• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Breaking: FCC Adopts Net Neutrality

There's already a thread on this (techs), and no, this is not a positive step at all, it's a step towards destruction of the internet as we know it.
 
It's b.s. Providers are now specifically allowed to "manage" their networks, allowed to do "tiered" pricing.
Zdnet has some more info on it. But it leaves the providers huge leeway to do what they want to, which is to make more money on less bandwidth. Comcast loves this, btw. That should tell you something.
 
PokerGuy said:
There's already a thread on this (techs), and no, this is not a positive step at all, it's a step towards destruction of the internet as we know it.
Click to expand...

Yeah missed his thread, though the vote just happened. Still trying to find out exactly what this does.
 
This is all about people who barely use the internet for e-mail being forced to pay for people who overuse the internet. If you are paying for a service, you should get what you pay for. I love the false advertising on the Internet: "Up to 50 times faster than Dialup". Then you find out it is barely 2 or 3 times as fast as dialup. This if false advertising.
 
Any links to the specifics of the decision? It sounds nice, but as is with all regulations, the devil is in the details...
 
MovingTarget said:
Any links to the specifics of the decision? It sounds nice, but as is with all regulations, the devil is in the details...
Click to expand...

The FCC wants to regulate (Read: Ruin) the internet as they see fit. They basically want to assume a new role of power in how the internet runs, a role given to themselves, by themselves.


Net nuetrality sounds nice, but this act by the FCC sounds like a move towards the opposite of net neutrality to me.
 
techs said:
It's b.s. Providers are now specifically allowed to "manage" their networks, allowed to do "tiered" pricing.
Zdnet has some more info on it. But it leaves the providers huge leeway to do what they want to, which is to make more money on less bandwidth. Comcast loves this, btw. That should tell you something.
Click to expand...

They have always been allowed to manage their networks. The difference is that now they would have to reveal exactly how they are managing the network.

Comcast was not in support of this. Both AT&T and Comcast are against it.

The two people who were against it both have worked for telecom and receive campaign contributions from them. The three that voted for it never have worked in telecom. That makes it good enough for me.
 
Attic said:
The FCC wants to regulate (Read: Ruin) the internet as they see fit. They basically want to assume a new role of power in how the internet runs, a role given to themselves, by themselves.


Net nuetrality sounds nice, but this act by the FCC sounds like a move towards the opposite of net neutrality to me.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with the FCC regulating this, but again, the devil is in the details. It may in fact be beneficial, but without the specifics, we simply do not know. Try to keep an open mind until we know what exactly just happened.
 
piasabird said:
This is all about people who barely use the internet for e-mail being forced to pay for people who overuse the internet. If you are paying for a service, you should get what you pay for. I love the false advertising on the Internet: "Up to 50 times faster than Dialup". Then you find out it is barely 2 or 3 times as fast as dialup. This if false advertising.
Click to expand...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can understand your pain piasabird, but your experience is not typical for all. I would suspect you have substandard dsl, satellite, or 3G EVDO. PM me and I may have some helpful inputs.

In terms of the larger thread itself, its hard to comment on the issue of what the FCC did, but it sure does not sound like net neutrality to me. But the abuse potentials are in the decision, and now we will see to what extent the various potential abusers do take the limited license as a give an inch and they will take a mile in terms of mega abuses.

I doubt the American sheeple will do much, but the rest of the world may not tolerate it.
 
piasabird said:
This is all about people who barely use the internet for e-mail being forced to pay for people who overuse the internet. If you are paying for a service, you should get what you pay for. I love the false advertising on the Internet: "Up to 50 times faster than Dialup". Then you find out it is barely 2 or 3 times as fast as dialup. This if false advertising.
Click to expand...

Uh, NOT.
If that were so you would still be on dialup.
In fact, the "occasional" user needs 99 percent of the infrastructure the heavy user needs. Laying the cable and installation in your home, cable modem, backbones, etc. How much less do think it would cost if people who only used it occasionally got their own separate network? Pennies less. Why? If they're putting up fiber optic, its not like you can get different levels. Fibreoptic is fiberoptic. A switch is a switch. My home router costs the same whether it transmits gigabytes or megabytes a month.

So, people who think they should or would only pay like 20 dollars a month if charged by actual bandwidth used are fooling themselves. The first 98 percent of your bill goes to infrastructure, which you have to pay upfront.
 
Here's the thing about this ruling...always before, the push for "net neutrality" by the doom-and-gloom crowd was that providers were going to start doing tiered networks. Always before, those who knew how telecom worked knew that service providers establishing tiered networks was an anti-trust issue and thus would never implement such a service.

This "ruling" by the FCC formally codifies that it's OK for service providers to implement tiered networks...thereby establishing the precedent to do exactly what they were afraid of.

It makes no sense to me how people can want this sort of stupid involved in something as monumental as the Internet.
 
From the article the OP posted:
This framework breaks down like this:

  • Consumers will have a transparent view into how networks are being managed. This information will allow consumers to make a decision on whether to subscribe or use a particular broadband network.
  • Consumers and innovators “have a right to send and receive lawful Internet traffic — to go where they want and say what they want online, and to use the devices of their choice.” Blocking legal content, apps, devices and services is prohibited.
  • No central authority should be able to pick winners or losers by discriminating against “lawful network traffic.”
  • Meanwhile, broadband providers should have the “meaningful flexibility” to manage their networks. These providers should also have incentives—ie profit potential—to build out networks.
Click to expand...

This sounds reasonable. I am curious as to how the last two bullet points will be implemented.
 
drebo said:
Here's the thing about this ruling...always before, the push for "net neutrality" by the doom-and-gloom crowd was that providers were going to start doing tiered networks. Always before, those who knew how telecom worked knew that service providers establishing tiered networks was an anti-trust issue and thus would never implement such a service.

This "ruling" by the FCC formally codifies that it's OK for service providers to implement tiered networks...thereby establishing the precedent to do exactly what they were afraid of.

It makes no sense to me how people can want this sort of stupid involved in something as monumental as the Internet.
Click to expand...

They wanted net neutrality, well, they got it!

I'm doing happy LOL dances today. Careful what you ask for I guess should be the lesson learned.
 
MovingTarget said:
From the article the OP posted:


This sounds reasonable. I am curious as to how the last two bullet points will be implemented.
Click to expand...

Ditto, it does sound reasonable. I worry about the last two as well though, since it could lead to anti-competitive practices. Then again, it seems to be happening anyway, so it would be better to have some sort of regulation in place to handle anti-trust issues.
 
MovingTarget said:
I have no problem with the FCC regulating this, but again, the devil is in the details. It may in fact be beneficial, but without the specifics, we simply do not know. Try to keep an open mind until we know what exactly just happened.
Click to expand...


Yes appreciate it, that's a good advice for keeping grounded on this till more is known.
 
the FuCC is a bloated agency always looking to rationalize it's existence. Next we'll have to get a FuCC license to get on the net.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top