FCC to forbid ISPs from slowing down internet traffic

[lupi]

Thought there was another Net Neutrality thread but couldn't find it. Seems along with that vote they also voted to prevent states from restricting municipal ISPs.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Thought there was another Net Neutrality thread but couldn't find it. Seems along with that vote they also voted to prevent states from restricting municipal ISPs.

Yeah there's been several, I know there's been one or two in the past few weeks. One of them got moved to P&N I know, but not sure about the others, they might have odd titles or something.

And you're correct they also voted to supersede states from banning municipalities from setting up their own. It's funny that they're bitching about the federal government stepping on states' rights, when they're stepping on their own cities' rights.

 

[jpiniero]

I read a story earlier that said these rules are supposed to apply to wireless carriers as well. Not getting my hopes up until an official leak occurs.

IIRC, it does but I haven't seen anything that suggests that this bans metered billing (or the throttle after a certain GB 'unlimited'). Anyone still on an unlimited plan, esp on wireless should assume it will be going away.

 

[RaulF]

I support net neutrality as in open access an no restrictions. Fair treatment to all traffic.

What I don't like is the government controlling it. There's nothing the government is good at.

Good bye Internet.

 

[Ruptga]

Here's a link
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...t-neutrality-vote-heres-what-you-need-to-know

I support net neutrality as in open access an no restrictions. Fair treatment to all traffic.

What I don't like is the government controlling it. There's nothing the government is good at.

Good bye Internet.

Who else is going to make and enforce a rule that restricts what an industry can legally do? The industry can't be trusted to due to the obvious conflict of interest. Consumers can't... unless they start a massive country-wide Internet Consumer Union which would collect taxes from the consumers in order to monitor and enforce rules on the industry, like some kind of government...

 

[Engineer]

I support net neutrality as in open access an no restrictions. Fair treatment to all traffic.

What I don't like is the government controlling it. There's nothing the government is good at.

Good bye Internet.

Government started it and built it up in the beginning and gave it away with openness in mind and the ISP's got gready and fucked it all up. Reap what you sow!

Verizon sued to get rid of the previous net neutrality, even though companies like AT&T and Comcast basically begged them not to. Now that the original is gone and the new one was being voted on, Verizon came back and say "my bad...you can put the old ones back". Too late. Blame Verizon and the other gready ISP's for pushing it to where it's at now with a giant kneejerk reaction in the opposite direction....for better or for worse.

 

[Howard]

There's nothing the government is good at.

There's one in every bunch.

 

[Carson Dyle]

IIRC, it does but I haven't seen anything that suggests that this bans metered billing (or the throttle after a certain GB 'unlimited'). Anyone still on an unlimited plan, esp on wireless should assume it will be going away.

No, it doesn't ban metered billing or the throttling of data rates delivered to the end-user.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

theyll find another way of jacking us, like tiered data plans similar to mobile, or higher prices for faster connections.

im not sure net neutrality is a good policy for the say, 10 biggest sites on the net. i have no problem with sites like amazon and netflix who overwhelmingly benefit from it paying a lot more

 

[darkswordsman17]

theyll find another way of jacking us, like tiered data plans similar to mobile, or higher prices for faster connections.

im not sure net neutrality is a good policy for the say, 10 biggest sites on the net. i have no problem with sites like amazon and netflix who overwhelmingly benefit from it paying a lot more

If they start pushing data caps the FCC will go after them, in fact the FCC is already investigating this as they've said they don't think that many of the caps are really justified due to people using more video and other services (and the cost to the companies for providing the bandwidth is pennies but they charge a lot more for overages). They already do that and I don't see that changing. The FCC has no problem with them offering higher speeds at higher cost. It's when they sell high speed services and then intentionally degrade certain services/sites like they did to Netflix that the FCC is trying to head off. Paying for faster speeds didn't even matter, and there were people with much slower internet that had better quality access to Netflix.

That's actually something very different and the problem there is, the largest ones aren't paying their fair share by reporting their taxes in other countries in order to game the tax system. But then no one else (speaking of corporations, not people) is either.

 

[Kushina]

k.

 

[wjgollatz]

This means your cable bill will go up like your phone an d cell phone bill do. When the cable companies are forced to build infrastructure where it makes little economic sense, and they loose money, the lobbyists will get the FCC to uses the same telecom laws that allows the FCC to set minimum prices. Montanna is going to get high speed access, and we'll all pay for it. Just like the "Obamaphones," look forward to new surcharges on cable bill to pay for highs speed Obamanets for the welfare class. When/if Netflix, Hulu or Amazon Prime become immensely popular, and providers can't charge more for the extra backbone and capacity, they are not going to invest in extra capacity without raising the rates on everyone, instead of the Netflix, et. a;, raising their prices.

And Comcast wasn't stopping Netflix. Comcast had a traffic agreement with L3. Then later, L3 got a Netflix contract and put stress on Comcast equipment with bloated bandwidth. Instead of paying Comcast extra, L3 reclassified themselves as a provider and tried to pretend Comcast was violating some sort of net neutrality principle.

If anyone thinks this is good for the for internet, I have a $800,000,000 government designed healthcare front end website to sell you.

 

[Engineer]

This means your cable bill will go up like your phone an d cell phone bill do.

Buwhahahahaa...you mean cable bills haven't been going up for decades? LOL.

100% FUD!

Interesting that my cell bill just dropped $50 per month and I went from 4GB to 10GB in that deal. Cancelled my land line and suddenly, TWC was interested in offering me phone service at $19 instead of the $58 it was before. Funny how that works.

 

[darkswordsman17]

This means your cable bill will go up like your phone an d cell phone bill do. When the cable companies are forced to build infrastructure where it makes little economic sense, and they loose money, the lobbyists will get the FCC to uses the same telecom laws that allows the FCC to set minimum prices. Montanna is going to get high speed access, and we'll all pay for it. Just like the "Obamaphones," look forward to new surcharges on cable bill to pay for highs speed Obamanets for the welfare class. When/if Netflix, Hulu or Amazon Prime become immensely popular, and providers can't charge more for the extra backbone and capacity, they are not going to invest in extra capacity without raising the rates on everyone, instead of the Netflix, et. a;, raising their prices.

And Comcast wasn't stopping Netflix. Comcast had a traffic agreement with L3. Then later, L3 got a Netflix contract and put stress on Comcast equipment with bloated bandwidth. Instead of paying Comcast extra, L3 reclassified themselves as a provider and tried to pretend Comcast was violating some sort of net neutrality principle.

If anyone thinks this is good for the for internet, I have a $800,000,000 government designed healthcare front end website to sell you.

Cable bills were already rising. Not sure what about this is going to cause them to balloon up, but well your whole first paragraph is a bunch of FUD and you slathered your clear political bias all over it, it's not really worth discussing unless you can bring something more than "Damn you Obama!" nonsense.

Bullshit, Comcast and Verizon outright said it was network nodes on their sides that was the issue and felt that Level 3 (who they tried to bilk first but then realized that was going to cause problems so then they focused on Netflix) pay them to upgrade it. Then they focused on trying to get Netflix to do direct connection to them (which eventually worked). This in spite of the fact that Netflix already offered to put Netflix servers on their network for free so that it wouldn't stress their intermediaries. They outright refused that though.

Anyone that thinks this is comparable to the ACA just plain doesn't know what they're talking about. Stop gobbling up Republican rhetoric and actually know what has been going on. But by all means explain how this is all so bad and more government regulation when the FCC specifically stopped some government regulation with this (by slapping down the state bans on municipal internet).

Honestly, this does almost nothing. The FCC, even the telecoms themselves have said this really doesn't change anything overall. It gives the FCC the power to step in when the telecoms pull their BS like they did against Netflix, or if the telecoms pull some of the other BS they've been trying (like letting copper lines deteriorate to try and push people to wireless).

Oh, and let's not forget the amazingly bad customer service these companies provide. That alone is reason enough for the FCC to get involved.

 

[Markbnj]

And Comcast wasn't stopping Netflix. Comcast had a traffic agreement with L3. Then later, L3 got a Netflix contract and put stress on Comcast equipment with bloated bandwidth. Instead of paying Comcast extra, L3 reclassified themselves as a provider and tried to pretend Comcast was violating some sort of net neutrality principle.

Haha, come on. Is that why Comcast refused Netflix's offer of a high-speed interconnect at Netflix's cost? Comcast wants to charge at the both gates. That's the whole story, and it ain't complicated.

 

[FelixDeCat]

I wholeheartedly support 'Net Neutrality and welcome its passage!

 

[13Gigatons]

The Government should just build there own fiber network, wire every home with One Gigabit and then charge ISP's a fee to access users. The consumer would have dozens of ISP's to choose from and would enjoy blazing fast speed.

This WHOLESALE/RETAIL model would solve most of the problems and has worked in other countries were it has been setup.

 

[rockyct]

This means your cable bill will go up like your phone an d cell phone bill do. When the cable companies are forced to build infrastructure where it makes little economic sense, and they loose money, the lobbyists will get the FCC to uses the same telecom laws that allows the FCC to set minimum prices. Montanna is going to get high speed access, and we'll all pay for it. Just like the "Obamaphones," look forward to new surcharges on cable bill to pay for highs speed Obamanets for the welfare class. When/if Netflix, Hulu or Amazon Prime become immensely popular, and providers can't charge more for the extra backbone and capacity, they are not going to invest in extra capacity without raising the rates on everyone, instead of the Netflix, et. a;, raising their prices.

And Comcast wasn't stopping Netflix. Comcast had a traffic agreement with L3. Then later, L3 got a Netflix contract and put stress on Comcast equipment with bloated bandwidth. Instead of paying Comcast extra, L3 reclassified themselves as a provider and tried to pretend Comcast was violating some sort of net neutrality principle.

If anyone thinks this is good for the for internet, I have a $800,000,000 government designed healthcare front end website to sell you.

Gooooood, gooood. Let the Obama hate flow through you.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

Honestly, this does almost nothing. The FCC, even the telecoms themselves have said this really doesn't change anything overall. It gives the FCC the power to step in when the telecoms pull their BS like they did against Netflix, or if the telecoms pull some of the other BS they've been trying (like letting copper lines deteriorate to try and push people to wireless).

Oh, and let's not forget the amazingly bad customer service these companies provide. That alone is reason enough for the FCC to get involved.

Truth. The problem lies in enforcement and the FCC's track record is spotty at best.

Until one of the majors is brought up on violation charges this is all just lip service.

 

[inachu]

This means capped cable modems are illegal! We should be able to uncap our cable modems at last! Oh! and don't forget about Satellite internet users being data capped.

 

[PliotronX]

This means capped cable modems are illegal! We should be able to uncap our cable modems at last! Oh! and don't forget about Satellite internet users being data capped.

Not quite: the crux of the issue is that providers wanted to double-dip (a la Verizon v. Netflix) where they want content servers to pay extra for unfettered access which is not the way TCP/IP was designed. Verizon's brazen laziness was an example of the worst kind of crippled data access (L3 offered to enhance the Netflix connection with two cables in Los Angeles).

This has nothing to do with practices of addressing people who peg their connections 24/7.

 

[PliotronX]

The Government should just build there own fiber network, wire every home with One Gigabit and then charge ISP's a fee to access users. The consumer would have dozens of ISP's to choose from and would enjoy blazing fast speed.

This WHOLESALE/RETAIL model would solve most of the problems and has worked in other countries were it has been setup.

That makes too much sense, almost like giving Lynch the ball rather than stepping back eight yards and trying to pass it.

 

[Anubis]

The Government should just build there own fiber network, wire every home with One Gigabit and then charge ISP's a fee to access users. The consumer would have dozens of ISP's to choose from and would enjoy blazing fast speed.

This WHOLESALE/RETAIL model would solve most of the problems and has worked in other countries were it has been setup.

agree 1000% ive bee saying this for years

 

[TheAdvocate]

The Government should just build there own fiber network, wire every home with One Gigabit and then charge ISP's a fee to access users. The consumer would have dozens of ISP's to choose from and would enjoy blazing fast speed.

This WHOLESALE/RETAIL model would solve most of the problems and has worked in other countries were it has been setup.

but but but govt=bad!!!1!!1

Seriously, this makes way too much sense. The private sector has been letting us down when it comes to communications/media infrastructure, which is why Google has felt compelled to step in, and luckily in my market.

 

[PliotronX]

What is actually in those 300+ pages of code passed without public review is kind of scary. Count on government -- every single time -- to take a good idea and botch it. Further and further behind the rest of the first world countries we go...