FCC Approves Confusing Net Neutrality

[bigmike82]

"Additionally, if anyone is going to make changes it should be Congress...not the FCC by decree."
The FCC had handled crap like this since its inception. That's the point behind agencies like it. If you want to do away with it, fine. Go lobby your congressman. But in this specific instance, the FCC has taken a (small) step in the right direction.

[FreedomIsNotFree]

"Additionally, if anyone is going to make changes it should be Congress...not the FCC by decree."
The FCC had handled crap like this since its inception. That's the point behind agencies like it. If you want to do away with it, fine. Go lobby your congressman. But in this specific instance, the FCC has taken a (small) step in the right direction.

Incorrect. The US District Court out of DC, in April, ruled that the FCC lacks the authority.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. That was a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company, which had challenged the FCC's authority to impose such "network neutrality" obligations on broadband providers.

The unanimous ruling by the three-judge panel marks a serious setback for the FCC, which is trying to adopt official net neutrality regulations. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat, argues such rules are needed to prevent phone and cable companies from using their control over Internet access to favor some kinds of online content and services over others.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36193558/ns/technology_and_science-security/

And again, without knowing what the details are, being that the government has yet to make the information public, how can you say its a step in the right direction?

Wrong on both counts.

[bigmike82]

They absolutely have the legal basis. It's unfortunate the dingbats judges ruled as they did, but there's plenty of law that the FCC can base their judgements on. What they need to do is simply classify internet service as a communications service (which it obviously is) and be done with it.

http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1221/DOC-303745A1.pdf

While not the full order, it's a pretty good synopsis.

Again, what happened was a small, tiny step in the right direction.

You may be happy being force-fed content by your ISP. I am not.

[UBFRAGD]

I half expected to see that pdf authored by George Orwell by the time I read it through.

If the demand for non-throttled internet is so important to the consumer, why aren't we seeing independent providers advertising non-throttled? Or the big players offering a special non-throttled connection? It seems the free market would take care of a conflict like this.

And who really needs non-throttled? I suspect people who value it are the same people participating in ways to avoid paying for copyrighted media.

I expect it will ultimately end up costing me more money to get on the net. New fees and taxes always seem to get passed on down the line to the end consumer.

Kind of OT, but I did want to mention, I live next to pulic housing in SF, and the residents enjoy free unlimited wifi.

I think the internet is one of the few things in America that actually works and shows signs of continual improvement while adding value to my life. What in hell do I want the feds tampering with something like that? They have a very small track record of succesful improvements via regulation.

[bigmike82]

"If the demand for non-throttled internet is so important to the consumer, why aren't we seeing independent providers advertising non-throttled? Or the big players offering a special non-throttled connection? It seems the free market would take care of a conflict like this. "
Because last mile connectivity is LEGALLY MONOPOLIZED.

"And who really needs non-throttled? I suspect people who value it are the same people participating in ways to avoid paying for copyrighted media."
Who needs 30 round mags? Who needs semi-auto rifles? Who needs bayonets?

"They have a very small track record of succesful improvements via regulation."
Uhm....the internet was a product of the DOD. Not of private enterprise.

[BluNorthern]

If the demand for non-throttled internet is so important to the consumer, why aren't we seeing independent providers advertising non-throttled? Or the big players offering a special non-throttled connection? It seems the free market would take care of a conflict like this.

Because the big players all but have a monopoly and are constantly working on eliminating whatever competition they have by acquiring them. I'm afraid the idea of a free market taking care of anything in cases like this is a myth. Doesn't work when the cards are held by such few players.

And who really needs non-throttled? I suspect people who value it are the same people participating in ways to avoid paying for copyrighted media.

That reminds me of...who really needs thirty rounds as opposed to ten. So you are happy with the scenario of having your internet viewing manipulated by your ISP? Not me. Where do you make the connection of wanting equal internet access and copyright infringement??

I expect it will ultimately end up costing me more money to get on the net. New fees and taxes always seem to get passed on down the line to the end consumer.

If we don't get net neutrality with closed loopholes you can count on your fees going up when providers either start charging for what they consider "premium" sites or start charging certain sites fees that are then passed on to us. Ever see what is constantly going on with cable and satellite fees?

[RRangel]

If the demand for non-throttled internet is so important to the consumer, why aren't we seeing independent providers advertising non-throttled? Or the big players offering a special non-throttled connection? It seems the free market would take care of a conflict like this.

Because the big players all but have a monopoly and are constantly working on eliminating whatever competition they have by acquiring them. I'm afraid the idea of a free market taking care of anything in cases like this is a myth. Doesn't work when the cards are held by such few players.

And who really needs non-throttled? I suspect people who value it are the same people participating in ways to avoid paying for copyrighted media.

That reminds me of...who really needs thirty rounds as opposed to ten. So you are happy with the scenario of having your internet viewing manipulated by your ISP? Not me. Where do you make the connection of wanting equal internet access and copyright infringement??

I expect it will ultimately end up costing me more money to get on the net. New fees and taxes always seem to get passed on down the line to the end consumer.

If we don't get net neutrality with closed loopholes you can count on your fees going up when providers either start charging for what they consider "premium" sites or start charging certain sites fees that are then passed on to us. Ever see what is constantly going on with cable and satellite fees?

The pretense is up already so you may want to give it a rest. That hand has already been played and the intentions are known so your comments are comical. It's pretty obvious at this point why Obama's appointed FCC chairman is ignoring congress and the courts. Because it's the quickest way for the FCC and the current administration to regulate information and influence content.

[bigmike82]

"Because it's the quickest way for the FCC and the current administration to regulate information and influence content."
That's total and utter crap.

[FreedomIsNotFree]

They absolutely have the legal basis. It's unfortunate the dingbats judges ruled as they did, but there's plenty of law that the FCC can base their judgements on. What they need to do is simply classify internet service as a communications service (which it obviously is) and be done with it.

http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1221/DOC-303745A1.pdf

While not the full order, it's a pretty good synopsis.

Again, what happened was a small, tiny step in the right direction.

You may be happy being force-fed content by your ISP. I am not.

I think the US District Court Judge has a more complete grasp of the law on this matter than you do...no offense.

How could you possibly know the linked press release is a good synopsis when the full text has not been released?

What content have I been force fed by my ISP?

[bigmike82]

"I think the US District Court Judge has a more complete grasp of the law on this matter than you do...no offense."
The lawyers of the FCC obviously disagree, and have shown what basis they have for making their decision. It's right there.

"How could you possibly know the linked press release is a good synopsis when the full text has not been released?"
It's straight from the horses mouth. While its certainly possible that the FCC mentioned aliens and anal probes, I'm not going to give that notion any credence until I've seen something to support it. There's no evidence that the FCC is leaving out any material statements.

"What content have I been force fed by my ISP?"
Currently...not much. But that's only because consumer outcry stopped Comcast from doing much more than screwing with torrent traffic. When you do away with Net Neutrality, there's *NOTHING* stopping Comcast from accepting money that will allow Huffington Post to display in a matter of miliseconds, and Calguns from failing to display for a few seconds.

[JDay]

You're confusing net neutrality with the COICA treaty.

[JDay]

WTF is with all this commie bullsh*t? If I owned a company like Comcast, I would choke the living sh*t out of Netflix streams, etc. You don't like it? Get another provider.

Free market FTW... always.

You should learn a little something about common carriers.

[RRangel]

You're confusing net neutrality with the COICA treaty.

Actually, what's important is that the message in my statement is clear.

[RRangel]

"Because it's the quickest way for the FCC and the current administration to regulate information and influence content."
That's total and utter crap.

There is pretty much no denying what government controllers are after. The FCC's actions are Hugo Chavez approved. Congress would beg to differ with your opinion and there is absolutely no popular mandate for such FCC action.

[bigmike82]

"The FCC's actions are Hugo Chavez approved."
*facepalm*

Okay, I'm going to stop feeding the troll now.