RIP Net Neutrality

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Original poster
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,409
What the hell do you expect when the FCC Chairman is a former cable TV industry lobbyist.


WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission will propose new rules that allow Internet service providers to offer a faster lane through which to send video and other content to consumers, as long as a content company is willing to pay for it, according to people briefed on the proposals.

The proposed rules are a complete turnaround for the F.C.C. on the subject of so-called net neutrality, the principle that Internet users should have equal ability to see any content they choose, and that no content providers should be discriminated against in providing their offerings to consumers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/technology/fcc-new-net-neutrality-rules.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0
 

zin

macrumors 6502
May 5, 2010
488
6,476
United Kingdom
Get rid of the chairman and replace him with somebody who has a backbone. The regulator has the authority to reclassify broadband to protect net neutrality, it should find somebody willing to flex the FCC's muscles.
 

Skika

macrumors 68030
Mar 11, 2009
2,895
869
But goys this is good, free market will fix it.

You dont want regulations and socialism right??
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,550
7,802
CT
The FCC has been a joke for a long time, they are more worried about Janet Jackson's nipples then actually worrying about a open free internet or figuring out what to do with the spectrum.
 

tunerX

Suspended
Nov 5, 2009
355
825
Sounds fair.

Instead of having an edge connection for your content services. You can put your content services directly into an ISPs infrastructure and benefit directly from the 10/40/100Gbps backbone.

Pay the money and you can have a direct injection into an ISP's privately owned backbone.

The service will suffer if you have to cross a NAP (Internets version of an Interlata connection), that has to cross between ISP backbones. But then the content provider can pay the other ISP for direct connection into other ISP backbones.

Eventually with the FCC ruling a content provider can plug directly into a NAP and pay a single fee for all participants in a NAP.

Sorry buddy, Long live Net neutrality.
 

G51989

macrumors 68030
Feb 25, 2012
2,506
10
NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
The FCC has been a joke for a long time, they are more worried about Janet Jackson's nipples then actually worrying about a open free internet or figuring out what to do with the spectrum.
Of course it is a joke.

America is more than happy to sell off everything to mega corps.

It is the religion of America
 

BenTrovato

macrumors 68030
Jun 29, 2012
2,849
1,871
Canada
There's a reason why he was selected as chairman. This is how things work. There was excellent guest on coast to coast the other night: http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2014/04/21

Basically the government(s) are set up to make decisions for the people because people aren't capable of making important decisions. The way he presented the information, it almost made believe that is the best way to do things. Reality made me realize that it's clearly not.
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,550
7,802
CT
ISP's need to be set up as public utilities and regulated as such. They should not be allowed to pick and choose what goes over their networks or the ability to throttle data. They need to be dumb pipes that just pushes out data.
 

tunerX

Suspended
Nov 5, 2009
355
825
ISP's need to be set up as public utilities and regulated as such. They should not be allowed to pick and choose what goes over their networks or the ability to throttle data. They need to be dumb pipes that just pushes out data.
That would only happen if the government ran all of the Fiber across the country.
 

tunerX

Suspended
Nov 5, 2009
355
825
The goverment does not run water lines, phone lines, or power lines, yet all are still highly regulated.

We need to highly regulate ISPs.
ISPs are highly regulated. But they also have non-public access to the fiber they run.
 

tunerX

Suspended
Nov 5, 2009
355
825
To the point where I don't have to pay $200 extra to my ISP to use Netflix.
I pay 7.99 for netflix. I have 100Mbps down 10Mbps up and live 6 miles from the closest city with a population of 400. I pay 49.99 for my Internet.

If all you are going to do is scream everything needs more regulation, then give an example of what kind of regulation you want.

Basically from your last couple posts. You want the government to come in and regulate your price of internet to some kind of price you desire.
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,550
7,802
CT
I pay 7.99 for netflix. I have 100Mbps down 10Mbps up and live 6 miles from the closest city with a population of 400. I pay 49.99 for my Internet.

If all you are going to do is scream everything needs more regulation, then give an example of what kind of regulation you want.

Basically from your last couple posts. You want the government to come in and regulate your price of internet to some kind of price you desire.
You know that Netflix was being throttled by Comcast until they agreed to pay money for more bandwidth. uVerse is throttling Netflix currently. Is this the open internet you want?
 

tunerX

Suspended
Nov 5, 2009
355
825
You know that Netflix was being throttled by Comcast until they agreed to pay money for more bandwidth. uVerse is throttling Netflix currently. Is this the open internet you want?
Your argument about Comcast is obtuse. They had a NAP agreement with netflix's main ISP where all services originated. This NAP agreement had a finite amount of bandwidth. Netflix caused saturation across the NAP that lead to connection problems for every other content provider and business that used that same NAP to get to Comcast.
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,550
7,802
CT
Your argument about Comcast is obtuse. They had a NAP agreement with netflix's main ISP where all services originated. This NAP agreement had a finite amount of bandwidth. Netflix caused saturation across the NAP that lead to connection problems for every other content provider and business that used that same NAP to get to Comcast.
Comcast would love to get rid of Netflix in favor of their own services. Why would I watch cable when I can get everything over the Net. This scares the crap out of the providers. Other than extortion to get money out of Netflix why would they want to give them access to their network.

Plus is Comcast is allowed to buy Time Warner Cable we will all be in a world of hurt.
 

tunerX

Suspended
Nov 5, 2009
355
825
Comcast would love to get rid of Netflix in favor of their own services. Why would I watch cable when I can get everything over the Net. This scares the crap out of the providers. Other than extortion to get money out of Netflix why would they want to give them access to their network.

Plus is Comcast is allowed to buy Time Warner Cable we will all be in a world of hurt.
So you basically think you should be able to pay for internet and get everything in unlimited amounts with unlimited bandwidth and cry when Comcast will not give you more bandwidth that their Infrastructure cannot currently carry. That is not net neutrality. That is wanting everything across a finite infrastructure.

Call your water company and complain that you are not getting upgraded to a 2" service with 65 PSI because you want a giant fountain in your whirlpool. I mean... you are paying for this service after all. You do not want to pay a penny more.

I pay for internet and have no problems. Currently at 371GB for the month with 6 days to go. Only paying 49.99. I don't pay for cable.
 

noisycats

macrumors 6502a
Jun 1, 2010
771
857
The 'ham. Alabama.
So you basically think you should be able to pay for internet and get everything in unlimited amounts with unlimited bandwidth and cry when Comcast will not give you more bandwidth that their Infrastructure cannot currently carry. That is not net neutrality. That is wanting everything across a finite infrastructure.

Call your water company and complain that you are not getting upgraded to a 2" service with 65 PSI because you want a giant fountain in your whirlpool. I mean... you are paying for this service after all. You do not want to pay a penny more.

I pay for internet and have no problems. Currently at 371GB for the month with 6 days to go. Only paying 49.99. I don't pay for cable.
TunerX, I envy your bandwidth at the price you pay. Do you mind my asking through whom?
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,550
7,802
CT
So you basically think you should be able to pay for internet and get everything in unlimited amounts with unlimited bandwidth and cry when Comcast will not give you more bandwidth that their Infrastructure cannot currently carry. That is not net neutrality. That is wanting everything across a finite infrastructure.

Call your water company and complain that you are not getting upgraded to a 2" service with 65 PSI because you want a giant fountain in your whirlpool. I mean... you are paying for this service after all. You do not want to pay a penny more.

I pay for internet and have no problems. Currently at 371GB for the month with 6 days to go. Only paying 49.99. I don't pay for cable.
You are using 371 GB at $50 a month? How much speed do you have and what are you doing that needs that much bandwidth. 250 a month is high for most people.
 

tunerX

Suspended
Nov 5, 2009
355
825
You are using 371 GB at $50 a month? How much speed do you have and what are you doing that needs that much bandwidth. 250 a month is high for most people.
Already said that... 100Mbps down 10Mbps up. 49.99.
 

edk99

macrumors 6502a
May 27, 2009
701
709
FL
Ah yes more government. That is always the answer to all problems. These guys couldn't event implement a web site correctly and now you want them to regulate the internet. No thanks.