Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old May 15, 2014, 10:48 AM   #1
ugahairydawgs
macrumors 68020
 
ugahairydawgs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
FCC moves plan forward to allow paid priority on the Internet

I fail to see how anyone can rationally believe this is a good idea. Outside of the ISPs, of course.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...y-on-internet/
ugahairydawgs is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2014, 10:58 AM   #2
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs View Post
I fail to see how anyone can rationally believe this is a good idea. Outside of the ISPs, of course.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...y-on-internet/
I mostly agree.

However for video calling and VOIP getting the data delivered quickly is essential so perhaps that is worth a premium. That said it is also essential for AJAX dynamic web applications and they are pretty common.
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2014, 10:58 AM   #3
Raid
macrumors 68020
 
Raid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Toronto
Quote:
Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs View Post
I fail to see how anyone can rationally believe this is a good idea. Outside of the ISPs, of course.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...y-on-internet/
Well I can see an argument of maintaining and improving the infrastructure, but yeah this is a cash grab by ISPs.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. - Jack Layton
Raid is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2014, 11:13 AM   #4
Sydde
macrumors 68000
 
Sydde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
All the utilities, including the telecoms, need to be required to have a non-profit charter.
__________________
You got to be a spirit. You can't be no ghost.
Sydde is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2014, 11:16 AM   #5
edk99
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: FL
So I guess you guys would agree with Senator Cruz on this issue. The FCC should be enforcing laws not creating them.

Quote:
Ted Cruz bill would ban 'FCC's latest adventure in net neutrality'

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, wants Congress to ban "the FCC's latest adventure in 'net neutrality,' " saying the proposed changes to Internet regulations would damage the industry.

"A five-member panel at the FCC should not be dictating how Internet services will be provided to millions of Americans," Cruz said in a Wednesday afternoon statement. "I will be introducing legislation that would remove the claimed authority for the FCC to take such actions, specifically the Commission's nebulous Sec. 706 authority. More than $1 trillion has already been invested in broadband infrastructure, which has led to an explosion of new content, applications, and Internet accessibility. Congress, not an unelected commission, should take the lead on modernizing our telecommunications laws. The FCC should not endanger future investments by stifling growth in the online sector, which remains a much-needed bright spot in our struggling economy."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/ted-cr...rticle/2548441
edk99 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2014, 11:22 AM   #6
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by edk99 View Post
So I guess you guys would agree with Senator Cruz on this issue. The FCC should be enforcing laws not creating them.
So congress should pass a net neutrality law itself?
Eraserhead is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2014, 12:13 PM   #7
TheHateMachine
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Houston, TX
A potential ban of all paid prioritization as well as common carrier is still on the table. Also, slowed service because your traffic is not prioritized is apparently not supposed to happen (Not sure how they will accomplish that unless there will be a section of "reserved" bandwidth). It is a mixed bag. OF course that could all be worthless butt patting in an attempt to sate the people who want common carrier and the likes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by edk99 View Post
So I guess you guys would agree with Senator Cruz on this issue. The FCC should be enforcing laws not creating them.
Nope.
__________________
I own stuff that is cool and fits my needs.
TheHateMachine is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2014, 12:14 PM   #8
Peace
macrumors P6
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Space--The ONLY Frontier
Quote:
Originally Posted by edk99 View Post
So I guess you guys would agree with Senator Cruz on this issue. The FCC should be enforcing laws not creating them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
So congress should pass a net neutrality law itself?
While I strongly disagree with the FCC ruling,passing this decision making off to congress would make it worse. You would have a TON of lobbyist paying off congress to do what might be worse things to the internet.

Ted Cruz and the like making those decisions ?

I don't think so.

Congress should have oversight though.
__________________
Throw us one Russell---John Fox Super Bowl 49
Peace is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2014, 12:15 PM   #9
bradl
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
This is not enforced yet. This was just the initial vote, and public comments are due by July 15th. I suggest sending comments in, writing your Senator and Representative, as well as possibly proposing that the cable companies, since they are getting into internet and phone service, be classified as a Title II "Common Carrier" and be regulated like a utility.

But we need to act on this and now is that time.

BL.
bradl is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2014, 12:19 PM   #10
Happybunny
macrumors 65816
 
Happybunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 's-Hertogenbosch Netherlands
I'm glad I live this side of the water.

Europe Votes For Net Neutrality In No Uncertain Terms

The European Parliament has voted to protect net neutrality, limiting the power of telecoms providers to charge third parties for faster network access.

Members of the European Parliament approved the legislation by 534 votes to 25, with 58 abstentions – clear support for Commission vice president Neelie Kroes, who has pushed strongly for the changes.

Currently, only the Netherlands and Slovenia have net neutrality laws in place and some countries, such as the UK, are deeply unenthusiastic. Telecoms regulator BEREC says that several internet access providers across the region have been blocking or slowing down services such as Skype or Netflix NFLX +2.15%, with the Commission suggesting that as many as 100 million users may have been affected.

Providers will now be allowed to slow or block internet access only to enforce a court order, preserve network security or prevent temporary network congestion. Even in these cases, meaures must be “transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate”, and mustn’t last longer than necessary.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawool...certain-terms/
__________________
'You cannot undo history, but you can learn from it'
Happybunny is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2014, 01:19 PM   #11
MacNut
macrumors P6
 
MacNut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
It is ironic that the vote went 3-2 and the 3 were democrats. I thought they were the ones pushing for net neutrality. Now they are the ones that want to kill it.
__________________
The thoughts in my head are rated TV-MA. Viewer discretion is advised.
Now batting, Number 2 Derek Jeter, Number 2
MacNut is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2014, 02:37 PM   #12
alent1234
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacNut View Post
It is ironic that the vote went 3-2 and the 3 were democrats. I thought they were the ones pushing for net neutrality. Now they are the ones that want to kill it.

democrats are owned by the movie and tv studios

i'm against paid prioritization but it was netflix who started this whole thing trying to change a system that has been in place for almost 2 decades

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by bradl View Post
This is not enforced yet. This was just the initial vote, and public comments are due by July 15th. I suggest sending comments in, writing your Senator and Representative, as well as possibly proposing that the cable companies, since they are getting into internet and phone service, be classified as a Title II "Common Carrier" and be regulated like a utility.

But we need to act on this and now is that time.

BL.

what is that going to do, classifying them as common carriers?
alent1234 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2014, 07:18 PM   #13
Hieveryone
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
This is a SHAME. Not because of what it is now- certainly no one can argue that having a faster Netflix connection or youtube connection is a bad thing. BUT it's a shame because of what it can lead to.

The big boys in Silicon Valley pay top dollar for the best, the little guy who's starting out can't afford it. His voice never gets seen. His voice never gets heard.

That's NOT American
__________________
13" MBPr, 2.6 Ghz, 8 GB RAM, 256 SSD ; 16 GB iPad Air White ; 16 GB iPad Air Black ; 16 GB iPhone 5 White ; 16 GB iPhone 5 Black ; 2 16 GB iPhone 4 black ; Apple TV ; Black iPod Nano
Hieveryone is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2014, 05:54 AM   #14
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Don't worry guys, the cable ISPs just want to sell you Internet access like they sell you TV channels.

__________________
If your religion is worth killing for, please start with yourself.
rdowns is offline   9 Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2014, 06:02 AM   #15
Shrink
macrumors Demi-God
 
Shrink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: New England, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by alent1234 View Post
democrats are owned by the movie and tv studios
Source, please...
__________________
Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. -- Albert Einstein
Shrink is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2014, 06:05 AM   #16
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrink View Post
Source, please...

Longtime Democratic Senator Chris Dodd heading up the MPAA is all the proof I need. Not to mention all the Dems who supported SOPA and PIPA.
__________________
If your religion is worth killing for, please start with yourself.
rdowns is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2014, 12:47 PM   #17
alent1234
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrink View Post
Source, please...
open secrets dot org

check al franken's donor list. all the content people are deathly afraid of a huge comcast because that's a lot of lost revenue in case of a blackout
alent1234 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2014, 01:21 PM   #18
samiwas
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by alent1234 View Post
open secrets dot org

check al franken's donor list. all the content people are deathly afraid of a huge comcast because that's a lot of lost revenue in case of a blackout
There are plenty of reasons to be afraid of a huge comcast.
__________________
A lack of planning on your part should not constitute an emergency on mine.
samiwas is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2014, 06:26 PM   #19
Hieveryone
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdowns View Post
Don't worry guys, the cable ISPs just want to sell you Internet access like they sell you TV channels.

Image
WOW. This picture is mortifying. I see revolution if this becomes the internet.
__________________
13" MBPr, 2.6 Ghz, 8 GB RAM, 256 SSD ; 16 GB iPad Air White ; 16 GB iPad Air Black ; 16 GB iPhone 5 White ; 16 GB iPhone 5 Black ; 2 16 GB iPhone 4 black ; Apple TV ; Black iPod Nano
Hieveryone is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2014, 07:37 PM   #20
jnpy!$4g3cwk
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by alent1234 View Post
open secrets dot org

check al franken's donor list. all the content people are deathly afraid of a huge comcast because that's a lot of lost revenue in case of a blackout
I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas View Post
There are plenty of reasons to be afraid of a huge comcast.
We already have a monopoly, or, at best, a duopoly, at most people's homes. What we are now seeing is the development of a horizontal monopoly on cable. It the cable monopoly also owns/controls large swaths of content, we have a genuine, you-should-be-frightened, free speech problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hieveryone View Post
WOW. This picture is mortifying. I see revolution if this becomes the internet.
We have a genuine problem developing, but, I find myself frustrated by the use of the word "internet" in these discussions. Core internet carriers may find it convenient to offer different service classes, so that phone calls may be carried via VOIP over their cores. Or, a class of service that allows loss-free distribution of network video content across the country. It is a perfectly harmless market-driven business decision. There is no reason why "net neutrality" rules should stop carriers from differentiating service for different kinds of traffic. In fact, a lot of money has been spent over the last ten years making this practical, because bulk data transfer has different requirements than, for example, voice.

This is entirely different than a cable monopoly using its market power to restrict deliberately the amount of traffic from sources that don't agree to pay extra rent, or, reduce the viability of content that they do not control. The "last mile" cable provider is not "the internet" any more than AOL was "the internet" in the mid-90's.

The following article explains the situation fairly well, but, is much more sympathetic to the last mile ISP's (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, TWC) than it is to the core carriers:

http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-vs-...et-neutrality/

Other articles are much more skeptical about the ISP's behavior:

http://arstechnica.com/information-t...rade-networks/

What to do about monopoly abuse is not obvious in this case. Technologies have been changing radically over the last 20 years, and, I'm sure Libertarians would prefer to let new technology correct existing monopolistic abuse. That does not seem to be working very well the last few years, though.
jnpy!$4g3cwk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2014, 03:46 PM   #21
jnpy!$4g3cwk
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
The net neutrality battle

An interesting article on how cable companies are succeeding in restricting competition:


Quote:
Government agreements blocking wide citizen fiberoptic access

updated 10:11 am EDT, Wed June 4, 2014

Verizon, Comcast anti-compete agreements, other legislation stymie process

Many US cities have large fiberoptic networking installations paid for by taxpayer dollars that are "dark," unknown, or unusable -- primarily due to telecom company lobbyists and threats to localities. At least 20 states have enacted laws or other legal barriers to prevent community access to these networks, and even more have signed non-compete agreements with Internet providers.

Washington DC and surrounding communities have access to the country's first 100Gbps fiberoptic network, but it is only accessible to non-profits and the government. Comcast threatened to cut off cable access to the metropolis, and following the re-negotiation that saw many Internet and cable TV bills jump by 30 percent nearly overnight, Comcast agreed to provide access to the network for the "exclusive use" of the government. The agreement mandated that the city not perform "any activities or outcomes that would result in business competition between the District and Comcast" despite the network being heavily subsidized by tax dollars. A similar agreement with Verizon continues the block to the network to this day.

Vice notes that in 2009, a bill was introduced in North Carolina which lawmakers decided would "create extraordinary financial accounting and administrative burdens on municipal broadband providers that would render their existence fiscally difficult, if not impossible." The bill heavily favored extant networks in its attempt to level the playing field between telecommunication companies and municipalities trying to build fiber networks, and its goal was very thinly veiled during the debate and approval process.

San Francisco, home to technology giants, also has a fiberoptic network not available to its citizens. It is trying to build a business plan to allow local businesses to resell the fiber, but in order to break even on the plan, fiber access would have to be offered at $200 a month, just to meet costs.

Municipal fiber networks are the key to improving average US connection speeds. The FCC is about to issue a call for public remarks increasing what it calls broadband, which will drop the number of citizens technically considered served by the telecommunications industry. The prevalent non-compete agreements blocking citizen access to these networks all over the country are harmful to wide broadband deployment, and are indicative of a larger problem with the regulatory climate favoring telecommunications company interests over that of the people in the US.
http://www.electronista.com/articles...tymie.process/
jnpy!$4g3cwk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2014, 09:37 PM   #22
bradl
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk View Post
An interesting article on how cable companies are succeeding in restricting competition:




http://www.electronista.com/articles...tymie.process/
Seeing how the courts negatively viewed the Apple/Google non-compete agreements, I would surmise that a single lawsuit would kill this non-compete.

BL.
bradl is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2014, 12:54 AM   #23
jnpy!$4g3cwk
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Net neutrality is not enough

Quote:
Originally Posted by bradl View Post
Seeing how the courts negatively viewed the Apple/Google non-compete agreements, I would surmise that a single lawsuit would kill this non-compete.
In Forbes (of all places!):

Quote:
Net Neutrality Isn't Enough

Bundling broadband with other services gives ISPs an unfair advantage over new competitive Internet services.

The proposed mergers of Comcast with Time Warner Cable and AT&T with DIRECTV has fueled passionate discussion over net neutrality provisions to ensure that equal and open access to all services on the Internet is preserved.

While net neutrality is a crucial aspect to maintaining an open and competitive Internet, what is not being discussed is the inherent advantage that the Internet Service Providers (ISPs cable and telco companies) have because of their ability to bundle multiple revenue streams through multiple services: phone, television and broadband.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/garymyer...y-isnt-enough/
jnpy!$4g3cwk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2014, 06:03 PM   #24
bradl
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Looks like the Blues are wanting to take a stand. Slim to no chance that the Reds will let it get anywhere. This is one of those chances where I really hope they (read: I want them to) prove me wrong.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechcons...net-neutrality

Quote:
Democrats Unveil A Bill To Ban Internet Fast Lanes
by Elise Hu
June 17, 201412:01 PM ET

Net neutrality has become a hot topic this summer, despite its snooze-inducing name. The principle governs that data on the Internet should be served to customers on a level playing field at the same speeds without priority for certain companies that might be able to pay for "fast lanes" for content.

Now, congressional Democrats want to put a ban on fast lanes, using legislation. A bill unveiled by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Calif., requires the Federal Communications Commission the authority charged with enforcing net neutrality to use whatever authority it sees fit to stop "paid prioritization" agreements between broadband providers (like Comcast) and content providers (like Netflix). This aim of the Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act is to make sure your Internet providers don't speed up some types of content (like Netflix videos) but not others.

"Americans are speaking loud and clear," Leahy said. "They want an Internet that is a platform for free expression and innovation, where the best ideas and services can reach consumers based on merit rather than based on a financial relationship with a broadband provider."

The FCC was enforcing net neutrality before it was struck down in court this spring, after a legal challenge from Internet service provider Verizon. That sent the FCC back to the drawing board, and it's now in an open commenting period on how it should enforce net neutrality.

Internet service providers like Comcast and Time Warner support a proposal that opens the door to charge for fast lanes. Critics, who include consumer advocates, Internet companies and Democratic lawmakers, argue this is likely to stifle innovation leaving out startups that can't afford to pay for faster delivery and, moreover, quash the notion of a free and open Internet.

Chances that this proposal goes anywhere are slim, as The Washington Post explains:
Quote:
"The fact that Republicans control the House [makes] it unlikely that the Leahy-Matsui bill will advance very far. Still, the politics of net neutrality are obscuring the underlying economics at stake, according to [a Democratic] aide, who asked not to be named because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly.

" 'People are missing the point,' the aide said. 'The point is: Ban paid prioritization. Because that'll fundamentally change how the Internet works.' "
BL.
bradl is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2014, 06:07 PM   #25
MacNut
macrumors P6
 
MacNut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Just treat ISP's like public utilities. They can't hide behind being a cable company that offers internet service.
__________________
The thoughts in my head are rated TV-MA. Viewer discretion is advised.
Now batting, Number 2 Derek Jeter, Number 2
MacNut is offline   1 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FCC Launches 'FCC Speed Test' iPhone App to Measure Mobile Broadband Performance MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 73 Apr 7, 2014 05:17 PM
US FCC Chairman states intent to maintain open internet LizKat Politics, Religion, Social Issues 46 Feb 24, 2014 09:53 AM
The T-Mobile/Walmart $30 Pre-paid Plan dkersten Alternatives to iOS and iOS Devices 17 Oct 15, 2013 09:55 AM
Can I get a pre-paid data plan with a pre-paid credit card? Located in Canada. Drucifer iPad Tips, Help and Troubleshooting 0 Jul 28, 2013 06:10 PM
Net Neutrality Organization Accusing AT&T of Violating FCC Rules With FaceTime Data Plan Requirements MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 208 Aug 24, 2012 09:02 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:26 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC