FCC Votes in Favor of Net Neutrality Rules, Classifies Broadband Service as a Utility

[samiwas]

If they were going to do that, they would have done it when it was regulated under Title II between 2000 - 2005. But none of the complainers here about it said anything then, as they just went their merry way online. But only now, it is a problem.

So if the sky didn't fall then, what the bloody hell makes us think that the sky is going to fall now?

BL.

Well, let's keep in mind that a large portion of the country has gotten pretty freakin' cuckoo in the past ten years. Ten years ago, the people who would rant and rave about tyranny and government coming after them were considered the crazy guys who lived under a bridge and ate pigeons.

Now, we've got a dozen of them on this thread alone. It's spreading.

----------

I don't see a single solitary reason WHY they should have to enforce net neutrality. There is NO LAW governing any such concept. Obama is not Congress.

There are possible down sides to net neutrality as well. Why shouldn't you be able to get faster access if you're willing to pay more money? All the examples I see talk about ISPs giving "fast lanes" to high paying businesses that want their content delivered at a faster higher priority. But it seems to me the concept of "net neutrality" could swing both ways. In other words, there are consumer-side TIERS as well and when a shared optical fiber line in a large neighborhood with lots of customers gets bogged down, how should it be handled? Should the cheap 1Mbps or 5Mbps accounts get full bandwidth at their already slow speeds while the people paying for 20-50Mbps get throttled down to 5Mbps instead? Should they both get throttled by a percentage? Obviously, a percentage on the high-end covers more bandwidth than the low-end (i.e. the very same reason Republicans want income tax breaks and sales tax increases since they take in far more than they spend on average). They sell high speed accounts on the basis of being able to game or watch streaming video. But if it gets throttled too much, it won't be usable and then the customers will ditch them since they are not going to be happy paying for something they aren't getting.

And that brings "tiers" in general into question. If you can't guarantee a higher speed tier, should you be able to offer tiers at all? Are having ANY tiers "fair" to poor people? Should we engage in Socialized/Communist style Internet where everyone gets the same slow speed as everyone else for ONE FIXED PRICE? Yeah, I wouldn't be a fan of that option. It would make online video and gaming impossible for anything more than still pics and checkers. But how is offering different speed tiers for consumers any different than for people hosting sites? One can easily argue that Netflix NEEDS more bandwidth to host video (given that is how its business works) than Amazon needs to load a web site that is based on fixed images and text input. Which one becomes more unusable first if it's dished out exactly the same regardless of content?

If I'm paying for 4K Netflix, but I can never get it because my entire neighborhood is playing Tux Racer on the Net using their $10 a month accounts, even though I'm paying $80 a month to get 50Mbps access, but end up getting throttled during prime hours to 5Mbps due to Tux Racer legions all sharing the same fiber line in my area, am I going to keep paying $80 a month plus $12 to Netflix. No, I'm not. I'm going to take my business elsewhere, except there's nowhere else to go since they all have to give equal preference to Tux Racer regardless of how much more I pay. Or maybe I can't even pay more and I'm stuck with that same slow account since it'd be unfair and unequal if I'm allowed to buy faster Internet than my neighbor that can't afford it.

And yet, this is STILL not what net neutrality is about. I can't tell if you guys are just arguing for arguing's sake, or whether you just seriously can't comprehend the subject.

 

[unplugme71]

My monthly phone bill is less than $27 all in...

I'm over $250 a month for 4 lines, plus iPad.

 

[Renzatic]

Well, let's keep in mind that a large portion of the country has gotten pretty freakin' cuckoo in the past ten years. Ten years ago, the people who would rant and rave about tyranny and government coming after them were considered the crazy guys who lived under a bridge and ate pigeons.

Now, we've got a dozen of them on this thread alone. It's spreading.

I think the biggest problem is that in the last 10 years, we've been electing more crazies into office.

 

[iBlazed]

Sounds like a fun time was had by all

Sounds more like sour grapes by the losing side. When the right wing agenda loses, the American people win. Net neutrality supporters are now "radical activists"? Right-wing comedic genius at its finest.

I guess 81% of Americans are radical activists. Proud to be in that camp.

 

[citizenzen]

Here's an excerpt from the festivities...

Really? So for all of the wealth and power at stake, the only people involved in this battle were liberals, leftists and George Soros?

No wonder the right is so inept.

Apparently they are asleep at the wheel.

 

[technosix]

Really? So for all of the wealth and power at stake, the only people involved in this battle were liberals, leftists and George Soros?

No wonder the right is so inept.

Apparently they are asleep at the wheel.

You're correct, the right is not only inept it's a comedy of clowns. It's proof positive of how generally well educated men and women turned politicians are so easily intimidated and derailed by their opponents. An example of the worst of government.

That said it's quite impressive how the head golfer's got 99% of the mainstream media marching in lock step, praising the goodness of Net Neutrality. With hoards of the devout followers believing everything they're fed by the great orator, it's an awesome sight to see. History in the making.

These are exciting times indeed.

I'll welcome a smaller Comcast bill.

 

[0007776]

That said it's quite impressive how the head golfer's got 99% of the mainstream media marching in lock step, praising the goodness of Net Neutrality. With hoards of the devout followers believing everything they're fed by the great orator, it's an awesome sight to see. History in the making.

Perhaps since Net Neutrality is such a bad thing we get rid of it and allow ISPs to charge you extra money to post responses to these topics...

 

[mudslag]

Here's an excerpt from the festivities...


"Today’s vote by a bitterly divided Federal Communications Commission that the Internet should be regulated as a public utility is the culmination of a decade-long battle by the Left. Using money from George Soros and liberal foundations that totaled at least $196 million, radical activists finally succeeded in ramming through “net neutrality,” or the idea that all data should be transmitted equally over the Internet.*

The final push involved unprecedented political pressure exerted by the Obama White House on FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, head of an ostensibly independent regulatory body."


Sounds like a fun time was had by all

Thank you for proving that you are completely lost. You're in a thread about Obamacare talking about net neutrality.

 

[citizenzen]

Thank you for proving that you are completely lost. You're in a thread about Obamacare talking about net neutrality.

At least he's not arguing about what color the dress is.

 

[mudslag]

At least he's not arguing about what color the dress is.

It was blue and black, till I saw white and gold...the frustration is real

 

[Mac32]

The 332 pages of text comprising this regulatory ruling hasn't been released for public consideration, which in itself is suspicious. Do your really believe it would take 332 pages worth of text to deal with Net Neutrality? And why the secrecy? Is this the way government was promised to being administered under a Obama administration?

 

[rdowns]

Here's an excerpt from the festivities...


"Today’s vote by a bitterly divided Federal Communications Commission that the Internet should be regulated as a public utility is the culmination of a decade-long battle by the Left. Using money from George Soros and liberal foundations that totaled at least $196 million, radical activists finally succeeded in ramming through “net neutrality,” or the idea that all data should be transmitted equally over the Internet.*

The final push involved unprecedented political pressure exerted by the Obama White House on FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, head of an ostensibly independent regulatory body."


Sounds like a fun time was had by all

Where's the link? Too embarrassed by your 'source'?

This was not a battle between left and right, it was a battle between the American people and a handful of companies and their puppets in Congress.

 

[balamw]

"Excerpt" from where? No link provided.

Where's the link? Too embarrassed by your 'source'?

Here apparently:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414483/comrades-net-neutrality-john-fund

B

 

[zin]

The 332 pages of text comprising this regulatory ruling hasn't been released for public consideration, which in itself is suspicious. Do your really believe it would take 332 pages worth of text to deal with Net Neutrality? And why the secrecy? Is this the way government was promised to being administered under a Obama administration?

The FCC has a long standing history of keeping drafts closed until the final version is completed. This is nothing unique to the net neutrality ruling. It's an internal FCC policy. In addition, you should be reminded that the FCC is an independent agency where presidential control is limited. It has nothing to do with Obama.

I don't agree with it but there's very little to be suspicious about. It's not something they suddenly started doing.

And yes, I do believe it would take 300+ pages to deal with this. They are drafting the specific regulatory code that makes references to the relevant legislation. This is how all regulatory agencies work.

Stop creating suspicion where none exists. From 2000 to 2005 DSL Internet was classified under Title II in the same way. Do you think anybody noticed or even cared?

 

[samiwas]

The 332 pages of text comprising this regulatory ruling hasn't been released for public consideration, which in itself is suspicious. Do your really believe it would take 332 pages worth of text to deal with Net Neutrality? And why the secrecy? Is this the way government was promised to being administered under a Obama administration?

Please do your research. And please invite many others to do it with you.

https://gigaom.com/2015/02/26/net-neutrality-day-is-here-a-guide-to-todays-vote/

The crux of the proposal is new regulations that will replace the net neutrality rules that a court struck down in early 2014. The new rules themselves (contrary to recent rhetoric) are rumored to be 8 pages long and, under FCC convention, are an appendix to a larger document that contains the Commissioners’ positions.

http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/10/the-fcc-bickers-as-its-net-neutrality-vote-looms/

Today, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai held a press conference during which he repeatedly dinged the FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler for not releasing the more than 300-page proposal in question ahead of the vote. The proposal contains just eight pages of regulation; the rest discusses legal underpinnings and response to public comment. (You can watch the full confab here.)

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/republican-fcc-commissioner-public-is-being-misled-about-net-neutrality-plan-20150210

The Republican commissioner acknowledged that the actual regulations take up just eight pages of the document. But he insisted that another 79 pages are citations of the Communications Act, which will also dictate the practices of broadband providers. The rest of the document is a summary of public feedback and reasoning for the FCC's decision, which Pai said is "sprinkled" with unofficial rules.

http://www.teaparty.org/fcc-commissioner-ajit-pai-net-neutrality-solution-wont-work-problem-doesnt-exist-85791/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=fcc-commissioner-ajit-pai-net-neutrality-solution-wont-work-problem-doesnt-exist

reason: You’ve talked about the proposal as being well over 300 pages. There have been accounts that actually that’s mostly footnotes and addenda, and that the rules are about eight or 10 pages. Is that accurate?

Pai: (FCC Commissioner) The rules are eight pages.

If you can't be bothered to do the research and keep parroting the "332 pages of regulations", then your argument is moot, along with everyone else who keeps doing it.

 

[rdowns]

There are possible down sides to net neutrality as well. Why shouldn't you be able to get faster access if you're willing to pay more money? All the examples I see talk about ISPs giving "fast lanes" to high paying businesses that want their content delivered at a faster higher priority. But it seems to me the concept of "net neutrality" could swing both ways. In other words, there are consumer-side TIERS as well and when a shared optical fiber line in a large neighborhood with lots of customers gets bogged down, how should it be handled? Should the cheap 1Mbps or 5Mbps accounts get full bandwidth at their already slow speeds while the people paying for 20-50Mbps get throttled down to 5Mbps instead? Should they both get throttled by a percentage? Obviously, a percentage on the high-end covers more bandwidth than the low-end (i.e. the very same reason Republicans want income tax breaks and sales tax increases since they take in far more than they spend on average). They sell high speed accounts on the basis of being able to game or watch streaming video. But if it gets throttled too much, it won't be usable and then the customers will ditch them since they are not going to be happy paying for something they aren't getting.

And that brings "tiers" in general into question. If you can't guarantee a higher speed tier, should you be able to offer tiers at all? Are having ANY tiers "fair" to poor people? Should we engage in Socialized/Communist style Internet where everyone gets the same slow speed as everyone else for ONE FIXED PRICE? Yeah, I wouldn't be a fan of that option. It would make online video and gaming impossible for anything more than still pics and checkers. But how is offering different speed tiers for consumers any different than for people hosting sites? One can easily argue that Netflix NEEDS more bandwidth to host video (given that is how its business works) than Amazon needs to load a web site that is based on fixed images and text input. Which one becomes more unusable first if it's dished out exactly the same regardless of content?

If I'm paying for 4K Netflix, but I can never get it because my entire neighborhood is playing Tux Racer on the Net using their $10 a month accounts, even though I'm paying $80 a month to get 50Mbps access, but end up getting throttled during prime hours to 5Mbps due to Tux Racer legions all sharing the same fiber line in my area, am I going to keep paying $80 a month plus $12 to Netflix. No, I'm not. I'm going to take my business elsewhere, except there's nowhere else to go since they all have to give equal preference to Tux Racer regardless of how much more I pay. Or maybe I can't even pay more and I'm stuck with that same slow account since it'd be unfair and unequal if I'm allowed to buy faster Internet than my neighbor that can't afford it.

You clearly have no idea what net-neutrality is.

If you can't be bothered to do the research and keep parroting the "332 pages of regulations", then your argument is moot, along with everyone else who keeps doing it.

Oh yeah? What about unelected officials making laws and leftist activists? We got lots of talking points.

 

[iBlazed]

You clearly have no idea what net-neutrality is.

And he spent so much time writing that post too. It's absolutely mind boggling how opposed people can be to things they don't understand the concept of. Like, wow.

----------

Oh yeah? What about unelected officials making laws and leftist activists? We got lots of talking points.

And the liberal agenda, you left out the liberal agenda.

 

[samiwas]

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!

Maybe we can lead you to a place that gives free tin foil for all. Whew.

----------

Here's an excerpt from the festivities...


"Today’s vote by a bitterly divided Federal Communications Commission that the Internet should be regulated as a public utility is the culmination of a decade-long battle by the Left. Using money from George Soros and liberal foundations that totaled at least $196 million, radical activists finally succeeded in ramming through “net neutrality,” or the idea that all data should be transmitted equally over the Internet.*

The final push involved unprecedented political pressure exerted by the Obama White House on FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, head of an ostensibly independent regulatory body."


Sounds like a fun time was had by all

Yeah, that doesn't sounds like an overly-biased, propagandized source at all. Bitter division? Radical activists? Unprecedented pressure? Couldn't even bother to paste the source of the quote?

I'll give you one thing, you do bring humor to the board.

It's amazing that the internet has never been regulated as a utility. Like, ever. You know?

 

[ctdonath]

Right Here

This is the law. Everything you read here is everything it is. There is no small print, no caveats, no hidden bits and pieces. If it's not within these 5 pages, then it doesn't exist as far as the law is concerned.

Pretty obvious you didn't read it, or have no idea what legal rulings are.

That's not the rule. It's a brief summary claiming what "the Order" is and what it means - but it is NOT the actual rules. It's all about "hidden bits and pieces" because it keeps talking about something much larger & binding that hasn't been published.

Later you say you're tired of this discussion. Of course you are: you're defending the indefensible because you don't know, haven't seen, and haven't read it. Others here are pissed at you because we know you haven't read it, and because the FCC hasn't published it but is expecting us to abide by it.

----------

... sure as hell isn't a way to earn respect. And for attention; we certainly got it, and all in the negative.

Like I said, and why I have a problem with the US government: compulsion of the oppressed instead of consent of the governed, and demanding respect instead of earning it.

We've had it right before, with government obeying our Constitution, and the world respecting us because we led. Of late, we've had a bunch of "Leftists" screwing it up, trying to boss everyone around domestically and abroad.

This thread is a perfect example: an unelected group of bureaucrats are taking over & regulating "free speech" and "free association" in stark violation of our Bill Of Rights, doing so using secret rules we're all supposed to abide by. And you wonder why many here "hate the government"?

 

[Renzatic]

That's not the rule. It's a brief summary claiming what "the Order" is and what it means - but it is NOT the actual rules. It's all about "hidden bits and pieces" because it keeps talking about something much larger & binding that hasn't been published.

Everyone keeps talking about these "hidden bits and pieces" as if they're solid, factual things without offering up any proof of their existence. It's an assumption paraded as fact with no basis in reality. The much larger document that spells out the law in exacting detail would be, according to the links Samiwas oh so kindly provided, a grand total of three to five pages longer.

All we're seeing here is simply a reclassification of broadband from a Title 1 information service back to a Title 2 common carrier with a few of the tighter restrictions lifted to keep from effecting the market too severely.

As much as some of you so desperately want to believe, there is no conspiracy here.

 

[Sydde]

Oh Yeah? What about unelected officials making laws and leftist activists? We got lots of talking points.

And the liberal agenda, you left out the liberal agenda.

Here you are, right on cue:

We've had it right before, with government obeying our Constitution, and the world respecting us because we led. Of late, we've had a bunch of "Leftists" screwing it up, trying to boss everyone around domestically and abroad.

Perhaps if we actually had leftists running the country or with any real power, the people who spout nonsense like this might have a leg to stand on.

 

[JAT]

Trust me, I would love to ditch Comcast and the only alternative in my area is DSL which I have used in the past but it is too slow.

DSL is up to 100Mb at my house, and 1Gb for businesses in the area. And every tier is cheaper than the comparable cable tier, and DSL is always more consistent. Maybe your spot is just behind.

 

[samiwas]

Groan. Idiot. Pretty obvious you didn't read it, or have no idea what legal rulings are.

Nice.

Later you say you're tired of this discussion. Of course you are: you're defending the indefensible because you don't know, haven't seen, and haven't read it. Others here are pissed at you because we know you haven't read it, and because the FCC hasn't published it but is expecting us to abide by it.

So, if, at the end of the day, it turns out that it really is just rules restricting ISPs ability to favor some sites over others, will you people just shut up about it?

We've had it right before, with government obeying our Constitution, and the world respecting us because we led. Of late, we've had a bunch of "Leftists" screwing it up, trying to boss everyone around domestically and abroad.

Yes, it's all "the leftists" bossing everyone around. They're the ones restricting who can marry. They're the ones who are passionate about defense and having military in every corner of the globe. And they're the ones pushing religion on everyone. Yes....it's all "the leftists".

What is wrong with you people?

This thread is a perfect example: an unelected group of bureaucrats are taking over & regulating "free speech" and "free association" in stark violation of our Bill Of Rights, doing so using secret rules we're all supposed to abide by. And you wonder why many here "hate the government"?

Taking over and regulating "free speech" and "free association"? Okay, now you're just going off the deep end. Oh wait, it's not just now...

I really do winder where this new batch of paranoid people are coming from. I mean, there has been that big discussion about America's failing education system. Maybe that's to blame.

 

[JAT]

And yet, this is STILL not what net neutrality is about. I can't tell if you guys are just arguing for arguing's sake, or whether you just seriously can't comprehend the subject.

What's it about, then? My understanding is that it is about making sure every bit that might be transferred gets a level playing field. But proponents of it ignore the fact that certain people (LOTS of people) want more bits from certain places. Like Netflix or the latest popular gaming site. So, how do those places get their massively larger need for bandwidth if there are arbitrary limits set?

What this decision means to me is my bill is going up $5/month. Gee, thanks, everyone.

 

[samiwas]

DSL is up to 100Mb at my house, and 1Gb for businesses in the area. And every tier is cheaper than the comparable cable tier, and DSL is always more consistent. Maybe your spot is just behind.

The fastest DSL in my area in the middle of a major metro area I believe is 18Mbps. The fastest I can get in my neighborhood, which is inside the city not far from Midtown, from DSL is 6Mbps which goes for $52 per month.

AND, there are literally weekly postings on our neighborhood's Facebook page with people complaining that AT&T DSL (and phone!) is down again. It's gone down sometimes for days at a time for them. My cable internet has gone out twice in the 9.5 years I've had it. One time storm related, another after a car crash knocked a line down. And I currently pay $39.99 and will pay I think $60 for five times the speed of DSL.

You obviously live in a very specialized area.

----------

What's it about, then? My understanding is that it is about making sure every bit that might be transferred gets a level playing field. But proponents of it ignore the fact that certain people (LOTS of people) want more bits from certain places. Like Netflix or the latest popular gaming site. So, how do those places get their massively larger need for bandwidth if there are arbitrary limits set?

What it means is that someone like Comcast can't throttle Netflix as policy while giving Hulu more bandwidth because Hulu offered to pay up. Or they can't make Fox News load very slowly while giving MSNBC a high-level pipe because MSNBC is more favorable to them.

That's a different thing from actual network management which means they might have to adjust speeds at certain times of high demand.

Does that make sense? Do I need to clarify even more?

What this decision means to me is my bill is going up $5/month. Gee, thanks, everyone.

Based on nothing more than speculation, of which all of you are accusing the supporters of this bill. Right?