FCC to forbid ISPs from slowing down internet traffic

[FelixDeCat]

Just heard on CNBC.

Long live net neutrality!

 

[vshah]

srsly?

 

[Ruptga]

link or it didn't happen.

Freakin Felix never tells the truth. Posted two hours ago:

The proposal is expected to be submitted to the agency’s commissioners by Thursday. Although the F.C.C. is not expected to release a copy of the plan this week, the contents are almost certain to leak out. A vote on the proposal by the full commission is scheduled for Feb. 26.

 

[K1052]

I doubt Verizon will be on the telecom industry Christmas card list for a while.

 

[1sikbITCH]

Just heard on CNBC.

Long live net neutrality!

I'mma smoke a big fat joint to celebrate! :thumbsup:

 

[Crusty]

They aren't slowing it down if the connection is 100% utilized, they just aren't providing adequate service.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Woo hoo if true. Never thought I would see the day. Might actually get something out of that Obama vote in 2008.

 

[Jeff7]

"We're not slowing down anything. We're speeding other things up. It's pure coincidence that 'sped up' is exactly as fast as what you were accustomed to."

 

[mmntech]

Good for net neutrality if it passes. Been a good week for the cause. The CRTC (Canada's version of the FCC) just ruled that cell phone providers can't exempt their own content from data caps. Bell Mobility had their own TV app that allowed you to watch 100 hours of content per month with no data charges. A customer sued them and won, arguing that it was an unfair business practise.

 

[smackababy]

Good for net neutrality if it passes. Been a good week for the cause. The CRTC (Canada's version of the FCC) just ruled that cell phone providers can't exempt their own content from data caps. Bell Mobility had their own TV app that allowed you to watch 100 hours of content per month with no data charges. A customer sued them and won, arguing that it was an unfair business practise.

That seems like a rather ridiculous lawsuit. "Oh! You're giving me free access to your service but not others! We can't have that! Please restrict ALL access now!"

 

[Ruptga]

That seems like a rather ridiculous lawsuit. "Oh! You're giving me free access to your service but not others! We can't have that! Please restrict ALL access now!"

Yeah, or they could raise their data caps to something that's reasonably usable without us having to rely on the loopholes that their in-house services provide. That's the point of the ruling.

 

[chowderhead]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/fcc-to-propose-strong-net-neutrality-rules-1422911055

colored me a bit surprised. I still don't trust Wheeler and will wait for the fine print.

 

[master_shake_]

That seems like a rather ridiculous lawsuit. "Oh! You're giving me free access to your service but not others! We can't have that! Please restrict ALL access now!"

it keeps the playing field level.

the same thing net neutrality does.

 

[mmntech]

That seems like a rather ridiculous lawsuit. "Oh! You're giving me free access to your service but not others! We can't have that! Please restrict ALL access now!"

Not really. The app costs an extra $10 per month to access IIRC, about the same as Netflix. Except one is exempt from data charges and the other isn't. So if you don't want to use the Bell app, you've got to pay expensive overage fees due to their low data caps. Courts ruled it was anti-competitive.

 

[FelixDeCat]

I'mma smoke a big fat joint to celebrate! :thumbsup:

Go ahead, toke it up. That wacky tabacky will be illegal again soon anyways.

 

[FelixDeCat]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/fcc-to-propose-strong-net-neutrality-rules-1422911055

colored me a bit surprised. I still don't trust Wheeler and will wait for the fine print.

The Federal Communications Commission is about to fundamentally change the way it oversees high-speed Internet service, proposing to regulate it as a public utility.

Free at last, free at last! No more throttling! Thanks for doing the right thing Obama administration!

 

[mmntech]

I wouldn't get your hopes up Felix. Remember the FCC is controlled by industry insiders. The same folks who give fat donations to congress because the US government would rather throw businesses (other than ISPs of course) and the public under the bus to line their pockets.

 

[Red Squirrel]

The FCC is all over the place. Didn't they recently say they are allowed to now they're saying they can't? Not that the FCC means much, they're owned by the mega corporations they're suppose to be controlling.

Now what they need to do is get rid of caps too. Lot of people are stuck with ISPs that have caps, I'm just glad I'm not...

 

[Carson Dyle]

What's that going to mean for cell phone providers and MVNOs that offer either less than full speed 4G data or who offer a certain amount of data at "full" speed, then throttle any additional data?

I don't see this happening.

 

[feralkid]

Thanks Obama.

 

[Ruptga]

Thanks Obama.

Always relevant

 

[dullard]

The FCC is all over the place. Didn't they recently say they are allowed to now they're saying they can't?

The FCC is all over the place, but that is due to the courts.

In over-simplified terms:
1) The FCC decided on net-neutrality.
2) The courts said yes the FCC can have net-neutrality, but the FCC can't do so yet, because the FCC hasn't yet called the internet a public utility.
3) The FCC was forced to retract the net-neutrality attempt.
4) The FCC proposed a "you can't slow a site down but you can speed others up" rule, and that met strong opponents.
5) The FCC is giving up and may call the internet a public utility.
6) Go to step #1.

 

[Fingolfin269]

What's that going to mean for cell phone providers and MVNOs that offer either less than full speed 4G data or who offer a certain amount of data at "full" speed, then throttle any additional data?

I don't see this happening.

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.

 

[K1052]

The FCC is all over the place, but that is due to the courts.

In over-simplified terms:
1) The FCC decided on net-neutrality.
2) The courts said yes the FCC can have net-neutrality, but the FCC can't do so yet, because the FCC hasn't yet called the internet a public utility.
3) The FCC was forced to retract the net-neutrality attempt.
4) The FCC proposed a "you can't slow a site down but you can speed others up" rule, and that met strong opponents.
5) The FCC is giving up and may call the internet a public utility.
6) Go to step #1.

Who dragged the FCC into court to argue point 1 because they wanted more?

Oops.

 

[CZroe]

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.

Same here. I have three grandfathered unlimited AT&T lines.