Sidebar Sidebar
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

Renzatic said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then there would be no need to publish a 5 page explanation of an 10 page text which remains secret.

It's common for a 1-sentence summary to reference a dozen pages of legal verbiage.

You're talking to someone to regularly reads 50-100 page rulings by the Supreme Court, which are typically published the same time (like within minutes) as summaries of said rulings.
 
ctdonath said:
Then there would be no need to publish a 5 page explanation of an 10 page text which remains secret.

It's common for a 1-sentence summary to reference a dozen pages of legal verbiage.

You're talking to someone to regularly reads 50-100 page rulings by the Supreme Court, which are typically published the same time (like within minutes) as summaries of said rulings.
Click to expand...

If it's not something the FCC typically does, why is it so crazy that they aren't doing it on this ruling?

Maybe you should start a grassroots campaign to have laws written to require the FCC to release everything in advance.
 
Sydde said:
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.
Click to expand...

We did. 2008-2010, Democrats controlled both Congress and Presidency, with a very sympathetic Supreme Court. They did nothing.
 
JAT said:
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?
Click to expand...

There are no set limits, no demand that things absolutely have to go through, and everyone has to be perfectly equal. If Netflix doesn't have the bandwidth to stream their movies into millions of peoples homes, then that's Netflix's problem. They'll need to make more peering agreements and build their infrastructure. Same for the hugely popular game site that can only provide downloads at 5k a second.

Net Neutrality only makes it so that ISPs can't enforce bottlenecks on a whim. Like Comcast slowing down Netflix for no other reason than they wanted to bleed some money out of them to reach their customers.
 
samiwas said:
You obviously live in a very specialized area.
Click to expand...
About the 15th largest city in the US, almost the ghetto. Hardly specialized in anything, certainly not internet.

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.
Click to expand...
Other than a couple incidents, that hasn't actually been a problem, not to consumers, and "capitalism" worked it out pretty fast. "Actual network management" has been, daily. But you didn't answer my question. I already stated it is about making sure every bit or packet is equal, not sure why you felt the need to restate that in a generic way. So: How does net neutrality NOT affect "actual network management" when assuring this packet equality? The claim made by you and others is that MVM is wrong that it will affect daily issues. Please prove you are correct, because it seems very obvious that it will affect us.

Here: link
Please explain how this is a NN issue and not an "actual network management" issue. Do you not see how blurred the lines are?

Based on nothing more than speculation, of which all of you are accusing the supporters of this bill. Right?
Click to expand...
Don't put words in my mouth, I didn't put any in anyone else's. WTF is wrong with people that mouth off and can't have a normal conversation.

Do you actually think that this proclamation that it will now be regulated and subject to standard govt communication fees means that there will be no fees? A cellphone line costs over $10 in fees/taxes. Cable TV is higher than that. A home phone should be less. Broadband has been $0, it will no longer be. This is an ACTUAL impact to a consumer, why not talk about it?
 
samiwas said:
If it's not something the FCC typically does, why is it so crazy that they aren't doing it on this ruling?
Click to expand...

Because it affects the public at large, who is expected to adhere to the new rules and/or pay for & live with the results.

Any government which keeps compulsory public rules secret (short of actual "national security") need be abolished. I'm looking forward to the publication of these rules in full very soon.

----------
samiwas said:
So, were they bossing everyone around, or not?
Click to expand...

OK, to clarify: by "did nothing" I mean they did not actually carry out any of what you say they would do if they had the opportunity, which they did and they did nothing meaningful with.

Well, we did end up with Obamacare - which has significantly raised healthcare costs, left the total number of uninsured the same, and has generally cause tremendous disruptions with no positive outcome (every positive anecdote is balanced by a negative one).

The whole point of progressiveism/Leftism is "bossing everyone around".
The whole point of the Constitution is to say the government can't, beyond a few very limited matters of social order.
 
Renzatic said:
There are no set limits, no demand that things absolutely have to go through, and everyone has to be perfectly equal. If Netflix doesn't have the bandwidth to stream their movies into millions of peoples homes, then that's Netflix's problem. They'll need to make more peering agreements and build their infrastructure. Same for the hugely popular game site that can only provide downloads at 5k a second.

Net Neutrality only makes it so that ISPs can't enforce bottlenecks on a whim. Like Comcast slowing down Netflix for no other reason than they wanted to bleed some money out of them to reach their customers.
Click to expand...
But people are against peering agreements, claiming it goes against NN. How is Netflix supposed to make "infrastructure"? They can't run a wire to your house. You used the term "only" there, that's not what other people have said. And there's going to be someone else that thinks their packets should be favored, anyway. 'Who cares if your video isn't perfect, I need to get these medical records through faster.' NN is far more difficult than most 20 year olds on the net think.

You guys really need to seriously think about step 2 sometimes. Step 1 sounds great....but now what?
 
ctdonath said:
Then there would be no need to publish a 5 page explanation of an 10 page text which remains secret.

It's common for a 1-sentence summary to reference a dozen pages of legal verbiage.

You're talking to someone to regularly reads 50-100 page rulings by the Supreme Court, which are typically published the same time (like within minutes) as summaries of said rulings.
Click to expand...

What Sam said. This doesn't involve the courts, laws aren't being passed that effect We The People directly, and the FCC isn't stepping beyond the boundaries that have been set for them by the government. It's communcation business regulation, nothing more.

You rarely ever see any documentation over spectrum auctions, but that doesn't mean the FCC is secretly dismantling mobile communications.
 
ctdonath said:
Well, we did end up with Obamacare - which has significantly raised healthcare costs, left the total number of uninsured the same, and has generally cause tremendous disruptions with no positive outcome (every positive anecdote is balanced by a negative one).
Click to expand...

My parents are paying $83 a month, down from $1200. The uninsured rate has decreased according to gallup. And now there are no more "lifetime limits" and "pre-existing conditions" either. So now, are you willing to admit that every word you just said is a bold faced lie? Because they are. And there goes what little credibility you had, right out the window!
 
ctdonath said:
We did. 2008-2010, Democrats controlled both Congress and Presidency, with a very sympathetic Supreme Court. They did nothing.
Click to expand...

You obviously have no clue what a leftist is. If that session was dominated by leftists, we would have single payer as of three years ago. Not even a public option. "Leftists", :rolleyes: it is to laugh.
 
JAT said:
But people are against peering agreements, claiming it goes against NN. How is Netflix supposed to make "infrastructure"? They can't run a wire to your house. You used the term "only" there, that's not what other people have said. And there's going to be someone else that thinks their packets should be favored, anyway. 'Who cares if your video isn't perfect, I need to get these medical records through faster.' NN is far more difficult than most 20 year olds on the net think.

You guys really need to seriously think about step 2 sometimes. Step 1 sounds great....but now what?
Click to expand...

Rather than getting into all the myriad complications surrounding how the internet works, I'll explain what Net Neutrality is supposed to fix and prevent.

Say Comcast has their own moving streaming service. They charge $9.99 a month for access, and it ends up being quite popular, though not as popular as their direct competitor, Netflix. Comcast obviously doesn't like this. They want people paying for their service. They decide to leverage their power as a last mile ISP to their own benefit. They give their service fast lane access, guaranteeing all Comcast customers get their movies in HD quality without a single hiccup or second of buffering. It works wonderfully. Now this is perfectly legal. They built the infrastructure, they can use it to their own advantage. But at the same time, they throttle Netflix's stream by half, and demand that they pay say, $3 million a month to access their customers. This is an arbitrary restriction. Something Comcast is only doing because they can, not because they have to. To compensate for this sudden disadvantage, Netflix has to raise their subscription fee by an extra $10 to break even. They now cost more, and aren't able to match the performance of the service the entrenched ISP is offering their customers.

They end up going out of business.

It's an unfair advantage. Since Comcast is an ISP first and foremost, their primary responsibility should be to act as a gateway to the internet. They can't game their position for their own benefit. This is what Net Neutrality is for. Any last mile ISP can't use their position as leverage against other companies. They can still maintain their network. If Netflix is eating all their bandwidth, and not offering any relief, Comcast can throttle their connection to maintain network integrity. But if they are, and all things are working as intended, then Comcast can't say "I want to slow them down just because I don't like them".

They're now classified as common carriers. In much the same way AT&T can't charge people $4.99 a minute to call people on Sprint, Comcast can't charge people or businesses extra for hooking up to Charter, Netflix, or Facebook. They're there to facilitate the flow of data, not act as a two way tollbooth for it.
 
Last edited:
ctdonath said:
The whole point of progressiveism/Leftism is "bossing everyone around".
The whole point of the Constitution is to say the government can't, beyond a few very limited matters of social order.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like telling people who they can and can't marry and telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies and trying to shove religion down everyone's throat. Soooo bossy.
 
Renzatic said:
Rather than getting into all the myriad complications surrounding how the internet works, I'll explain what Net Neutrality is supposed to fix and prevent.

Say Comcast has their own moving streaming service. They charge $9.99 a month for access, and it ends up being quite popular, though not as popular as their direct competitor, Netflix. Comcast obviously doesn't like this. They want people paying for their service. They decide to leverage their power as a last mile ISP to their own benefit. They give their service fast lane access, guaranteeing all Comcast customers get their movies in HD quality without a single hiccup or second of buffering. It works wonderfully. Now this is perfectly legal. They built the infrastructure, they can use it to their own advantage. But at the same time, they throttle Netflix's stream by half, and demand that they pay say, $3 million a month to access their customers. This is an arbitrary restriction. Something Comcast is only doing because they can, not because they have to. To compensate for this sudden disadvantage, Netflix has to raise their subscription fee by an extra $10 to break even. They now cost more, and aren't able to match the performance of the service the entrenched ISP is offering their customers.

They end up going out of business.

It's an unfair advantage. Since Comcast is an ISP first and foremost, their primary responsibility should be to act as a gateway to the internet. They can't game their position for their own benefit. This is what Net Neutrality is for. Any last mile ISP can't use their position as leverage against other companies. They can still maintain their network. If Netflix is eating all their bandwidth, and not offering any relief, Comcast can throttle their connection to maintain network integrity. But if they are, and all things are working as intended, then Comcast can't say "I want to slow them down just because I don't like them".

They're now classified as common carriers. In much the same way AT&T can't charge people $4.99 a minute to call people on Sprint, Comcast can't charge people or businesses extra for hooking up to Charter, Netflix, or Facebook. They're there to facilitate the flow of data, not act as a two way tollbooth for it.
Click to expand...
Excellent post. This whole mess really started with Comcast throttling Netflix.
 
samiwas said:
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.
Click to expand...

lol

ctdonath said:
The whole point of progressiveism/Leftism is "bossing everyone around".
Click to expand...

What in the world? It's clear to me now how some fail to understand what net neutrality really is.
 
Last edited:
Robisan said:
"Excerpt" from where? No link provided. Just for laughs, what derpity-derp source is this from?
Click to expand...

You know the funny thing is that those who support 'net neutrality' have been completed duped. Mega corporations like Google (you know, a company 2x the size of Comcast) *somehow* got to review and edit the regulations prior to vote. Regulations that the public still hasn't seen. Oh yeah, almost forgot, Googles President is a senior White House advisor. Funny how that works.
 
JAT said:
About the 15th largest city in the US, almost the ghetto. Hardly specialized in anything, certainly not internet.
Click to expand...

I live just a few miles from AT&T's headquarters. Like, their multiple buildings. And yet, still have really crappy options.

Other than a couple incidents, that hasn't actually been a problem
Click to expand...

But it has happened. And it shouldn't happen in the future.

So, if it's not a problem, then this regulation shouldn't be big deal right? So what are you whinging about?

But you didn't answer my question. I already stated it is about making sure every bit or packet is equal, not sure why you felt the need to restate that in a generic way. So: How does net neutrality NOT affect "actual network management" when assuring this packet equality?
Click to expand...

Okay. It is very clear that you do not understand, and it is the obvious basis for your disdain.

Let's put this in terms of a highway. The highway is for everyone and is a public "utility" so to speak. When traffic volumes get very high, they might meter the traffic entering so as to keep things flowing smoothly, but everyone is metered equally. But, then along comes Big John's Catfish Emporium, and he pays to allow him to skip the meter and put all of his trucks on the road. Skippy's Specialized Catfish company doesn't have the cash to pony up, and thus can't get their trucks on the highway like Big John can.

This is about the owners of the network using their leverage and position to get owners of websites to pony up or be left out. It's about letting the big guys squash the little guys because the little guys can't get the network access.

They can't favor Hulu over Netflix because Hulu belongs to their organization or because they paid up more. They can't use their connections to throttle the competition. That is different from network management where they adjust all traffic equally, or even all video streaming equally.

The claim made by you and others is that MVM is wrong that it will affect daily issues. Please prove you are correct, because it seems very obvious that it will affect us.
Click to expand...

I don't even know what MVM is.

Here: link
Please explain how this is a NN issue and not an "actual network management" issue. Do you not see how blurred the lines are?
Click to expand...

The lines can get blurry. No denying that. But that doesn't change the concept above.

Don't put words in my mouth, I didn't put any in anyone else's. WTF is wrong with people that mouth off and can't have a normal conversation.
Click to expand...

So, it's not just speculation that your bill is going to go up?

But those who think that this is probably a good move are wrong and just don't get it? You, yourself may not have accused anyone, but plenty of others have while also complaining that their bill will go up.

Do you actually think that this proclamation that it will now be regulated and subject to standard govt communication fees means that there will be no fees? A cellphone line costs over $10 in fees/taxes. Cable TV is higher than that. A home phone should be less. Broadband has been $0, it will no longer be. This is an ACTUAL impact to a consumer, why not talk about it?
Click to expand...

The internet was a Title II utility until 2005. I don't remember an outcry over fees, or any massive burden of regulation. I also know that since 2005, my internet service has gone up about 40% in cost, but only 10% in speed. My entire cable bill was over $200 per month by the time I canceled the cable portion of it. And I didn't even have premium channels or super fast internet. And canceling it was one of the worst experiences ever. If anything comes out of this, maybe Comcast will have to compete on a customer service standpoint. That alone would be enough for me, because they are simply awful.

I have two lines on my cellphone plan. Less than $10 in government-related taxes/fees. My total taxes and all fees on my previous $200 cable plan was $8.50, of which the federal regulatory portion was $0.08. The highest part was $6.92 in franchise fees, or the fee the local government charges to use the lines.

Still...pure speculation on your part.
 
Renzatic said:
That's what threw the whole thing into stark relief, yeah. It did a great job of working as a sign of things to come if something wasn't done, and done soon.
Click to expand...

And with the way things have been gridlocked in this country in recent years, it's really a miracle that something so meaningful was able to be done so quickly.
 
ISPs can manage network traffic congestion, but they can't artificially throttle traffic for specific sites or streaming services.

That's what net neutrality is.
 
Sydde said:
You obviously have no clue what a leftist is. If that session was dominated by leftists, we would have single payer as of three years ago. Not even a public option. "Leftists", :rolleyes: it is to laugh.
Click to expand...

You are being too conciliatory. Down in the southwest quadrant of the political spectrum, where the Liberals hang out, there are -- how many actual Liberals in the U.S. Congress? According to this website, 8/100 senators in the previous session were strongly liberal, and, 23/435 members of the house were strongly liberal. And the new Congress is even more conservative. The U.S. Congress is very, very conservative right now. I wonder when they will reintroduce hanging as the penalty for poaching on the Lord's (e.g. Charles and David Koch) hunting grounds?

http://thatsmycongress.com/house/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back