So much for liberty. The FCC passes massive government internet regulation.

[laidoff2]

http://youtu.be/9sogCXsvp9w

 

[Supafly]

I think we can retire this thread, for now. The people have won

 

[Johan]

It seems that some folks here are very confused : they cannot distinguish liberty from corporate oligarchy
:dunno:

 

[SabrinaDeep]

Loneski, my fear is that we will end up paying for what we use with the lowest tiers not even allowing to stream a full movie per day. This might not worry you, but it indeed worries me. It seems to me indubitably obvious that there will be a fragmentation of pay-as you-go offers which will affect the number of people able to access certain heavy bandwidth/data-transfer services and to which extent. That would surely create discrimination on what you can and cannot watch/reach. But hey...we will see. I just don't have much faith in governments ruling the market, because usually who gets fucked without lube is always the end consumer and never the service provider.

 

[Supafly]

I am unsure about the full extent of the broadband situation in the USA as a whole and the specifics, but here in Germany, broadband is accessable at basic speeds of, say 16 K for everybody, and you can pay more for more speed. The names are DSL for up to 16 K, and VDSL for above speeds. Livestreaming usually is feasible with 25 K and more.

 

[xfire]

http://i.imgur.com/AUoUEWE.jpg

Brings up a salient point, "problems that aren't happening and never have". Really?

https://www.aclu.org/net-neutrality#abuses1

Broadband providers have both the incentive and the ability to interfere with the Internet. That hasn't stopped network neutrality opponents from claiming that the threat is "theoretical," or that applying time-honored common carrier principles to the Internet is a "solution in search of a problem." In fact, there have already been numerous incidents of abuse:

AT&T's jamming of a rock star's political protest. During an August 2007 performance by the rock group Pearl Jam in Chicago, AT&T censored words from lead singer Eddie Vedder's performance. The ISP, which was responsible for streaming the concert, shut off the sound as Vedder sang, "George Bush, leave this world alone" and "George Bush find yourself another home." By doing so, AT&T, the self-advertised presenting sponsor of the concert series, denied viewers the complete exclusive coverage they were promised. Although Vedder's words contained no profanity, an AT&T spokesperson claimed that the words were censored to prevent youth visiting the website from being exposed to "excessive profanity." AT&T then blamed the censorship on an external Website contractor hired to screen the performance, calling it a mistake and pledging to restore the unedited version of Vedder's appearance online.

Comcast's throttling of online file-sharing through Bit*******. In 2007, Comcast, the nation's largest cable TV operator and second largest ISP, discriminated against an entire class of online activities in 2007 by using deep packet inspection to block file transfers from customers using popular peer-to-peer networks such as Bit*******, eDonkey, and Gnutella. Comcast's actions, which were confirmed in nationwide tests conducted by the Associated Press, were unrelated to network congestion, since the blocking took place at times when the network was not congested. Comcast blocked applications that are often used to trade videos — pirated content but also much legitimate content. Critics noted that Comcast hopes to sell online video itself. The FCC subsequently took action against Comcast for this abuse; Comcast stopped the throttling but also challenged the order in court and won, leading to a crisis in enforcement of network neutrality.

Verizon Wireless's censorship of NARAL Pro-Choice America. In late 2007, Verizon Wireless cut off access to a text-messaging program by the pro-abortion-rights group NARAL that the group used to send messages to its supporters. Verizon stated it would not service programs from any group "that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users." Verizon Wireless reversed its censorship of NARAL only after widespread public outrage.

Telus' blocking of striking workers' web site. In 2005, the Canadian telecom, involved in a bitter labor dispute, blocked its Internet subscribers from accessing a website run by the union that was on strike against Telus.

So far these incidents have been just that — incidents. This kind of behavior has not yet become broadly accepted or "baked in" to the structure of the Internet. But without enforceable network neutrality rules in place, that could quickly happen. And the consistency of these abuses tells us all we need to know about what will happen if companies are permitted to exploit their power over our Internet connections.

More about Net Neutrality-

https://www.aclu.org/net-neutrality

Protect your right to access what you want and how you want it on the Internet

The Internet has become so much a part of the lives of most Americans that it is easy to imagine that it will always remain the free and open medium it is now. We'd like to believe it will remain a place where you can always access any lawful content you want, and where the folks delivering that content can't play favorites because they disagree with the message being delivered or want to charge more money for faster delivery.

But there are no such guarantees.

If the government doesn't act soon, this open internet — and the "network neutrality" principles that sustain it — could be a thing of the past. Profits and corporate disfavor of controversial viewpoints or competing services could change both what you can see on the Internet and the quality of your connection. And the need to monitor what you do online in order to play favorites means even more consumer privacy invasions piled on top of the NSA's prying eyes.

Don't let it happen. Read on to learn more about how you can help protect your free and open internet.

Q. What's the problem?

A. Most people get their high-speed Internet access from only a few telecommunications giants– Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, and Charter. The very few other smaller guys often have to rely on the big guys to serve their customers. When we send or receive data over the Internet, we expect those companies to transfer that data from one end of the network to the other. Period. We don't expect them to analyze or manipulate it. And for a while, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had protections in place to prevent broadband providers from doing just that.

In January 2014, however, a federal court said the FCC had overstepped its bounds. But, while it also said that the FCC could impose new and potentially even stronger rules, the FCC has signaled that it may instead propose that Internet service providers be allowed to charge content providers for a faster conduit to consumers. That would effectively kill a major component of net neutrality.

Q. What do you mean, they might "manipulate our data"?

A. New technologies now allow telecom companies to scrutinize every piece of information we send or receive online websites, email, videos, Internet phone calls, or data generated by games or social networks. And they can program the computers that route that information to interfere with the data flow by slowing down or blocking traffic and communicators that they don't like (and speeding up traffic they do like or that pays them extra for the privilege).

Imagine if the phone company could mess with your calls every time you tried to order pizza from Domino's, because Pizza Hut is paying them to route their calls first.

Q. They're not allowed to do that, are they?

A. The phone company isn't allowed to do that, and, for a while, the FCC said broadband providers couldn't either. In January, however, a federal court overturned the FCC's rules on a technicality. Now, unless the FCC takes action to support a free and open Internet, big broadband providers will actually have a much greater range of options for interfering with our communications than the phone companies ever had. It would be pretty difficult for a landline phone company to block individual calls or make other calls go through faster. Not so much for big broadband providers.

Q. Why would the telecoms want to interfere with Internet data?

A. Profit and other corporate interests. Companies might want to interfere with speech that makes them look bad, block applications that compete with their own, or increase their profit by forcing developers to pay more to avoid having their data blocked or slowed down.

Q. Won't competition prevent them from doing any of this?

A. It should and normally it would — but it won't. First of all, manipulations of our data are not always easily detectable; content can be delayed or distorted in important but subtle ways.

Second, it costs a lot to build a big high-speed broadband service, so there aren't very many of them. They also tend to be big phone and cable companies because they already have the data "pipes" in place. Most Americans don't have more than a handful of legitimate high-speed broadband options at home (the vast majority have three or fewer). That means two things. One, customers can't switch if a big broadband providers starts messing around with their service. Two, big content providers like Netflix have to send their data through these "last-mile" gatekeepers. Right now, market competition just isn't enough to stop them from blocking services or charging more for a fast lane.
Q. Have there been any actual instances of service providers interfering with the Internet, or is this just all theoretical?
A. Real abuses have happened consistently over the past decade (see Abuses below).

Q. So what exactly is "net neutrality," and what would it do?

A. Network neutrality means applying well-established "common carrier" rules to the Internet in order to preserve its freedom and openness. Common carriage prohibits the owner of a network, that holds itself out to all-comers, from discriminating against information by halting, slowing, or otherwise tampering with the transfer of any data (except for legitimate network management purposes such as easing congestion or blocking spam).

Important Fact: Common carriage is not a new concept – these rules have a centuries-old history. They have long been applied to facilities central to the public life and economy of our nation, including canal systems, railroads, public highways, and telegraph and telephone networks. In fact, common carrier rules have already been written into the Telecommunications Act of 1996 by Congress; they just need to be applied to broadband Internet communications by the FCC.

Now, if — like the AOLs of yore — the broadband provider is also providing information, tools to access the Internet or various types of multi-media content itself, it has the First Amendment right to control that content. Just providing "dumb" pipes meant to move data from user to user, however, is quintessential common carriage.

Q. Why should I care about net neutrality now?

A. In the past, telecom companies were always forced – formally or informally – to adhere to net neutrality principles. As incidents of abuse have accumulated, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) acted to enforce rules against wired broadband providers preventing blocking or discrimination.

But! All that changed in January 2014 when a major court decision stripped the FCC of its power to enforce network neutrality protections under the regulatory framework it was using. This decision provides an opening for the telecom companies to begin exploiting technologies by monitoring and controlling data sent via their networks.

Q. What can be done to preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet?

A. The FCC can still protect the Internet. The agency was not blocked outright by the January court decision from enforcing network neutrality principles. It was blocked from doing so because it had classified broadband carriers as "information services" as defined in the 1996 Telecommunications Act. However, that classification never made sense; broadband carriers always fit much better under the law's definition of "telecommunications services." To remedy this, all the FCC has to do is reclassify Internet carriage as a "telecommunications service," which would automatically subject online communications to common carrier protections. Unfortunately, it has instead said it will propose a rule allowing companies to pay for access to a fast lane to deliver content to their customers. That’s still not the end of the story, however. The public will have the opportunity to weigh in before, according to media reports, the FCC votes on the new rules at the end of 2014.

In summation, being Anti-Net Neutrality is merely an extension of being Anti-Obama for the far right, or you seek to benefit somehow from allowing ISP's to fuck you. Don't trust government, great, I get it, but if you've got more trust in unregulated business to look out for your best interests, well, I just so happen to be selling unobtainium, cheap too, get yours today, I offer cash discounts or low monthly payments.

 

[MustBeGood]

 

[Johan]

In summation, being Anti-Net Neutrality is merely an extension of being Anti-Obama for the far right

The far right ? I think the whole Republican Party feels that way. As a matter of fact, to conservatives, if it comes fro Obama or if Obama supports it, then it must be fought against, at all cost.

I forgot what the question was, the answer is "Thanks Obama" !

 

[Loneski]

Sabrina, I understand where your thoughts are coming from, but the current system is place is that of FCC and net neutrality. If this would to fail then all of your fears that you described would come to full effect. Tiers would be set up, websites toggled, and basically an open internet will be gone.

 

[Loneski]

Ace, that's so cute, you goggled a image trying to describe what you believe others are thinking off. Guess its safe to say, that if it isn't for name calling and trying to quote sites, and yet fail to actually read its contents, you don't have much of an argument. So, I end with saying good day sir, and may you one day escape from your narrow way of thinking.

 

[bobjustbob]

BlkHawk explained this thing to me before on another thread but I still have some confusion about it in so many ways. When it comes to being a utility, I have only 1 company to get my cooking gas. If I owned my own home I may switch to bottled gas thus competition. My electric only comes from 1 company's wires but I may select other company's juice. TV, Internet. and Phone comes from either Verizon or cable or satellite. This is not the structure in all areas but competition is there. With all of these utilities there is infrastructure that was constructed and needs service. There are also load limits that need to be maintained and upgraded.

This Interweb thing works on power demands to transfer information and data. It may not be expanding up to the load that technology has created. Fiber optic lines may be getting crammed beyond their original design. Routing for this stuff gets more strained too. I don't think access is the same as preferred demand. We all want more stuff pushed faster down the pipes but at what point are we asking for too much? Asking for movies on the instant and real time gaming interaction has to be a premium to be paid for. Should I (being one that doesn't demand such services) supplement those that do demand this?

I think we have to separate what we need and what we want. Pay for things that are of a luxury.

 

[Straight Shooter]

BlkHawk explained this thing to me before on another thread but I still have some confusion about it in so many ways. When it comes to being a utility, I have only 1 company to get my cooking gas. If I owned my own home I may switch to bottled gas thus competition. My electric only comes from 1 company's wires but I may select other company's juice. TV, Internet. and Phone comes from either Verizon or cable or satellite. This is not the structure in all areas but competition is there. With all of these utilities there is infrastructure that was constructed and needs service. There are also load limits that need to be maintained and upgraded.

This Interweb thing works on power demands to transfer information and data. It may not be expanding up to the load that technology has created. Fiber optic lines may be getting crammed beyond their original design. Routing for this stuff gets more strained too. I don't think access is the same as preferred demand. We all want more stuff pushed faster down the pipes but at what point are we asking for too much? Asking for movies on the instant and real time gaming interaction has to be a premium to be paid for. Should I (being one that doesn't demand such services) supplement those that do demand this?

I think we have to separate what we need and what we want. Pay for things that are of a luxury.

At least you're able to admit that you don't fully comprehend the concept of net neutrality and don't come on here spouting misinformation like others....*cough* Ace...but you hit on an important point which is increasing competition among ISPs. I support net neutrality but do I think the FCC got this totally right? no, but at the same time it's at least going to open up the conversation on competition between ISPs. Increasing competition is the most important thing that needs to be addressed and the FCC didn't fix that with this ruling. We need to increase competition so that huge companies like AT&T and Comcast(which are already too powerful) don't have so much power that they can control the market for bandwidth. You also don't want them being able to block certain types of traffic. The only way to combat this extreme behavior is by having competition

 

[bobjustbob]

I can see competition possible in 2 ways. Build infrastructure and/or limit customers to business only. Neither could be created by any little guy but still opens the door for competition. On the residential front, only megs with power can afford this. Here is where the speed and loads are more demanded. Are these companies that created the infrastructure obligated in any way to share their creations with others to compete? That doesn't seem fair. But what are we talking about here, the free flow of information or consumer demands? If I missed something in the competition dilemma please clarify me.

 

[Will E Worm]

Internet freedom or we riot.


rotest:

 

[Johan]

Internet freedom or we riot.

Come down, stupid : the internet is free and the FCC just made sure that it will remain free.

 

[Will E Worm]

Come down, stupid : the internet is free and the FCC just made sure that it will remain free.

Come down? Where?


It better be. :tongue:

Now if we can just make Google and youtube to respect free speech.

 

[D-rock]

Only idiots complain about how they can't trust the government, and then turn around and seem to have so much trust in corporations or the "market", which are one of the few entities less trustworthy in the world than governments.

 

[Straight Shooter]

Internet freedom or we riot.


rotest:

For fucks sake, they're not regulating the internet and the content you watch. The ruling pertains to regulation of the ISPs.

 

[MustBeGood]

At this time listening to NPR's "On The Media on Net Neutrality they did the first 40 minutes on. Net Neutrality they are reporting will open up competition and lower prices.

Sounds like the free market to me from FCC and The FEDS control.

Podcast should be here at the top of the hour: http://www.onthemedia.org/

 

[Supafly]

For fucks sake, they're not regulating the internet and the content you watch. The ruling pertains to regulation of the ISPs.

I feel your pin, brother. Myself keeps falling into trying to explain the most basic shit to the cupcake... I love him, but it is no use. Talk to him about Wrestling, there is a point in doing that. Must be his bright spot