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

[CFreymarc]

For the record, I don't code. I work at a University keeping it running.

In all honestly, working at a University IPO totally discredits your opinions concerning making money and running a business.

 

[bradl]

For the record, I don't code. I work at a University keeping it running.

I think this is a valid point for everyone here whose panties are in a bunch from this ruling.

In all honestly, working at a University IPO totally discredits your opinions concerning making money and running a business.

Wrong. It actually gives more credit than you realize.

Most of us have been working in the IT field with the internet for 20+ years. We aren't just bringing up talking points that you think are an "us versus them" argument; we are arguing from personal experience with technology from 20+ years ago and rules and regulations back then, all the way up to now.

• We were there when the internet was opened up to universities and the like in the early 1990s.
• We were there when technologies like Linux, HTTP, FTP, and the like were created.
• We were there when protocols like SLIP and PPP were created, bringing the internet to people at home, subsequently bringing ISPs into business.
• Because of the above the ISPs were regulated under Title II. We were there when it happened.
• We were there when CLECs and ILECs were provisioning DSL, Cable, and VoDSL to businesses.

At the time I worked for a phone company who offered DSL service to customers and VoDSL service to businesses in a major city. However, because of deregulation, our direct competitor (Sprint)laid out lines throughout the city, and because of that, would only go to the curb of every business and home serviced. Subsequently, the provisioning that final bit to the home/business had to be done by them, because it was their line. They took their sweet time with it, then when the customer complained about why it took so long, Sprint would go directly to them, say that my employer had horrible practices, and offered them service, and connect them instantly.

Shoddy business practice, thanks to deregulation.

Nevertheless, we were there with all of it, from beginning to deregulation to the now re-regulation of those ISPs. Bring up all talking points you want; they can not and will not replace personal experience in the industry a lot of us have spent the past 20+ years working in. We know what we are talking about.

BL.

 

[CFreymarc]

You know, I'd probably trust your opinions on things a little better if you actually used a bit of that logic you so disparage to actually build a point instead of sprouting off what sounds suspiciously like buzzword based wisdom, and reads like someone who's spent too much time nose deep in self-empowerment books.

You're just some random guy on the internet to me. You can talk about how rich, powerful, and in the know you are, but it means nothing so long as you don't do anything to back any of it up.

And you my communications terminal are all but a series of text that many only be yet another AI experiment on line as MacRumors does not use CapCha to verify real people.

Red Rock Cafe in Mt. View., 11 AM St. Patrick's day. See you then if you are real.

----------

Yeah ... except we don't eat people.

Your line should be, "bring food or be fed."

And I'm more than happy to feed those who are hungry.

Then you are already have become food. Eventually the utopia views crash as you need a house for your children. But yet that "community coordinator" leading your cause cashes in well and fails to disclose bank records.

 

[citizenzen]

Then you are already have become food. Eventually the utopia views crash as you need a house for your children. But yet that "community coordinator" leading your cause cashes in well and fails to disclose bank records.

I've had the house for over 17 years, but never had kids.

At 55, that doesn't seem very likely as my wife has already gone through menopause.

And while the back yard is pretty sweet, I wouldn't call it utopia, but thanks for the compliment.

 

[samiwas]

Calling me a liar and proving are two different things. All I see from you is a flame. Come back when you're willing to prove your claims rather than just throw insults around.

I'm not calling you a liar. I'm calling you misinformed. You said, and I quote:

I mean the Internet has existed since '50s/60s really and they just NOW realized NONE of the people working in that organization for the past 50+ years had a freaking CLUE about ANYTHING that it was classified incorrectly all that time?

The internet was classified Title II until 2002.

Forbes

This saga began when the FCC disclaimed its Title II authority over high-speed Internet access in 2002.
The 2002 FCC decided that access to the Internet should be outside all the Titles–unregulated like Yahoo, eBay, or today’s Snapchat. The FCC made that decision under Chairman Michael Powell, who is now the head cable lobbyist at the top cable lobbying association, called NCTA, which benefited from his decision.

So, it wasn't "classified incorrectly all this time". You are wrong. Own up to it. Writing 10,000 words of wrong doesn't make you any more right.

You of all people need to read this quote below. I have seen plenty of geniuses just sit there knowing everything with near zero social skills. You are as alive as you can communicate. Get out of the chat rooms and meet the real world.

Errr, I've been to 22 countries across four continents and spent at least a week if not more than a month in well over 100 cities in an 8-year timespan. And half the time I'm posting on here, it's while sitting at work. I've been out in the real world plenty, thank you very much.

 

[kds1]

Yeah ... except we don't eat people.

Your line should be, "bring food or be fed."

And I'm more than happy to feed those who are hungry.

Agreed.

 

[NT1440]

I think this is a valid point for everyone here whose panties are in a bunch from this ruling.

Huh?

 

[TheHateMachine]

You know, I'd probably trust your opinions on things a little better if you actually used a bit of that logic you so disparage to actually build a point instead of sprouting off what sounds suspiciously like buzzword based wisdom, and reads like someone who's spent too much time nose deep in self-empowerment books.

You're just some random guy on the internet to me. You can talk about how rich, powerful, and in the know you are, but it means nothing so long as you don't do anything to back any of it up.

I'm just waiting on someone to start touting their investment seminar.

"Learn about this one weird trick that the SEC and investment bankers don't want you to know about and make millions!"

 

[Renzatic]

"Learn about this one weird trick that the SEC and investment bankers don't want you to know about and make millions!"

Whatever it is, I bet it involves prunes and sassmouth! Oh damn. I gotta find out now!

 

[hulugu]

...

I can easily see where they might now decide to block any and all foreign links that might be somehow connected to terrorist networks. It's for your own good. The problem is they may not be connected and who decides that anyway? We don't like the green party so we'll label them terrorists. We keep people without trial in Guantanamo prison. We just labeled them terrorists without proof, without trial and there they are. This is the same government you trust to not label YOU a terrorist and hold you without a trial? I've listed tons of reasons to not trust this government....

The government doesn't need Title II and the FCC to send people to Guantanamo Bay. It already does this regardless of the regulatory paradigm. There are a host of blacklists for people already, including the "Do Not Fly" list and Treasury's Special Designated Nationals list.

Moreover, the FBI sent counter-terror agents into green and labor party groups after 9/11 again without the new regulatory paradigm.

This is a red herring argument intended to scare people. The real question is how the FCC can regulate speech on the Internet and thus far, there's no attempt or regulatory structure to do so.

Moreover, there's no evidence that the FCC would or could block websites, however, the nature of the Internet would make this difficult if not nearly impossible.

The hard question is will the FCC attempt to block P2P sites (and all variants) and will the FCC use Title 2 to attack sites that help share content like revenge porn or child pornography. And, how will those rules affect other content providers?

Those are the questions worth asking.

 

[CFreymarc]

I've had the house for over 17 years, but never had kids.

At 55, that doesn't seem very likely as my wife has already gone through menopause.

And while the back yard is pretty sweet, I wouldn't call it utopia, but thanks for the compliment.

Then you managed to tap into the volunteer vein and moved up in the world. I'd rather make product.

----------

Moreover, there's no evidence that the FCC would or could block websites, however, the nature of the Internet would make this difficult if not nearly impossible.

The hard question is will the FCC attempt to block P2P sites (and all variants) and will the FCC use Title 2 to attack sites that help share content like revenge porn or child pornography. And, how will those rules affect other content providers?

Those are the questions worth asking.

This is the issue that many are concerned about. Like ObamaCare that wrecked most of American's health care to supplement losers, this ObamaNet can turn into a crazy censorship fiasco where executive orders are given to ISP to block or throttle specific websites during elections or when a scandal breaks out.

My take is technology will march beyond it and the whole concept of IP addresses, name servers and direct broadband is replaced by a much more decentralized paradigm. Information wants to be free.

 

[bradl]

Huh?

My point: A fair number of people in this thread against Net Neutrality are talking up the same old points about it being a non-issue, non-existent, or outright BS.

A lot of us here were here and working with it, the technology, and the regulations from the internet and Net Neutrality's infancy in the early 90s/2000s to now, and have been through this. We know not from talking points, but from personal experience from when all of this came about. We know what the facts are because we lived through those facts and events, whereas others here against it have no basis for their argument except for what they are being spoonfed by analysts and businesses who don't have a bloody idea of what they are talking about.

I too was working at a University when such regulatory laws as the Communications Decency Act of 1996 was passed (spearheaded by the senator from my home state, nonetheless), among others. We've been through the wars to know what we are talking about.

BL.

 

[NT1440]

My point: A fair number of people in this thread against Net Neutrality are talking up the same old points about it being a non-issue, non-existent, or outright BS.

A lot of us here were here and working with it, the technology, and the regulations from the internet and Net Neutrality's infancy in the early 90s/2000s to now, and have been through this. We know not from talking points, but from personal experience from when all of this came about. We know what the facts are because we lived through those facts and events, whereas others here against it have no basis for their argument except for what they are being spoonfed by analysts and businesses who don't have a bloody idea of what they are talking about.

I too was working at a University when such regulatory laws as the Communications Decency Act of 1996 was passed (spearheaded by the senator from my home state, nonetheless), among others. We've been through the wars to know what we are talking about.

BL.

Thanks for the clarification but I'm still a bit confused, were you using my post to agree with me or using it as a springboard to respond to that CF guy?

 

[bradl]

Thanks for the clarification but I'm still a bit confused, were you using my post to agree with me or using it as a springboard to respond to that CF guy?

Both.

 

[Trebuin]

I figure I would post this update. While not part of net neutrality, it is related to the broadband definition. Two of our broadband competitors have or will be shutting down services due to the changes leaving us with Comcast broadband. Att was one of those two. They cited broadband redefinition as one reason and a federal requirement to provide infrastructure to equalize the network being extremely costly which is part of net neutrality. That puts my region into a monopoly on broadband with backup being utility restricted restricted DSL. Since I haven't used DSL in a long time, has the Fcc lifted the speed limit on DSL? It was related to how much data is allowed to go over a telephone line.

 

[Treq]

Then you managed to tap into the volunteer vein and moved up in the world. I'd rather make product.

----------



This is the issue that many are concerned about. Like ObamaCare that wrecked most of American's health care to supplement losers, this ObamaNet can turn into a crazy censorship fiasco where executive orders are given to ISP to block or throttle specific websites during elections or when a scandal breaks out.

My take is technology will march beyond it and the whole concept of IP addresses, name servers and direct broadband is replaced by a much more decentralized paradigm. Information wants to be free.

First, The affordable care act (Obama care) has fixed a ton of problems in the american healthcare system.
Second, this reclassifying of the ISP under Title II has nothing to do with censoring content other than actually prohibiting said censorship. The very thing you are afraid of is exactly what this ruling is meant to stop. Why aren't you a supporter of it? Is it because The president is for it, so you have to be against it?

 

[Renzatic]

Since I haven't used DSL in a long time, has the Fcc lifted the speed limit on DSL? It was related to how much data is allowed to go over a telephone line.

I don't think (but don't know for a fact that) there ever was a speed restrictions on DSL. I've been under the impression that only reason why we don't have faster speeds for it is because the telcos have let the tech languish in lieu of mobile and fiber.

 

[bradl]

This is the issue that many are concerned about. Like ObamaCare that wrecked most of American's health care to supplement losers,

If I could say what I want to say about this statement, I'd be permanently banned as well.

this ObamaNet can turn into a crazy censorship fiasco where executive orders are given to ISP to block or throttle specific websites during elections or when a scandal breaks out.

You do realize that this was also regulated under Bush, right? So where is your outcry and sheer panic over BushNet from 2000 - 2005? What's that? no outcry?

Thought so.

BL.

 

[citizenzen]

Then you managed to tap into the volunteer vein and moved up in the world. I'd rather make product.

Volunteer vein?

No. They pay me for my work.

You are too funny.

 

[samiwas]

I figure I would post this update. While not part of net neutrality, it is related to the broadband definition. Two of our broadband competitors have or will be shutting down services due to the changes leaving us with Comcast broadband. Att was one of those two. They cited broadband redefinition as one reason and a federal requirement to provide infrastructure to equalize the network being extremely costly which is part of net neutrality.

So, that had nothing to do with this:

http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/att-plans-shut-down-certain-copper-network-assets/2015-01-20

AT&T (NYSE: T) is going to shut down certain copper assets as it moves forward with its ongoing IP network transition, according to an SEC filing.

As a result of abandoning these copper assets, AT&T's fourth-quarter 2014 operating results will also include a $2.1 billion noncash charge. AT&T will release its fourth-quarter 2014 earnings on Jan. 27.

"During the fourth quarter, we performed an analysis of our network assets and determined that specific copper assets will not be necessary to support future network activity, due to declining customer demand for our legacy voice and data products and the migration of our networks to next generation technology," AT&T said in the SEC filing.

Sounds like they are shutting down legacy systems which aren't in much demand.

And no, net neutrality does not "require infrastructure to equalize the network".

All net neutrality is, is a regulation stating that an ISP cannot throttle certain websites/companies over another, or require some companies to pay more just based on competition. So, an ISP who is partnered with Hulu can't I've Hulu a fast lane, and Netflix a slow lane.

has the Fcc lifted the speed limit on DSL? It was related to how much data is allowed to go over a telephone line.

The FCC had a speed limit on DSL? Can you source that? Never heard of that, and can't find anything regarding it.

 

[Trebuin]

That first link you posted is related. ATT has been developing my area for the past few years but everyone who has it has been told they're abandoning the infrastructure as it'll be too costly to maintain to adhere to new guidance. I've only heard that from my neighbors who have gotten phone calls from ATT citing their inability to adhere to FCC Open Internet Order 2010 §8.7 due to the cost of building or maintaining the infrastructure at our location. If you actually read that, I don't think hardware falls into that, but I guess ATT is just trying to make an excuse to get out of our network after a failed expansion attempt. At least I won't get the advertisement fliers anymore. Our alternate, Comcast use to be a horrible option around here but they've sense built up their infrastructure. IPV6 still has issues but I've found if I force my network to use IPV4.

I'm pretty sure the new rules are not the reason as last I checked, they haven't released the 332 page document yet: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...net-neutrality-up-for-vote-today-by-fcc-board. Apparently, it'll be contested, though I don't expect the republican party to be able to really do anything with as divided as the party is.

The other company just can't compete because of lack of speed...5 MBit is what they had. They were just over the old rules of 4 MBit (http://www.enterprisenetworkingplanet.com/netsp/broadband-redefined-by-the-fcc.html). With that gone, hopefully the local prices don't shoot up. They have a cable line monopoly here and I won't even touch that because of the price, a little under $350 for internet and TV after the deal period ended the last time I used them. Now I just pay $65 for internet and $110 for DirecTV. Less of a pain than having to go into the store to negotiate a new price. (I really shouldn't complain as gas has managed to go up by $1 in about 3-4 weeks, made 2.06 low and now back up to 3.15.

The DSL thing was way in the past...1990's when I heard everyone trying to explain why it was only barely faster than dial up. I kept hearing there were legal fights but I have no reference. It may not have actually been what everyone was telling me back then, especially since few even used the internet to look for the actual reason.

So, that had nothing to do with this:

http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/att-plans-shut-down-certain-copper-network-assets/2015-01-20



Sounds like they are shutting down legacy systems which aren't in much demand.

And no, net neutrality does not "require infrastructure to equalize the network".

All net neutrality is, is a regulation stating that an ISP cannot throttle certain websites/companies over another, or require some companies to pay more just based on competition. So, an ISP who is partnered with Hulu can't I've Hulu a fast lane, and Netflix a slow lane.




The FCC had a speed limit on DSL? Can you source that? Never heard of that, and can't find anything regarding it.

 

[poppy10]

I believe you are referring to the scary expansion of water regulatory control by the EPA, another example of big government trampling rights.

Yeah! Preach it brother. I hate the government trampling on my rights to drink polluted sewage water. When will this tyranny end????

 

[Eraserhead]

You of all people need to read this quote below. I have seen plenty of geniuses just sit there knowing everything with near zero social skills. You are as alive as you can communicate. Get out of the chat rooms and meet the real world.

If social skills are your strong point how many times have you been out with friends in the last month? 20?

In all honestly, working at a University IPO totally discredits your opinions concerning making money and running a business.

Not everyone wants to run a business I'd have thought your social skills taught you that.

Red Rock Cafe in Mt. View., 11 AM St. Patrick's day. See you then if you are real.

So you want people to meet perhaps a flight away on a weekday? Seriously?

 

[Z400Racer37]

Then what you are advocating for is not what the internet was. You are advocating for a commoditized network where companies can hold the network hostage for their own gain.

Let's use your FedEx example. You pay $20 to ship a very important package from your house to your mom. Once FedEx has the package, they get it halfway, then call you to demand another $100 or they will not take your package any further, or else they will just take three weeks to deliver it. Still like the idea?

That is the complete antithesis of the idea and purpose of the internet. Your vision of the internet would be an utter failure.

Wow. Breibart.

Okay, for one thing, how will the change to Title II "change TV as we know it"? TV is already under Title II.

Secondly, literally everything in that article runs counter to reality, and you're a sucker for believing it.

Nobody can claim ownership of the internet. Sure there are companies that run the backbone but they don't own the data that runs through it. I might own a server, you might own a switch. All of it is connected through the massive world wide web. Nobody owns Earth, nobody owns the internet.

Where are you getting this from? What are the unemployment numbers now compared to their lowest?

First, All data will be treated the same... thats the point of this whole thing.

Second, there is a little thing call right of way laws. Fedex would be breaking the law by blocking access to another's property.

Third, Yes The free market is a myth. Good balanced regulation is what fosters good competition. Without it you either get monopolies or you get a nash equilibrium issue where it is in the best interest of the business to not try to compete with a competitor because both will loose.

Fourth, the republicans have been forcing tax cuts for the rich all six of those years and it doesn't work. The stimulus package that passed years ago would have worked better if it didn't include the largest tax cut in american history, and instead included a jobs program to fix the country's infrastructure. Once again that was due to republicans forcing it into the bill.

Lastly, yes we do have the right to regulate their networks to ensure fair business practices. It's kinda exactly what laws are for.

Man, there is just so much you don't know. Yet you think you do. Maybe turn off Fox "news" and go back to school. Or just stop embarrassing yourself.

Edit: Another observation; You seem to see the world in only black or white. Either its Free market, or communism. Is there no in-between for you? Cant we have a little regulation to ensure a fair market without going all the way to communism? Can't there be a world where we all get together and set out some rules so everyone can play fairly, or is it only survival of the fittest for you?

So, then by your very own admittance, this regulation won't change anything and is just to have something on the books in case something does happen. Right?

Seems pretty pointless that you're so bent out of shape about it.

Incentives? Who said anything about incentives?

The mega corporations that control the last mile do so not because they have any special government incentives, but because they are already huge. The "free market" is what lets a content distributor like Comcast, buy a content creator like NBC/Universal and thus put them in direct competition with future Netflixes.

So now the playing field is stacked, with Comcast already having the upper hand. What "free market" again?

Oh yeah, the free market lets the Baby Bells merge with each other to form two companies even bigger and more entrenched in more businesses than their predecessor ever was. In some places and business areas they may compete, but in most they have the exact same monopoly that they had before.

The "free market" cannot exist without the infrastructure of laws and regulation. Be it something as simple as currency or weights and measures or patents or things far more complicated like the FDA.

B

----------



Exactly. Just like boxing or UFC are far more interesting because they are regulated. Unfettered competition isn't good for the participants or the spectators.

B

I'm not saying anything to any of you anymore until I see you quote EXACTLY the following.

Quote:
"I know more about Net Neutrality than Mark Cuban. Not only does he not know what he's talking about, but his decades of business experience in spaces related to this topic PALE in comparison to the level of knowledge that I possess on the issue. I understand the fact that Mark Cuban has amassed BILLIONS of dollars by creating wealth through businesses that had to, in part, consider the internet as one of the dynamic variables related to it. I also understand that even though I have managed to amass a completely insignificant amount of wealth compared to Mark Cuban, and even though I do not have any experience operating multi-hundred million dollar businesses directly related to this space, or creating self-directed wealth in general, and even though nobody even knows, or cares who I am, I am undeterred in my assertion that I (State your name) know more about net neutrality, business, and wealth creation than Mark Cuban. This is why he is wrong and I am right. I know more than Mark Cuban."

You either post that, or you admit that you're wrong by default. So let's hear it.

 

[Renzatic]

If there were Mark Cuban's sincere belief concerning Net Neutrality, which I seriously doubt it is, then yeah, I'll happily and proudly say I know more about the subject than he does.