they like with how they want a federal agency to behave. But in the absence of specificity from the Legislative branch federal agencies can and do write laws in the form of regulations on a daily basis within whatever mandate they are granted. Regulations ARE laws. Whether Congress writes a detailed law itself or delegates that authority to the Executive branch (which they do most of the time) has exactly the same effect at the end of the day. There is NO difference.
The Constitution, and common sense, disagree with you on this.
You would fail Constitutional Law 101 with that opinion. You're not arguing with my opinion and whether or not you think it sensible is irrelevant because that is how it works. I suggest you educate yourself on this point because it's important.
IF Congress passed a NN law, we could discuss at what level of detail Congress should act and what level the can legitimately leave to the FCC.
The FCC has already been granted powers by Congress. We can debate whether those powers extend to regulating Net Neutrality or not (the Judiciary has held that they do thus far) but the fact is that the FCC like all other federal agencies is granted substantial power to interpret the laws via regulations and to enforce those regulations. EVERY federal agency has the power to write laws via regulations. Regulations ARE laws whether you like it or not. That is how it works whether you like it or not.
In fact Congress chose NOT to make NN law.
That does not matter if the powers Congress already granted the FCC are broad enough to permit them to create (or remove) regulations surrounding Net Neutrality. It appears that the FCC does indeed have powers that broad as the Supreme Court has issued a ruling supporting the FCC's authority to write (or not) such regulations back in 2005. There have been other federal rulings that similarly affirm the FCC's authority to make such regulations under their existing authority. If Congress wishes to change this state of affairs they are empowered to do so.
Fairly certain Net Neutrality is the Law of the land in the West (CA,OR,WA) and Canada.
So, maybe you're slow, but we aren't.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Yeah yeah, I know, you're just trolling. But just to clarify:
1) You wouldn't have seen any changes yet because the rules are still in place. They expire today.
2) The repeal of Net Neutrality is extremely unpopular outside of the corporate boardrooms. As a previous Slashdot story pointed out, ISPs will wait until we're not paying attention as much before they really screw you over. It would be an absolute PR nightmare for them to pull this crap on Day One, so they'll play it safe for awhile, say "see? Nothing to worry about after all" before pulling shit like throttling web sites who pay for their bandwidth but don't give the ISPs additional kickbacks.
Before somebody wonders, the poster is being sarcastic.
The poster is definitely running afoul of Poe's Law! It's difficult to tell, sometimes. He wasn't exaggerating the opposition argument at all, just playing it very straight.
When your Netflix bill goes up because the national ISPs are extorting them, remember what I said.
It is now time to destroy the monopolies since we are removing the regulations.
At this point, we should require that all govs be allowed to build out their own networks. Likewise, we might want to consider the idea of requiring that all communication monopolies be outright dropped.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
even if that's in fine print. And it won't be. It'll be a 'feature'.
You can't just throw up your hands and say anything you don't like is fraud. If you don't want to be gouged by the cable companies you're going to have to actually do something about it. And that means voting for the kinds of politicians that will do something about it (we're a representative democracy after all). And that means kicking the Republican party out of power (and all the right wing corporate Dems while we're at it). Show up and vote in your primary.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
> You would fail Constitutional Law 101 with that opinion.
You might want to educate the Supreme Court about that. The court says;
"The legislative power of Congress cannot be delegated"
United States v. Shreveport Grain & Elevator Co., 287 U.S. 77, 85 (1932).
also Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 692 (1892).
That makes perfect sense because a) the Constitution says legislative power is vested in the Congress, which is elected every two years. It does not say "the Congress, the FCC, the FBI, the CIA, and every government bureaucrat".
Also see:
Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935).
61 A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935).
If "the legislative power of Congress cannot be delegated" isn't clear enough, John Locke gave a more lengthy explanation:
--
The Legislative cannot transfer the Power of Making Laws to any other hands. For it being but a delegated Power from the People, they, who have it, cannot pass it over to othersâ¦And when the people have said, We will submit to rules, and be governâ(TM)d by Laws made by such Men, and in such Forms, no Body else can say other Men shall make Laws for them; nor can the people be bound by any Laws but such as are Enacted by those, whom they have Chosen, and Authorised to make Laws for them. The power of the Legislative being derived from the People by a positive voluntary Grant and Institution, can be no other, than what the positive Grant conveyed, which being only to make Laws, and not to make Legislators, the Legislative can have no power to transfer their Authority of making laws, and place it in other hands.
--
What CAN Congress legitimately grant to departments?
SCOTUS has ruled it "constitutionally sufficient if Congress clearly delineates the general policy, the public agency which is to apply it, and the boundaries of this delegated authority", "only if the statute delegating the power provides definite standards or proceduresâ.
Here Congress did NOT "clearly delineate the general policy" of network neutrality. In fact, they considered doing so and decided NOT to. They decided that is NOT the general policy.
The 2005 ruling is that the FCC has the authority to decide a factual matter - whether or not a specific service meets the definition of "information service" that Congress put in the law. That's a determination of fact, with Congress having created the law, the definition.
Further reading:
State v. Union Tank Car Co., 439 So. 2d 377 (La. 1983)
In re Judgment & Sale of Delinquent Properties for the Tax Year 1989, 167 Ill. 2d 161, 177 (Ill. 1995)
ACT-UP Triangle v. Commission for Health Servs., 345 N.C. 699, 707 (N.C. 1997)
Citizensâ(TM) Util. Ratepayer Bd. v. State Corp. Commâ(TM)n, 264 Kan. 363 (Kan. 1998)
...I was promised the GÃtterdÃmmerung of the internet as every carrier was poised like a sprinter behind their lobbyists to charge me *BILLION$* for my fast internet connection, and that all my packets would suddenly come with a price tag, or be routed into a USB drive carried from house-to-house on a pigeon.
Or, it's going to be pretty much the internet ala Jan 2015, before NN even existed.
-Styopa
Actually, our Netflix bills went up 4 times during Net Neutrality.. :-P
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
He was first appointed to the FCC by Obama. It's not like he gets an extra vote for being Chairman.
The chairman determines the agenda, and he was the minority Republican member with two demoncraps. So now you control the agenda, have a built in two to one vote, and you really think he has no power? Let's chat about 3 to 1 margins. So yeah, he kinda does get the automatic majority.
But hey, I get it.... "HER EMAIL!!!"
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
"enacted" is a funny word for a non-enforcable policy that isn't law because it never went through Congress. Whether you are talking Emperor Obama or Emperor Trump, isn't the *real* problem having executives who legislate without a legislature?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
We'll do that too.
Though Comcast is my only option, I'm prepared to give up home internet if things get much worse. The neat thing about streaming, cloud DVRs, and such is the fact that you don't really need internet at home, nor an expensive unlimited cellular plan to enjoy it. Just sit in a coffee house for the hour or two you want to watch a show, then go about your business.
It might even be better for us physically and spiritually to remove ourselves from that always-on limitless distraction.
You must be too young to know what I'm talking about.
I'd already be in the google search results while the yahoo home page was still loading
Millions of NFL fans care and they showed how much they cared last season. Time will tell if the NFL can ever get them back.
NFL players are on the job and whatever the bosses say is what they do. If they want to protest anything, they have plenty of free time to do so.
I've spent literally years studying traffic prioritization and queueing, in order to earn multiple certifications on the topic, including two from Cisco. For Cisco alone, I studied over 4,000 pages of material, because the topic is THAT complex.
Here's a very, very basic gist of the problem:
For VoIP, you have one major parameter you care about - jitter. You must have the lowest possible jitter, so that when you say "hello Bob", the listener doesn't hear "ob lloheb". Bandwidth isn't a concern, 64Kbps is plenty. Latency needs to be reasonable, but isn't as important as jitter. Reasonable packet loss is okay, and delayed packets must NOT be re-sent late.
For Netflix, only bandwidth matters, and you want a lot.of it. You don't care at all about jitter, or about latency, because it's going to be buffered a few seconds anyway. 1000ms latency is just fine.
Email or general web browsing has a different set of parameters you want. Delayed or lost packets MUST be sent, no matter how late, and no matter how many retries up to the window.
The definition of a "good" connection for Netflix is the precise opposite of the "good" for VoIP. I may route the two across entirely different paths. A high bandwidth, long and congested route with large queues is perfect for your Netflix viewing. A low-bandwidth route with small buffers and queues is needed for your VoIP. If I treated your VoIP packets as if they were Netflix, your call would be mostly unintelligible.
If your old enough, you may remember old news broadcasts where the correspondent was on location and there was a three-second delay between when the anchor asked a question and the correspondent in the field started to answer. The anchor would repeat back the answer because it was often somewhat garbled. The correspondent and the anchor were trained to anticipate the three-second delay and not talk over each other. That's what you get when you send voice packets without the special handling we use now.
I wouldn't have suspected you of all people of being an anarchist.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Consider all the communities that wanted to install either local government or community funded ISP projects which got blocked at the state/federal level. I mean if America was land of the free, then coop-run ISPs should be just as legal as capitalist run ones, and the market would decide which organizational structure/revenue model was the correct one. But instead, our less than free market economy is allowing big players to quash little players in every market at every level, with very little effective pushback from community level organizations.
The current model in America is the worse aspects of economical darwinism at work. Because in that model there can only be one fish by the end.
This is the end. We're all fucking doomed.
"Then, start your OWN website and make up your own rules."
Were it that simple.
Google's management decides that they don't like your content and your site isn't listed in any search listing or its on the 30th page. Might as well be on a sign planted on the Moon.
Besides Google, those that created their own website to express their own views without censorship find that their hosting company CEO decides unilaterally that he/she doesn't like what they see on the site so they delete its domain name and IP.
Strangely, though, most of the blocking, shadow banning, or account deletions are with those whose views are anti-"Progressive", i.e., Marxist. Just a causal examination of tweets and youtube accounts immediately shows the difference.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Whatever makes my masters more money.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
What is legal content? Who gets to decide? Something tells me this would effect my internet experience.
"The money came in four installments of $50,000, starting in early 2017 and ending in January 2018, right after Trump’s pick for FCC chair, Ajit Pai, rushed through the repeal of net neutrality, despite overwhelming outcry from across the political spectrum." ref
It's their party. If Sanders (or anyone else, for that matter) doesn't want to join, then he's free to join a different one, or start his own.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
NN existed from the beginning, and was the default. Stop spreading lies. Thanks.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
And yet that that's not really not how the NFL works. The players have very detailed contracts that outline exactly what they are paid to do; here is an article discussing how the NFL is probably in violation of their contractual agreements with the player's unions. The whole "kneeling" requirement was never negotiated with the players. When the Federal government (via Trump) gets involved in demanding a specific group of people do specific things against their will far outside of anything relating to the welfare of "the people" the First Amendment comes into play. Add in the blatant lies and disinformation spread by Fox News about the Eagles insinuating they knelt during the Anthem (when they were one of the only teams that did nothing like this the whole season), to the point of the Federal government is ranting about it...
I'd also like to add that there is nothing unpatriotic about expressing free speech. Trying to shut up free speech is what is unpatriotic.
Yes, however, everything about managing the jittering of VoIP is based on the local and remote routers. The internet backbones themselves aren't doing what your talking about. While everything you've said is true, the special handling is NOT occurring outside of your own routers. Raw bandwidth is.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
I can see why you might think so. In fact, we have entire TEAMS of network engineers constantly working to improve how different packets are queued and routed in order to match their needs bandwidth, latency, packet loss, and jitter. Some of our routers have a dozen different queues.
Your local router can do very little about any of those. You have no control of which queues I put any of your packets in. You could have a SMALL amount of control with certain large contracts, but it's clear those are way beyond the scope of your experience. For your little home connection, you, via your local router, can only manage the tradeoffs of bandwidth, loss, jitter, and latency that occurs on your own home network - which is an insignificant part of it 95% of what can be done, we do, on the carrier network.
Please don't keep saying our jobs don't exist - it only makes you look really stupid to keep saying that after you've been informed otherwise.
I think this is officially the day the utopian dream died. The internet didn't bring world peace after all, but cities are now building special lanes for zombies reading smartphones!
The players aren't fined, the team is, that is how they got around player contracts.
Ken
If costs go up, who can better afford the increased costs, Google/Facebook/Netflix, or the small startups looking to eat their lunch. Major Corp. can absorb compliance costs much better than under-funded startups.
Ken
Your definition of "forced" is fucking retarded.
Nobody was forced to do anything, sit, kneel, or stand. They could do whatever they wanted. It's literally free expression.
That doesn't free you from criticism, like you want however, you fucking imbecile.
Oh, wait, you are being sarcastic...
Ya think? ;-)
So, your reasons for thinking that the FCC cannot deal with any issues that arise?
Short version? No I don't think that under the current administration that they have ANY interest in dealing with "any issues that arise". This isn't the sort of thing you can deal with after the fact. By the time the FCC (or FTC) gets around to dealing with it the damage will already be done.
Remember, I'm not saying providers won't misbehave, I'm saying the FCC is free to fix any issue that come up with a smaller set of targeted regulations.
Net neutrality solves the problem neatly without the need for any reactive regulations which will inevitably be too little and too late. The ONLY parties that are against net neutrality are the big ISPs who I assure you do not have my interests close to their heart.
I'm also saying that if you have any complaints about your ISP, you are free to bring the issues to the FCC's attention either online, by phone or in person.
Seriously? You think a complaint by ME is going matter even a little bit? Comcast is a MONOPOLY where I live. I could complain until the cows come home and it wouldn't matter one bit. If Comcast decides to play favorites with my internet traffic there isn't a damn thing I can do about it. That's why net neutrality matters.
From Pai's press release:
"But then in 2015, the FCC chose a different course and slapped heavy-handed regulations from 1934 -- known as "Title II" -- on the internet. This was the wrong decision."
Really? I have to ask because we did the same thing here in Canada about a decade ago. As a result, I can get my internet from any company over any wire that comes into my house. I have complete flexibility in choosing a provider, and there's actual price competition.
So I call BS on that.
The current scotus case law is that the legislature can only delegate implementation details of the laws they make. The wording that clarifies the meaning of that phrase indicates that implementation details do not significantly impact the effect of the legislation. So if we see the presence or absence of NN changing the internet in any significant way, then per the current case law, NN is not an implementation detail and hence not in the purview of the FCC. I personally disagree with that case law, but my polling numbers for God-emperor are down lately so it will probably stay for the time being.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
Also not the purview of the FTC.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
Well, you should REALLY tell the rest of the internet that paying extra to ISPs to have them resepect QoS on ingress/egress routes is wasting their money I suppose. I mean, WHY exactly would people pay SO much extra money for such a thing, right?
As for 'your local router', I challenge you to take a cheapo netgear, and a Ubiquity EdgeRouter, connect it to an xfinity gigabit connection, and go ahead and tell me that your local router doesn't matter.
Oh, and for those small companies who are installing Cisco gear, might as well tell them their all wasting their money, since the router can't matter much, might as well just toss some cheap linksys's at them.
Oh yea, and the #1 method used to reduce the jitter is the use of the playout delay buffer in the case of Cisco gear. Might want to give them a call and let them know, total waste of time, and you can handle all their jitter problems. I'm sure they would LOVE to hear from you.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Quite the opposite actually. I'm very much for rule of law- LIMITED TO THE WRITTEN LAW. I'm very against judges legislating from the bench by deciding what words mean on the spot.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
>Oh yea, and the #1 method used to reduce the jitter is the use of the playout delay buffer in the case of Cisco gear.
Omg! Wow! I'm going to have to tell all my colleagues about this because my employer has been paying us $3 million / year to NOT no about basic features that were pretty helpful a decade ago!
PS, if you're sending all of your packets through the anti-jitter buffer, not distinguishing between different types of flows, you're Doing It Wrong. You wouldn't get past the interview here, but if you did, you'd get fired pretty quick treating all packets the same.
There are three categories of knowing something;
1. The person hasn't heard / seen it, ignorance.
2. The person saw it or had it explained, but couldn't understand.
3. The person saw it, it didn't match the guess they had previously made, so they actively choose to remain ignorant, rejecting the plain facts put before them.
#1 is easily solved, a person can learn simply be looking up the relevant information.
#2 may require some remedial education, or different methods of learning, in order to understand.
#3 is doomed to live in everlasting ignorance.
Here you're having a conversation with me, and still insisting that my co-workers and I don't exist. That's pretty special.
I really, really wonder how people who absolutely refuse to ever learn anything make it past first grade.
No, I don't have the customer tell me, via QOS bits, how to shape and police traffic. That does not mean our $100 billion network is nothing but a dumb cable.
Telling us how to shape traffic is not the customer's job.
The customer's job is to act like a complete asshat moron on the web. It is our network engineers who decide how we route, queue, police, and shape traffic. You REALLY really still think ISPs don't have network engineers? We in fact have extremely well paid, expert network engineers, and our network management is far, far beyond you setting QOS bits.
Of course, you can't accept that, because one day long ago you pictured the backbones as being simple cables. Since you got that picture in your head once, it HAS to be true, it must be perfectly accurate because you once imagined it. Changing your understanding, learning anything, would mean admitting your first guess was WRONG - that you weren't born knowing everything. Can't have that. So whatever you DID think when you were two years old must be correct!
This will really piss you off - you know that picture you had in your head of Santa Claus? That's not real either. You were wrong about Santa Claus AND about the backbone networks being really, really long CAT6 cables.
That's precisely what I said....
buttery male?
Slippery shiny he-dolphin?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Not as law, only as custom or practice that was established LONG before the interwebs were a vehicle for commercial traffic. I'd say that it's reasonable to assert that the context has changed from the internet of the 1970s and 80s.
Stop spreading lies.
Thanks.
-Styopa
We're going to die of anthrax by the millions! Just like in the pre-Net Neutrality days, before Net Neutrality saved us all!
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.