FCC to propose new Net neutrality rules on Monday. - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - FCC to propose new Net neutrality rules on Monday. (Page 2 of 5)

Posted: 9/18/2009 11:16:13 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
What am I missing here?

Does this mean that I don't have to use "JobRelatedStuff.com" to get onto Arfcom when I'm sitting in an airport any more?

It means if you have AT&T DSL, they can't screw with your Vonage or Skype just because they don't like the fact you aren't using their voice services.

It means if you have Time Warner Cable internet, they can't slow down your legal P2P just because they think you might be downloading movies or music, which their buddies at RIAA and MPAA don't approve of.

It means if you have Yahoo/ATT DSL, they can't slow down your browsing when you try to search Google, use Gmail, or watch Google Videos.

Posted: 9/18/2009 11:25:01 AM EDT

[#2]

Gov regulation, yeah we need more of it!

Posted: 9/18/2009 11:32:56 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Hers a few scenarios to choose from. Youtube pays for its internet connection. You pay for your internet connection. Many users on comcast start watching youtube which uses up alot of bandwidth. Comcast tells youtube they want money to help pay for youtubes content or comcast will block youtube. The problem is comcast is upset because you are using the bandwidth you paid for. Comcast doesn't expect everyone to use their bandwidth at once. Its called oversubscribing. Comcast pays for 100mbps of bandwidth and then sells it to 100 customers advertising 10mbps speed. See the problem? They just sold 1000mbps of bandwidth when they only have 100mbps. This is how its done throughout the industry.

But see where this is going? Maybe vontage pays comcast money to give their traffic priority on comcasts network and degrade skype.

Aside from asking content providers for money some ISPs like comcast have started throttling specific internet services. If I pay for 10mbps you should get 10mbps no matter what you are doing with it. Boo hoo to comcast if they don't like it. They are using heavy downloaders as a scape goat as to not provide the bandwidth they are selling.

This deep inspection of network traffic may disqualify them from common carrier status. This is widely argued. But if you provide telecom service you are not liable for bad things transmitted across your lines such as viruses, illegal content, etc. BUT if you become aware of such things and you allow them through then you are liable for allowing it to happen. If ISPs start using deep inspection technology that provide them this information then they may be required to stop it or report it to the authorities. To stop or otherwise report it would require more resources than they are willing to put into it.

ISPs only need to pay attention to the destination IP (and maybe the source) and route the packet. IMHO.

-Foxxz

I'd contend that you just don't know what you're paying for. It isn't really your fault, I blame ISPs for the bad marketing and being unclear on the terms. You're paying for burstable traffic and a best effort delivery of service. If you want a guaranteed 10Mb/s you can get it but it'll cost you a heck of a lot more than your home connection. SLA's are expensive, you've gotta decide if you want a "real" 10Mb/s or if you'd rather have the home user level of service and save some bucks. The service is cheap because you're sharing that over subscribed service. If you can't share, then I can't oversubscribe, then I can't sell it to you for 10% of what it costs me to buy it from my upstream provider.

Here's the analogy I like to use as an ISP. A whole pizza is expensive. I invite my friends over and everyone chips in on the pizza. Most of my friends are taking the same number of slices, give or take. There's one guy though that is the small minority, he's eating like he's never eaten before and takes half the pie. He tells me the solution is simple, I just need to buy more pizza. Sure easy to say. As the host I have to make a decision. I can cut him off and say he's already had more than his fair share and the other guests need to get a chance first, I can charge him alone more since he's the one eating a disproportionate amount, or I can spread the extra costs around to everyone else to pay for fatty mclardass and piss them off. What is the most fair solution? The pizza fairy isn't going to visit my house and give me more pizza for free and the bandwidth fairy isn't dropping any extra off at my edge router either.

Posted: 9/18/2009 11:34:01 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

WTF?

Did any of you brilliant revolutionaries read the article?

No, I posted this thread when it was just a headline. I just read it........and it still sucks.

Posted: 9/18/2009 11:35:32 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:
WTF?

Did any of you brilliant revolutionaries read the article?

No, I posted this thread when it was just a headline. I just read it........and it still sucks.

Why exactly ?

Posted: 9/18/2009 11:36:23 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Hers a few scenarios to choose from. Youtube pays for its internet connection. You pay for your internet connection. Many users on comcast start watching youtube which uses up alot of bandwidth. Comcast tells youtube they want money to help pay for youtubes content or comcast will block youtube. The problem is comcast is upset because you are using the bandwidth you paid for. Comcast doesn't expect everyone to use their bandwidth at once. Its called oversubscribing. Comcast pays for 100mbps of bandwidth and then sells it to 100 customers advertising 10mbps speed. See the problem? They just sold 1000mbps of bandwidth when they only have 100mbps. This is how its done throughout the industry.

But see where this is going? Maybe vontage pays comcast money to give their traffic priority on comcasts network and degrade skype.

Aside from asking content providers for money some ISPs like comcast have started throttling specific internet services. If I pay for 10mbps you should get 10mbps no matter what you are doing with it. Boo hoo to comcast if they don't like it. They are using heavy downloaders as a scape goat as to not provide the bandwidth they are selling.

This deep inspection of network traffic may disqualify them from common carrier status. This is widely argued. But if you provide telecom service you are not liable for bad things transmitted across your lines such as viruses, illegal content, etc. BUT if you become aware of such things and you allow them through then you are liable for allowing it to happen. If ISPs start using deep inspection technology that provide them this information then they may be required to stop it or report it to the authorities. To stop or otherwise report it would require more resources than they are willing to put into it.

ISPs only need to pay attention to the destination IP (and maybe the source) and route the packet. IMHO.

-Foxxz

I'd contend that you just don't know what you're paying for. It isn't really your fault, I blame ISPs for the bad marketing and being unclear on the terms. You're paying for burstable traffic and a best effort delivery of service. If you want a guaranteed 10Mb/s you can get it but it'll cost you a heck of a lot more than your home connection. SLA's are expensive, you've gotta decide if you want a "real" 10Mb/s or if you'd rather have the home user level of service and save some bucks.

Here's the analogy I like to use as an ISP. A whole pizza is expensive. I invite my friends over and everyone chips in on the pizza. Most of my friends are taking the same number of slices, give or take. There's one guy though that is the small minority, he's eating like he's never eaten before and takes half the pie. He tells me the solution is simple, I just need to buy more pizza. Sure easy to say. As the host I have to make a decision. I can cut him off and say he's already had more than his fair share and the other guests need to get a chance first, I can charge him alone more since he's the one eating a disproportionate amount, or I can spread the extra costs around to everyone else to pay for fatty mclardass and piss them off. What is the most fair solution? The pizza fairy isn't going to visit my house and give me more pizza for free and the bandwidth fairy isn't dropping any extra off at my edge router either.

Nothing unreasonable about the service capping as long as it's part of their user agreement. For example I know that I'm not allowed to run a server at my house, so I have to pay extra to a hosting company.

Posted: 9/18/2009 11:40:17 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:

WTF?

Did any of you brilliant revolutionaries read the article?

No, I posted this thread when it was just a headline. I just read it........and it still sucks.

Why exactly ?

The part when having a fast internet connection is a "right."

(In know it doesn't say that in the story, but it's there.....)

Posted: 9/18/2009 11:45:23 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
WTF?

Did any of you brilliant revolutionaries read the article?

No, I posted this thread when it was just a headline. I just read it........and it still sucks.

Why exactly ?

The part when having a fast internet connection is a "right."

(In know it doesn't say that in the story, but it's there.....)

Thats not really what its about. It's about not having your traffic inspected , replaced, blocked or throttled. See my example about replacing advertising on web pages. It's about treating all packets the same.

Posted: 9/18/2009 11:48:09 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Too bad the FCC has no jurisdiction over the internet... HA HA.

This isn't about the internets content, its about the connection, which is over the same wire that phone/tv travel over. They are enforcing that ISP's can't regulate your bandwidth based on its content. Which is an inherent breach of privacy.

Posted: 9/18/2009 11:53:05 AM EDT

[#10]

This WILL drive up prices on broadband services.

Look for unlimited internet use to go away if this passes, you will be billed on usage just like your power and water bill.

Posted: 9/18/2009 11:53:07 AM EDT

[#11]

Half of me likes this, as legitimate porn sites and gun boards could be targeted in the future WITHOUT NET NEUTRALITY LAWS.

Posted: 9/18/2009 12:01:15 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Half of me likes this, as legitimate porn sites and gun boards could be targeted in the future WITHOUT NET NEUTRALITY LAWS.

Whats the problem now? You want to fix what isn't broken by getting government involved? I think you'll be truly sorry in the long term.

Posted: 9/18/2009 12:06:27 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Too bad the FCC has no jurisdiction over the Internet... HA HA.

This isn't about the internets content, its about the connection, which is over the same wire that phone/tv travel over. They are enforcing that ISP's can't regulate your bandwidth based on its content. Which is an inherent breach of privacy.

You have no guarantee of privacy over the internet. Never have, never will.

The internet is made up of thousands and thousands of privately owned networks. Each organization that owns those networks has the right to do with the traffic traversing their network whatever they please. You don't like it? Build your own network. Otherwise once your traffic leaves your ISP's network headed someplace else, you and your ISP have absolutely no control over what happens to those packets.

This is why internet communications is CHEAP. You are using other people's resources to provide communications.

Posted: 9/18/2009 12:18:44 PM EDT

[#14]

Whats the deal.

Posted: 9/18/2009 12:21:46 PM EDT

[#15]

tag

Posted: 9/18/2009 1:05:04 PM EDT

[#16]

Is this going to make the internet more equally efficient, or destroy it do to millions of d-bags streaming boxxy video's from youtube?

Posted: 9/18/2009 1:09:33 PM EDT

[#17]

I would like ISPs to throttle this stuff, I colocate servers for bandwidth intensive stuff. What's next, removal of home bandwidth caps for "freedom of speech"?

Posted: 9/18/2009 1:15:08 PM EDT

[#18]

You guys have no idea what you're talking about opposing Net Neutrality.

It is a GOOD thing. A VERY GOOD THING.

It maintains the status quo that we have right now and prevents companies from essentially nickle-and-diming content they don't personally like off the web.

Read up on exactly what it does. This isn't a political power grab by Obama or the FCC - it hamstrings them more than it could ever help them. If they seize corporate control of telcoms, this prevents them from using financial leverage against content they don't like.

This keeps the flow of information free. Unless you want to radically alter the nature and flow of the internet, this is a good thing.

Posted: 9/18/2009 1:16:07 PM EDT

[#19]

In.

Sounds decent, but there has to be some catch.

Posted: 9/18/2009 1:18:29 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Half of me likes this, as legitimate porn sites and gun boards could be targeted in the future WITHOUT NET NEUTRALITY LAWS.

Whats the problem now? You want to fix what isn't broken by getting government involved? I think you'll be truly sorry in the long term.

The problem right now is that there is no law or restriction stopping a company like Comcast or any other telcom provider from essentially blocking AR15 or Glen Beck or Free Republic completely off the net.

If Comcast wanted to, under current laws, they could make this site cease to function as far as comcast customers could see. It would be inaccessible and searching for it would reveal nothing. Do you really want that possibility?

Posted: 9/18/2009 1:20:32 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
In.

Sounds decent, but there has to be some catch.

The catch is that there will always be somebody bitching about govt regulation.

This is one of the few times where I will support specific government rules about what access providers can and cannot fuck with. The freedom and ungoverned nature of the global net is far too important to let individual corporate interests fuck the whole thing up by making parts of it inaccessible.

EDIT: Perfect example - the Iranian popular uprising that we saw this June and July against Khamenei and Ahmedinejad's government could have been completely SMOTHERED before it got off the ground if the telcoms had wanted to do so and not been restricted by net neutrality. We're lucky they didn't - nothing stopped them from doing it except not being ready to do so (they've been planning on introducing content shaping in 2010 and 2011). If any of the access providers had wanted to, you would not have seen a SINGLE THING about the Iranian revolution on the web, and it would have DIED in the cradle.

Posted: 9/18/2009 1:21:46 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
You guys have no idea what you're talking about opposing Net Neutrality.

It is a GOOD thing. A VERY GOOD THING.

It maintains the status quo that we have right now and prevents companies from essentially nickle-and-diming content they don't personally like off the web.

Read up on exactly what it does. This isn't a political power grab by Obama or the FCC - it hamstrings them more than it could ever help them. If they seize corporate control of telcoms, this prevents them from using financial leverage against content they don't like.

This keeps the flow of information free. Unless you want to radically alter the nature and flow of the internet, this is a good thing.

The last thing I want is the government messing with the internet. I don't want to have to pay taxes on my internet bills to subsidize poor folk in urban areas to get broadband like I do for my phones. The government has no right to mess with PRIVATELY OWNED routers that control priority of certain information. If an ISP wishes to give packets bound for youtube.com a lower priority than so be it. It is their hardware, their network, their rules.

Posted: 9/18/2009 1:22:57 PM EDT

[#23]

This is a good thing guys. The bad part is that, from what i have read a but about, they can't really enforce the rules of something to that matter.

How many of you have broadband, and actually get what you pay for.

Services being sold as unlimited and then being restricted, and services being sold at a certain speed and barely being able to deliver 20% of said speed. This needs to happen. I dont want the .gov getting into everything, but sometimes corporations need to be put in check.

Posted: 9/18/2009 1:23:57 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
WTF?

Did any of you brilliant revolutionaries read the article?

Actually yes, and the gov should not be involved.

this

Posted: 9/18/2009 1:25:10 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You guys have no idea what you're talking about opposing Net Neutrality.

It is a GOOD thing. A VERY GOOD THING.

It maintains the status quo that we have right now and prevents companies from essentially nickle-and-diming content they don't personally like off the web.

Read up on exactly what it does. This isn't a political power grab by Obama or the FCC - it hamstrings them more than it could ever help them. If they seize corporate control of telcoms, this prevents them from using financial leverage against content they don't like.

This keeps the flow of information free. Unless you want to radically alter the nature and flow of the internet, this is a good thing.

The last thing I want is the government messing with the internet. I don't want to have to pay taxes on my internet bills to subsidize poor folk in urban areas to get broadband like I do for my phones. The government has no right to mess with PRIVATELY OWNED routers that control priority of certain information. If an ISP wishes to give packets bound for youtube.com a lower priority than so be it. It is their hardware, their network, their rules.

No. This is not the government messing with the internet. This is the government telling the access providers that THEY cannot mess with the internet.

If you want to still be able to get to AR15.com, you want to support this. If you want it to disappear off the web when your access provider decides that providing access to a "political extremist and terroist" website is a business liability, then go ahead and keep your head up your ass.

Posted: 9/18/2009 1:26:42 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You guys have no idea what you're talking about opposing Net Neutrality.

It is a GOOD thing. A VERY GOOD THING.

It maintains the status quo that we have right now and prevents companies from essentially nickle-and-diming content they don't personally like off the web.

Read up on exactly what it does. This isn't a political power grab by Obama or the FCC - it hamstrings them more than it could ever help them. If they seize corporate control of telcoms, this prevents them from using financial leverage against content they don't like.

This keeps the flow of information free. Unless you want to radically alter the nature and flow of the internet, this is a good thing.

The last thing I want is the government messing with the internet. I don't want to have to pay taxes on my internet bills to subsidize poor folk in urban areas to get broadband like I do for my phones. The government has no right to mess with PRIVATELY OWNED routers that control priority of certain information. If an ISP wishes to give packets bound for youtube.com a lower priority than so be it. It is their hardware, their network, their rules.

Once again, read up on it. You have no idea what you are talking about. The government is here to protect us, and sometimes they do that. This is one of those times, when the big corporations are taking advantage of the average joe.

I read some of the comments here, and wow. Go back to your caves guys, this is a good thing, if they word it correctly.

Posted: 9/18/2009 1:27:27 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
My friends:

When you see something like this, ask yourself first and foremost:

WHO/WHAT is the governmental entity is adopting this legal rule.

DO THEY have any right to be exercising compulsive force of the state into THIS SUBJECT MATTER?

And,

If a precedent for this kind of regulatory action on the subject matter in question is set, how easy would it be to twist or abuse that power in future actions that may be related to the same subject matter but used for bad purposes?

Here, I say that the FCC regulatory process (i.e., not Congressional action subject to democratic accountability) is entering into a topic –– the control of what ISP's transmit over their wires –– that once established as a precedent in terms of use of power will be likely to lead to abuses.

Some day in the future you will hear someone say "THE FCC HAS HAD AUTHORITY TO REGULATE ISP TRANSMISSIONS OF CONTENT FOR A DECADE. THIS BILL REQUIRING THEM TO FILTER SUBVERSIVE SITES IS SIMPLY A LOGICAL EXTENSION OF THAT POWER."

This.

I don't want the FCC telling ISPs what they can and cannot do. (Slippery slope argument).

Perhaps a future appointee will decide that net neutrality means HuffPo and Arfcom only get 1TB of bandwidth per month. "It's neutral."

Posted: 9/18/2009 1:27:59 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You guys have no idea what you're talking about opposing Net Neutrality.

It is a GOOD thing. A VERY GOOD THING.

It maintains the status quo that we have right now and prevents companies from essentially nickle-and-diming content they don't personally like off the web.

Read up on exactly what it does. This isn't a political power grab by Obama or the FCC - it hamstrings them more than it could ever help them. If they seize corporate control of telcoms, this prevents them from using financial leverage against content they don't like.

This keeps the flow of information free. Unless you want to radically alter the nature and flow of the internet, this is a good thing.

The last thing I want is the government messing with the internet. I don't want to have to pay taxes on my internet bills to subsidize poor folk in urban areas to get broadband like I do for my phones. The government has no right to mess with PRIVATELY OWNED routers that control priority of certain information. If an ISP wishes to give packets bound for youtube.com a lower priority than so be it. It is their hardware, their network, their rules.

No. This is not the government messing with the internet. This is the government telling the access providers that THEY cannot mess with the internet.

If you want to still be able to get to AR15.com, you want to support this. If you want it to disappear off the web when your access provider decides that providing access to a "political extremist and terroist" website is a business liability, then go ahead and keep your head up your ass.

It is a PRIVATE NETWORK, your ISP owns their hardware and peer with other providers who own fiber such as Level 3, Internap, Tata communications, etc. What if thousands of compromised computers start sending requests to a server and degrade network performance? Would it be against the law for me to null route the site on my network entirely? This happened recently with 4chan, at the end of the day it is a private network that the .gov has no right to come tell me what I can do with the routers and what I can not do.

I build servers for personal use, they sit in a datacenter and do things. I don't want the .gov telling my bandwidth carriers that they can't do things with their networks like throttle bit torrent and such.

Posted: 9/18/2009 1:31:25 PM EDT

[#29]

I don't have a problem with this. This is an area where there are several natural barriers to competition which tends to create monopolies or limited competition in many areas. Thus the normal market mechanism which promotes better service and lower prices doesn't always work. In those cases regulation may be necessary to promote better service.

Posted: 9/18/2009 1:43:08 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Half of me likes this, as legitimate porn sites and gun boards could be targeted in the future WITHOUT NET NEUTRALITY LAWS.

Whats the problem now? You want to fix what isn't broken by getting government involved? I think you'll be truly sorry in the long term.

The problem right now is that there is no law or restriction stopping a company like Comcast or any other telcom provider from essentially blocking AR15 or Glen Beck or Free Republic completely off the net.

If Comcast wanted to, under current laws, they could make this site cease to function as far as comcast customers could see. It would be inaccessible and searching for it would reveal nothing. Do you really want that possibility?

And you could leave comcast for another provider that didn't suck, therefor comcast doesn't block the sites their customers want to view as they would like to keep them as customers.

Do you really want to get the government more involved to fix a problem that doesn't exist? The only possible outcome is pure fail.

It maintains the status quo that we have right now

The status quo is a relatively free competitive market without the government being involved on what I can and cannot do with my bandwidth to better serve my customers as an ISP. It seems to be working well so far. Changing that isn't maintaining the status quo. As your internet service provider I don't want that to change, government interference is only going to degrade the service I can offer you and increase the price. There doesn't need to be a law to protect you from every possible bad thing that can happen. There are times when laws are not only not the ideal solution but are likely to introduce more problems. This is one of those times.

Posted: 9/18/2009 1:46:54 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
WTF?

Did any of you brilliant revolutionaries read the article?

I did, and I still don't like it. The Federal Government should keep its fucking paws out of private enterprise.

If consumers aren't happy, they will change companies. If no company offers what the consumer wants, someone will start one.

Posted: 9/18/2009 1:47:49 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

FUCK THAT???

Edited...Ok, I just read it. While I disagree whole-heartedly with almost ANY Gubmint laws concerning most anything, I was hard-pressed to find something sinister-evil about "Net Neutrality"

Please school me on it.

All (most?) the backbone ISPs want to charge more for "peering" their competitor's data.

Since the beginning of the Internet, that has never been done, esp in this country. To my understanding.

Posted: 9/18/2009 1:48:36 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

The GOVERNMENT telling a BUSINESS what it MUST do.

Look, I found a problem with it

Yup.

You can't bitch about government involvement in other businesses and then be happy when it happens to favorably affect us internet junkies.

Well, you can, but it's not very consistent.

Posted: 9/18/2009 1:50:50 PM EDT

[#34]

the FCC should stay the F-OUT of private business

i don't want them anywhere near the internet, radio, or t.v. to be honest.

and should be defunded and disbanded

Posted: 9/18/2009 1:51:01 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
FUCK THAT???

Edited...Ok, I just read it. While I disagree whole-heartedly with almost ANY Gubmint laws concerning most anything, I was hard-pressed to find something sinister-evil about "Net Neutrality"

Please school me on it.

All (most?) the backbone ISPs want to charge more for "peering" their competitor's data.

Since the beginning of the Internet, that has never been done, esp in this country. To my understanding.

Peering is based on contracts. Why the HELL would anyone want to get the government involved in private contracts between individual companies.

There have been private peering points between backbone ISP's since the beginning, in addition to public NAP points.

Posted: 9/18/2009 1:51:57 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The GOVERNMENT telling a BUSINESS what it MUST do.

Look, I found a problem with it

Yup.

You can't bitch about government involvement in other areas and then be happy when it happens to favorably affect us internet junkies.

Well, you can, but it's not very consistent.

You can when it's market failure. US telecoms are a virtual monopoly, and they didn't get that way through govt intervention. The RIAA/MPAA would readily shit on the end-to-end principle and redefine the net to be as slow, inefficient, and proprietary-locked as cellphones.

Posted: 9/18/2009 1:53:59 PM EDT

[#37]

I think its bullshit personally...

WHY?

Because the US government does NOT fucking own the internet, it does NOT fucking regulate the internet...

Comcasts gear is COMCASTS gear... and they should be able to do what ever the fuck the want to with it.

Posted: 9/18/2009 1:58:30 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I'm fairly sure that I understand this better than you do.

You own AT&T? Or does being a network tech make it your network? It's not a liberal thing but people here always manage to twist anything they don't like that way. Liberalism opposes the free market. NN ensures a free market. A free market requires regulation of anti-competitive practices, always has, always will.

Of course I don't own AT&T nor do I own the very large networks that I help to support. I still don't want the FCC to come in and tell me how to run things.

I would also argue that it is you that opposes the free market. I want the option to enter into a contract with a company that does business the way that I want to do business. If they want to filter or throttle traffic, I have no problem with that as long as they are honest with it. If I don't like what they are doing I will go find another company that doesn't do that. That is the very definition of free market.

-Mike

Posted: 9/18/2009 2:02:09 PM EDT

[#39]

Ok...

.gov intrusion aside...

Net Neutrality is good.

now back to .gov intrusion

While I disagree with their methods their goal is something that anyone who uses the internet should also support.

I think they should require companies to disclose, in plain English, their net traffic policies. Thus companies that have good policies will get customers.

Posted: 9/18/2009 2:02:10 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Because the US government does NOT fucking own the internet, it does NOT fucking regulate the internet...
Comcasts gear is COMCASTS gear... and they should be able to do what ever the fuck the want to with it.

This is true that each provider own their respective section of the network stuff.
However, part of what makes the Internet* work is cooperation. (Kind a like a baby communism.

)

If that goes away then you'll get (or so is feared) balkanization of the Internet. Like how it was before the 'Net with AOL and CompuServe. There was no interoperability between the two.
As with the the Civil War, use force to keep them together?
*Uppercase, meaning the one global network.
Edit: Capitalism does not intrinsically favor One Big Happy Internet.
Another point i though of.
You know how some wireless providers say you get unlimited calling to other subscribers in their network.

If you're on ATT and your wife is on ATT, you can talk and talk not get billed.
But if your brother is on Sprint, both you and him will be billed by.. by.. whatever pricing scheme you signed up for.

So if I'm on ATT DSL or Comcast for my ISP, and ARFCom is on Sprint, both Sprint and ATT/Comcast would charge me & Goatboy extra for "talking".
It comes down to 'who do you favor more?'

Posted: 9/18/2009 2:08:15 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
My friends:

When you see something like this, ask yourself first and foremost:

WHO/WHAT is the governmental entity is adopting this legal rule.

DO THEY have any right to be exercising compulsive force of the state into THIS SUBJECT MATTER?

And,

If a precedent for this kind of regulatory action on the subject matter in question is set, how easy would it be to twist or abuse that power in future actions that may be related to the same subject matter but used for bad purposes?

Here, I say that the FCC regulatory process (i.e., not Congressional action subject to democratic accountability) is entering into a topic –– the control of what ISP's transmit over their wires –– that once established as a precedent in terms of use of power will be likely to lead to abuses.

Some day in the future you will hear someone say "THE FCC HAS HAD AUTHORITY TO REGULATE ISP TRANSMISSIONS OF CONTENT FOR A DECADE. THIS BILL REQUIRING THEM TO FILTER SUBVERSIVE SITES IS SIMPLY A LOGICAL EXTENSION OF THAT POWER."

This bill isn't about allowing the FCC to regulate content on the internet. It's the FCC telling corporations that they can't regulate content on the internet. This is an extremely good thing for the internet and freedom in general. Censorship is bad, even if its coming from a corporation and not the government.

Posted: 9/18/2009 2:09:29 PM EDT

[#42]

The FCC has no jurisdiction to tell Internet operators anything. The FCC should STFU.

Posted: 9/18/2009 2:12:11 PM EDT

[#43]

I don't get it... I don't see how that is legally government jurisdiction.

Posted: 9/18/2009 2:14:38 PM EDT

[#44]

Neutrality or Neutralization?

Always watch the "other hand".

Posted: 9/18/2009 2:15:23 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

The FCC has no jurisdiction to tell Internet operators anything. The FCC should STFU.

here is the fear:

"Mr. DigDug, We as your ISP are anti-gun and do not support gun websites. We will charge you $1.00 per 1,000 bytes of data you send or receive from AR15.com. If you do not like this, feel free to find another ISP."

*DigDug ponders this* "I could get internet access from the phone company, the cable company, a satellite provider, or dial-up." "The phone company hates guns. Lets see if the cable company hates guns. Nope the cable company doesn't hate guns, but they have other terms and stipulations that I can't live with. Let me check satellite.."

Posted: 9/18/2009 2:23:44 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The GOVERNMENT telling a BUSINESS what it MUST do.

Look, I found a problem with it

Yup.

You can't bitch about government involvement in other areas and then be happy when it happens to favorably affect us internet junkies.

Well, you can, but it's not very consistent.

You can when it's market failure. US telecoms are a virtual monopoly, and they didn't get that way through govt intervention. The RIAA/MPAA would readily shit on the end-to-end principle and redefine the net to be as slow, inefficient, and proprietary-locked as cellphones.

You bring up a good point however it doesn't work in your favor. Lets take telecom companies. The telecommunications act of 1996 required that incumbent carriers like sbc/ameritech/att provide access to their network at regulated pricing to competitive local carriers starting up. How successful are your local competitive carriers? Are they giving the big boy in your region a run for their money? If not that means one of two things the way I see it.

1.) The new government regulations were ineffective at truly providing fair network access at fair prices to the compeition. You just grew the government for no benefit.
2.) The market was always operating fairly and competitively, the big boy is the big boy because they provide the services the majority of the market wants at the prices the majority of the markety will pay, the wal-mart of telcos if you will. This means that you again grew the government for no good reason.

Oh the MPAA? Isn't government supposed to protect me and give me fair use protection for backing up my media? Yet using decss to backup my dvds will get me sued under the dmca?

I'm truly shocked that so many gun owners think that more government to fix a non-existant problem is a good idea. I suppose this is a natural reaction though. As a larger percentage of customers become bandwidth heavy users, infrastructure has to be built out. In a large country with low population density like the US, thats big bucks. Consumers don't want to pay more and will instead clamor for infrastructure socialism in the long run.

Posted: 9/18/2009 2:27:41 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The FCC has no jurisdiction to tell Internet operators anything. The FCC should STFU.

here is the fear:

"Mr. DigDug, We as your ISP are anti-gun and do not support gun websites. We will charge you $1.00 per 1,000 bytes of data you send or receive from AR15.com. If you do not like this, feel free to find another ISP."

*DigDug ponders this* "I could get internet access from the phone company, the cable company, a satellite provider, or dial-up." "The phone company hates guns. Lets see if the cable company hates guns. Nope the cable company doesn't hate guns, but they have other terms and stipulations that I can't live with. Let me check satellite.."

As soon as an ISP gets pegged as blocking anything, they lose customers hand over fist. Doesn't matter what it is. Let the market work it out. You obviously don't like private companies doing business the way they want, and also don't like competition. Let the FCC have a say? Fuck that.

Again, the FCC has ZERO authority to tell ISP's what they can and can not do. Every ISP you sign up for has terms and conditions. It's called a contract. You would have to be an IDIOT to want to involve the FCC in private contracts.

Posted: 9/18/2009 2:35:16 PM EDT

[#48]

I have a hard time cheering these guys on over anything. There's always some angle––some doublespeak somewhere.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Posted: 9/18/2009 2:36:02 PM EDT

[#49]

I guess I am missing why you all are so upset.

All the FCC is saying is that your ISP can't mess with your bandwidth speed based on the *type* of data that you are receiving.

For those who's internet-fu is weak, a packet is a packet. The volume of data goes up and down depending on what you are doing (downloading requires a longer term stream of packets, whereas a web-page loads and is done).

What is happening here is that some ISPs are lowering the bandwidth of certain types of data.

They built the cheapest network they could, and bet on the fact that most people barely use their connection for more than a few e-mails and some web-surfing.

Some of us use our high-speed for actual high-speed functions. I don't want my speed fucked with unless I agree to it.

Posted: 9/18/2009 2:37:44 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Going to see what the proposed rule changes are before sounding off. However, would you still have no issue with this if 30% of your users were utilizing 95% of the available bandwidth? Y'all bitch when arfcom goes down for 30 seconds what if you couldn't even check your email because all network resources were tied up downloading bit torrents?

Maybe the ISP should have constructed the proper infrastructure for their industy instead of advertising a service, and then scaling it back when people actually try to make use of the service that they paid for.

This would be like sprint dropping my calls more frequently if I was a high volume caller, even though I pay extra for an unlimited plan.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - FCC to propose new Net neutrality rules on Monday. (Page 2 of 5)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us