FCC to Propose New 'Net Neutrality' Rules

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,024
79
86
The proposed rules would prevent the service providers from blocking or discriminating against specific websites, but would allow broadband providers to give some traffic preferential treatment, so long as such arrangements are available on "commercially reasonable" terms for all interested content companies
That sounds like discrimination...
 

SSSnail

Lifer
Nov 29, 2006
17,458
83
86
seems a bit like common carrier rules. best efforts for normal traffic and a guaranteed service level with published rates.

”Best efforts” leaves so much to interpretation, and you know how it will end up.
 

Midwayman

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2000
5,723
325
126
seems a bit like common carrier rules. best efforts for normal traffic and a guaranteed service level with published rates.

Fine until they purposefully degrade their "best effort" service to the point its really not viable. You know that's exactly what will happen.
 

PliotronX

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 1999
8,883
107
106
"Commercially reasonable" means something completely different to free market enterprises and to monopolies.
 

Phoenix86

Lifer
May 21, 2003
14,644
10
81
Last mile interconnects are the bottlenecks now eh?

Gotta milk last mile for all it's worth.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,225
4,461
136
This is the FCC with someone's d*ck in their mouth.

The FCC is basically owned by the cable and wireless industry. The current chair of the FCC is the former head of both the wireless industry and cable industry's lobbyist groups and the previous 2 FCC heads are the current heads of those lobbyist groups. Their relationships are so incestuous that that any rule they produce automatically has cleft lip and is named Bubba.
 

Wonderful Pork

Golden Member
Jul 24, 2005
1,531
1
81
that policy is complete crap.

its too bad there is literally nothing we can do about it.

atleast there will still be a "vote"
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
19
81
The idea is that consumers should be able to access whatever content they choose, not the content chosen by the broadband provider.

But it would also allow providers to give preferential treatment to traffic from some content providers, as long as such arrangements are available on "commercially reasonable" terms for all interested content companies.
See that? It is neutral. The FCC will remain neutral, allowing businesses to come to arrangements that "reasonably" screw their customers, while giving their stockholding executives persistent sexual arousal disorder.



The FCC is basically owned by the cable and wireless industry. The current chair of the FCC is the former head of both the wireless industry and cable industry's lobbyist groups and the previous 2 FCC heads are the current heads of those lobbyist groups. Their relationships are so incestuous that that any rule they produce automatically has cleft lip and is named Bubba.
Unfortunately, these disfigured offspring are never sterile.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,564
19,122
146
I'm not seeing how this resembles Net Neutrality. The FCC is now trying to figure out how to make the corp's happy and let us think the Internet is still open and free. The sad part is most consumers don't even know wtf this is.
 

Virgorising

Diamond Member
Apr 9, 2013
4,470
0
0
Just caught up in this thread. I think I am going to delve to find online petitions, assuming they exist already.
 

PliotronX

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 1999
8,883
107
106
The sad part is most consumers don't even know wtf this is.
Yup, when their access to certain sites is slow, I am going to get calls about their entire internet being slow. Awesome. The icing on the cake is they probably don't have to disclose which sites they are actively throttling so only after much trial and error and scouring the net for complaints will we have a semi-accurate database of their malfeasance.

Go 'merica.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
19
81
Yup, when their access to certain sites is slow, I am going to get calls about their entire internet being slow. Awesome. The icing on the cake is they probably don't have to disclose which sites they are actively throttling so only after much trial and error and scouring the net for complaints will we have a semi-accurate database of their malfeasance.

Go 'merica.
Yes, that'll probably be the case. We can't have competitors knowing who's getting screwed, how hard, and who isn't.


Using Comcast, to watch video sourced from something Comcast doesn't own? Sucks to be you. You should really be watching a movie made by Universal Studios.
 

Virgorising

Diamond Member
Apr 9, 2013
4,470
0
0
This-all is making me depressed. I just emailed The White House. I do that with support (I often use basketball analogies, .i.e, go right! Set picks!) cause Obamababe is a Southpaw as I am)......but today, I simply said, You campaigned on this, I know you have more than ever on yr plate, but, please, U gotta fight for it!

Nobody will call offensive foul. I din say that, cause, sure they will.

PLEASE CONSIDER DOING THIS:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments
 
Last edited:

Phoenix86

Lifer
May 21, 2003
14,644
10
81
Question: Does anyone believe content is bottlenecking at the last mile?

If that's the case, how does adding peering boxes on the DC side free up bandwidth at the last mile? As demonstrated with the Comcast deal, the bottleneck is at the DC, or rather, it's generated at the DC (imo).

Remember, Comcast was saying, just recently that it was connection between the top tier providers and Comcast.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/b...netflix-reach-a-streaming-agreement.html?_r=0

Comcast, Verizon and other Internet service providers denied that they were playing any role in slowing down traffic. Instead, they blamed the intermediaries that Netflix used to deliver its content to Comcast on its way to consumers. They said that those middlemen — companies like Cogent Communications — were trying to shove too much data through too small a pipe.