People keep telling you the facts but you keep rejecting them. The FCC cannot "classify" the Internet under Title II. It doesn't even make any sense.
They don't need to. That's my point. Up until 2005, only telephone based Net access even fell under Title II and it was removed in 2005.
Now EVERYTHING falls under Title 2. This is a massive change and unprecedented for cable. The entire reason cable has been exempt from "indecency" standards under federal law is that is has been classified as a private subscription network (
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/regulation-obscenity-indecency-and-profanity). Now that is cable networks are listed as "common carrier" that reasoning and interpretation NO LONGER APPLIES.
I'm afraid this FACT utterly and completely destroys all your arguments about their supposed inability to regulate "content" as the law for decency in broadcasting already exists.
If the FCC decides to now interpret that law as applying to cable since it is now common carrier, they are free to do so. One could challenge that assertion in court IF/WHEN they made such a decision (there has been no need to before), but you telling me that it's simply not even possible is just flat out wrong and/or wishful thinking.
You seem to be confusing what they've done before with what they COULD do now. Worse yet, you seem to place a lot of "trust" in a government that has routinely proven itself to be untrustworthy, massively partisan and even downright corrupt with a history of abuses ranging from The Sedition Act of 1918 ((
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918) to the Patriot Act of 2001 (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act), both of which violated freedoms and wrongly imprisoned people (with in the first and without a trial in the latter). The first one was repealed. The second was not. If they every decide to label YOU a terrorist for some reason they don't need to prove it or give you a trial. Personally, I'd call that overreach and a violation of my rights, but hey, when has that stopped the government from passing such laws DESPITE the Constitution? When you have a Supreme Court that kow-tows to partisan interests, you can uphold ANYTHING or "re-interpret" anything the way you want it. They ruled for abortion rights, but that hasn't stopped people from trying to reverse it or chip away at it. The rulings ultimately mean nothing when the same court can overturn them with a re-interpretation. Given their rulings lately on unlimited money for non-living entities like corporations to use to try and fix elections, I have no faith in the courts anymore.
I know some of you find such assertions ridiculous, but history bears different results and history has a way of repeating itself when people learn nothing from it.
DSL internet access was classified under Title II from 2000 to 2005. Nobody noticed, not even you.
"Not even [me]?" I never had DSL. They did not enforce such standards in the past and then moved it to Title I in 2005. Why would that concern me?
What concerns me is classifying EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE METHOD TO CONNECT TO THE INTERNET AS CLASS II. The difference between cable and broadcast television is now largely moot. If they had decided to regulate DSL or dial-up for content, you could still move to cable based ISPs, making their "control" somewhat irrelevant and therefore impossible to enforce in any meaningful manner since as you say, they cannot control the Internet, only ACCESS TO IT. But now they're ALL the same class. They CAN do something about it.
You want Net Neutrality, but you could wind up getting a lot more than you bargained for. Telling me this isn't possible won't change the FACTs. I have yet to see one ounce of proof by anyone on your side that disproves it. I've provided the links.
Here's why the FCC regulates broadcast networks for the public. It largely has to do with LIMITED BANDWIDTH (sound familiar?) and decency standards (mostly so children aren't exposed)
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/piac/novmtg/pubint.htm
If all methods for Internet access are now common carrier limited bandwidth (they are), the reasons for controlling broadcast television could very well apply to broadband and cable providers. This could then in turn affect cable broadcasts the same as over-the-air broadcasts. Bits are bits. Bandwidth is bandwidth. All are common carriers now. It AMAZES me you guys that claim your are SO much smarter than me CANNOT SEE THAT when it is plain as day. In fact, the more I research the details, the more I see I'm right to be concerned! Yes, the decency law is separate, but the application of it is up to the FCC. It has interpreted it to only apply to broadcast television since cable was considered a private subscription network. How can they move it to class II without changing that reason in turn? They CANNOT. This means the very reason to NOT enforce decency standards has just been changed.
You don't believe it. That doesn't make it untrue.
The FCC ruling does not regulate content.
It certainly enforced existing laws FOR content such as indecency laws. As I said, their own explanations for not enforcing it on cable has been due to the manner of cable's classifiction as a private subscription network. But if they feel it is now a common carrier network, they could easily decide to enforce decency laws on cable television as a result. I've yet to see a reason this could not apply to other data
transmitted over such networks including the Internet, especially if it's video (i.e. the distinction between broadcast television and Internet or cable television is now blurred due to the change in classification).
It does not impose censors. It does not block websites.
You forgot the word YET.
For instance, it means Comcast cannot treat your data usage of their Hulu service any differently to your data usage of your Netflix usage. It means Comcast cannot impose unfair throttling or offer paid prioritisation to slow your Netflix experience or to get faster Hulu, respectively. It means that
You aren't making the right comparisons. You are only thinking about discrimination for one video service versus another rather than other types of data versus live services.
once you've paid Comcast for your 100GB monthly limit, they can not discriminate based on your usage. They cannot impose throttling or restrictions based on how you use the data you are paying for, provided it isn't illegal or harmful.
I'm saying it IS harmful if my live video stops working during peak hours because you demand your torrent downloads not be throttled. In other words, it's not "throttling" by the ISP that slows my access, but the high traffic over the local pipeline. Ironically, by NOT throttling traffic that "should" be lower priority, you make the "live" services break at some point in heavy traffic. In other words, slowing a download doesn't stop it from being delivered, but slowing a live video or audio broadcast past a certain point, will cripple it or stop it entirely! "Equal bits" means some things will break. Priority access might slow some things, but it's possible to still get a file even if it takes longer. It's not possible to get some services like Netflix if it slows down too much. It will break instead. THAT is why Netflix was willing to pay for prioritization. It's the SAME reason that some people pay for faster access speeds from their ISP. If you want to GAME in real time, you need fast access. MAXIMUM speeds mean less than guaranteed MINIMUM speeds in these scenarios since it is the minimum that will break the live service.
This is more of a problem on MOBILE than anywhere else, of course. Their bandwidth a LOT more limited than most cable systems in terms of carrying things like HD video during peak hours. If we had a major incident where everyone needed to call out (think 911), should this law prohibit prioritizing VOIP (aka phone calls) over something like watching Terminator 2 on your cell phone??? I don't see any mention of emergency provisions for bandwidth prioritization by carriers. Quite the opposite, "Net Neutrality" could easily force the ISPs to give just as much priority to watching that frivolous movie as emergency phone calls over their network. But I know you guys wont' address this as your replies are focused on calling me an idiot rather than dealing with actual real world concerns about your beloved Net Neutrality.
Because Cable companies got smarter and greedier and decided to try to impose unfair throttling on competing services for their own gain.
Net neutrality has nothing to do with the business practices of a corporation. It has nothing to do with establishing whether a company is a for-profit or non-profit.
LOL. That's funny.
You just told me above that Comcast was prioritizing for its own GREEDY profits and now you're telling me that making that same prioritizing illegal has NOTHING TO DO WITH PROFITS.
WTF did you mean by the word "greedy" then?
The entire reason I suggested a competitive net-neutral provider that is non-profit is that it has no financial reason to throttle anything whereas private carriers want to do what is best for their business. You, as a consumer have the right to take your business somewhere else if you don't like how someone runs their business. Thus, suggesting an alternative (it would have to be government non-profit as no one else would WANT to do it that way) is in both our best interests. It is not in the interests of a corporation, but it might be if the alternative is being forced to act in a way that is also bad for business.
People have already stated why it's a good thing. Why do you support giving ISP's the right to impose restrictions on the legal and unharming use of their network based on what content you're accessing? It doesn't make any sense.
I just explained why it can also be a very BAD thing. You don't think it makes sense? Well read it again. If my Netflix or Hulu or whatever stops working during peak hours because of "Net Neutrality", how the hell is that BETTER for me?
Once you've paid for the access and data, it's yours to use however you like.
So you're saying, the hell on those people trying to make emergency phone calls on whatever cell network, give your movie you want to watch the same priority....
Yes, everything should be
even, even when it makes no sense to do so.
Sorry buddy but your claim that the FCC is taking over the Internet and ISP's is false.
The FCC represents the American public and given that an
overwhelming majority support the regulator's efforts, you are just pointlessly scaremongering.
My view of prioritization with good reasoning for the benefit of those needing those services (even if they have to pay more for priority) is every bit as valid as yours, possibly more so since my view is FAR less SELF-CENTERED in its viewpoint (i.e. I put priority on the most needed services for a given amount of limited bandwidth whereas you put your priority at parity even if it means someone can't make a phone call after a 911 type disaster). ME ME ME. Me too.
You are continuing to prove that you know very little about the subject.
So now your definition of "knowing about the subject" means I have to agree with your point of view?
How will it make your internet service slower?
If they were prioritizing something I was doing before (e.g. live video sites over generic text, blog, news or download access) so that it WORKED and they now have to downgrade that priority so that you get your "equal" access no matter what the content is, then you have just made my service SLOWER. Worse yet, you've potentially downgraded or even BROKEN it if the bandwidth drops enough.
You are stretching the very definition of net neutrality to make this assumption. The FCC ruling bans throttling and paid prioritisation, not an ISP's own network management of certain services. For instance, you'll find that VoIP and streaming already get higher network priority than BitTorrent. The FCC ruling does not ban ISP's from managing traffic to ensure stability, as it explicitly states:
- No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
- No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kindin other words, no fast lanes. This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their
I must be BLIND.
It blatantly says they CANNOT impair lawful traffic based on CONTENT yet you just told me they CAN prioritize VOIP or movies over torrents! Do you NOT SEE that 100% contradicts what you just said! ????
Wrong. The FCC ruling states that an ISP may not impair or degrade service.
You just told me they COULD degrade torrents in favor of VoIP. Which is it??? And yet you keep telling me it is
I that don't understand Net Neutrality. It seems to me you are massively confused about it, giving me contradicting statements at every turn so you can say I don't get it when it's obvious to me YOU don't get it.
If you treat everyone TRULY EQUALLY on an ISP, that means NO ONE EVER GETS "PRIORITY" FOR
ANY REASON WHAT-SO-EVER. If that breaks live video, so be it. If that means phone calls can't be made because I'm busy downloading and they have to give me at least the same bits as that phone calls (which won't work if it falls below a certain rate), then so be it! Without exceptions, that means even emergency phone calls can't be prioritized when bits are bits!
Never is a long time.
The FCC ruling does not give it the power to control content, but the way this content is treated by your ISP. Please just stop.
I'd like to stop (this is really getting old and boring), but you apparently haven't looked at the other powers the FCC has been given (e.g. enforcing decency broadcasts over public carriers) and thus your interpretation of the ruling is completely flawed, IMO.
You have been proven wrong multiple times by people on this forum
I must have missed WHEN I was proven wrong since the only "proof" I've seen are links from Renzatic that didn't support what he was saying (I have been literally personally insulted by more than one person in this thread, however).
The rest seems to be wishful thinking that the FCC will only ever do what you want them to do despite the other laws in play and the reclassification of cable as a public broadcasting method that puts it in jeopardy of decency regulation and regulation for education, etc. Limited bandwidth is limited bandwidth (whether over-the-air frequency and encoding methods or cable capacity). Ironically, it is the very FCC change that makes this so, the one you support and think has no bearing on such things. But your own claims prove you wrong.
It all comes down to:
1> You think all traffic regardless of content should be treated
equally
I'm assuming even if this means harm to other services including emergency phone calls since I see no exemptions mentioned anywhere by anyone pushing this Net Neutrality angle. I cannot agree here for the reasons given, ranging from the need for live services to function to emergency or other priority above "frivolous" access in times of actual need.
2> You don't believe the FCC has
authority to control content of the Internet because they only control the gateways (ISPs).
That is a difference without distinction. If you can't access the information because it's been blocked due to being labeled "indecent" or whatever, you can't use it. Maybe someone in Europe could see your site, but no one will be able to in the USA if the FCC has stopped all ISPs from *transmitting* that site to anyone else.
3> You don't believe the FCC can control content because cable systems have traditionally been exempt under Class I and DSL was deregulated in 2005.
OH WAIT. It's ALL been classified as Class II for the first time. That means they CAN and DO have the authority to regulate what flows in and out of those servers. Existing law regulates decency content and the ONLY thing stopping them from applying that to cable has been that until now, it's been interpreted as a private subscription network and classified as such. Now that it is classified as common (public) carrier, I see now reason that should apply. This means they can now regulate Cable for content should they CHOOSE TO DO SO.
It's not ridiculous. It's 100% possible. The fact it hasn't happened just yet has NO BEARING on its possibility of being enforced should someone push for it within the FCC or a controlling government interest like Congress.
