Facts like this will never be revealed in the not too distant future. No one will know, and no one will be upset. With the blessing of Net Neutrality the administration gets their wishes to control what is published. A wonderful system borrowed from the Chinese. They'll wipe Fox News and other entities that upset them off the face of the earth. Free golf balls for all!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
FCC Votes in Favor of Net Neutrality Rules, Classifies Broadband Service as a Utility
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Really? I'm paying for a 100Mbps internet connection. If that's not sufficient for me to receive a 2-4Mbps data stream uninterrupted, then what the hell *am* I paying for?
Verizon intentionally creating and maintaining bottlenecks within their own network in order to strong-arm Netflix during negotiations is hardly a harmless act.
Perhaps if Obama had come out against Net Neutrality then all of the Obama haters would be in support of it.
Probably. Just remember that it often works both ways.
The final doc was not open for public review and comment. There was a tidal wave of support for this thing called Net Neutrality. A first draft was made, everyone said YAY! A new draft was made, what was in it wouldn't be released until it was passed. It's 332 pages, what is in it? People, congressman all called for some transparency. It wasn't given. They took the wave of support for "Net Neutrality", grabbed a blank book, filled it with regulations, wrote Net Neutrailty on it and passed it to a round of cheers.
What is in it? We don't know, yet we celebrate. The devil I'm sure will be in the details.
Hmm, smells like we've been had.
My worries:
The government is in your interwebs regulating now and you're celebrating.
It's like none of you have ever even seen the US government at work. Were a nation trillions of dollars in debt and we just handed them the internet cookie jar. This is NOT going to be a good thing.
What is in it? We don't know, yet we celebrate. The devil I'm sure will be in the details.
Hmm, smells like we've been had.
My worries:
- Taxes
- Web site licensing (and I don't mean $7 domain name registration).
- Web site operation guidelines (content control). You want a website on a public utility, you have to provide these services and do things this way.
- Silencing or heavy regulation of web based political speech
- Waivers to tough regulations that require companies to come to the administrations or FCC's table to play ball, swear your allegiance and do these things and we'll grant you that waiver - dispensation from the King.
- Promises they wont do certain things. That means this is coming later but would unpopular to do now so we promise we wont do that mmkay?
- Likely wordage in the final doc that says something like "or whatever the FCC administrator decides as policy. Blank check policy writing basically.
- Taxes, taxes, taxes.
The government is in your interwebs regulating now and you're celebrating.
It's like none of you have ever even seen the US government at work. Were a nation trillions of dollars in debt and we just handed them the internet cookie jar. This is NOT going to be a good thing.
Railroads stagnated, not because of the regulations you're talking about, but because they decided they were in the *railroad* business, not the *transportation* business. As air transport became cost effective, they refused to adapt, and were marginalized by an alternative which was faster, and not significantly more expensive.
----------
He's not the one being intentionally obtuse.
Cables are laid/strung along public rights of way. In exchange for the initial roll-out *decades* ago, exclusive access to those rights of way were granted. As a result *no one else is allowed* to run cable through those rights of way, and they aren't allowed to run cable anywhere *else* either.
As for how you can stream data to the middle of the Pacific Ocean? (Your own example being a perfect demonstration of you being intentionally obtuse, btw.) Obviously, you're using a satellite connection of some sort. Satellite isn't *terrible* for bulk data transfers, but for anything requiring any sort of back-and-forth communication, it's *horrible*. (Just the round trip from ground to orbit to ground guarantees about 500ms of delay.)
Uh, Mac32? This is not a bill. Not an act of Congress. You give the strong impression that you know nothing about this subject. Your mistrust of goverment comes through. How much do you trust the big corporations?
Yeah, sure. Because now internet connections are Title II, the government can control what is said over internet connections. Just like they can over *phone lines*, another example of Title II regulated telecommunications.
Seriously, folks, where do you come up with this stuff?
Sounds like that would have been a nice benefit. Where I live we get one choice of a small, local ISP (unless you count satellite Internet which we won't because it totally sucks). Everybody complaining about their 25+ Mbps download for $50/month and I'm just sitting here using my 1 Mbps download for $40/month. Wish we could get another ISP in this area.
So why don't you go and read it? 300 pages should be readable through this evening if you put your mind to it.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it assumes competition and choice exist in all markets. Many consumers in the US only have one broadband provider in the area. So they either have to stick with the one broadband provider, get a slow DSL or satellite connection which can't handle HD streaming or pay insanely high fees for a 4G LTE hotspot which can only handle streaming when traffic is light.
These broadband providers know consumers don't have any real choice. As the government already interfered for them many years ago. By giving them a monopoly in the area.
These providers are then able to use their power to keep competition from hurting their other business models. The consumer just has to live with it or have no broadband.
The C word. Well lets take a look at it then. One of the ladies on the panel, talked about fairness, equal distribution, fair access, unequally affected, requirements to provide services for the needy, no classes or levels for speeds. Sheesh all we need is some sort of rule breaking law averse politician in charge to push this idea. . oh wait!
Actually, socially he's fairly conservative. He's only 'left leaning' from the perspective of someone further to the right. Fiscally, he's well right of center. It just doesn't *look* like it because the 'right wing' ran screaming from their old stomping grounds as he moved in, yelling about how the 'lefties' were going to kill us all, and are not wading around the shallow end of the intellectual gene pool screaming about how they haven't gone *far enough* to the right, and that anyone to the left of them is a sub-human traitor.
(Ok, there's a little bit of minor hyperbole thrown in there for emphasis.)
The C word. Well lets take a look at it then. One of the ladies on the panel, talked about fairness, equal distribution, fair access, unequally affected, requirements to provide services for the needy, no classes or levels for speeds. Sheesh all we need is some sort of rule breaking law averse politician in charge to push this idea. . oh wait!
Image
Yeah because Obama is actually secretly a communist...
No biggie.
It just means that now it will be taxed more heavily. I just reviewed my recent AT&T phone bill and at least $27 of it is taxes. Absurd!
So... Nothing more than a Tier-1 peering issue between Level 3 and Verizon, resulted in Netflix having to pay Verizon extra money to get back to the old levels of service they had prior? All while nothing else changed on the Netflix or Level3 side?
Careful. He'll nitpick your post, where you accidentally used debt instead of deficit and claim that you're obviously an idiot.
The deficit has decreased *significantly* since Obama entered office, after climbing precipitously while Bush was in office, after being *eliminated* while Clinton was in office.
The *debt* itself hasn't decreased in decades, because the interest rates more than covered the short period of time that we actually had a budget surplus under Clinton.
Railroads stagnated because they had no incentive to innovate. Utilities are essentially cash cows who over time get steady sources of income in exchange for giving up control to government bureaucrats. When a future President Walker or Cruz Administration starts using Title II to regulate Facebook's content, don't say I didn't warn you.
Yesterday's move is going to increase the influence of lobbyists. How that's a good thing must be something only a "progressive" in the ultra-diverse world of technology could understand.
No, they had *plenty* of incentive, they ignored it because they thought they'd been successful 'being railroads', when in reality they had been successful 'being transportation'. Other forms of transportation, either faster, or more convenient, ate their lunch. It had nothing to do with the regulations.
You *do* know that Title II rules says they *can't* regulate based on content, right? The section of regulations that ISPs were under previously *didn't* say that, and that's what was happening (see the Verizon vs. Netflix debacle for an example).
You're welcome to your own opinion, but please try basing them on *facts* rather than fiction.
Oh, and when 'a future President Walker or Cruz Administration', I'll do two things. 1) Point out that they're violating the law by doing so. 2) Work against the apparent coup of the legitimate government they deposed.
So instead of Comcast having their way with the content flowing through their pipes they are going to be lobbying along with many others. I prefer that. Sucks, but better than the alternative.