FCC and Net Neutrality

[Isgrimnur]

Being for Net Neutrality meant being against this resolution, and vice versa. And yes, it did take me a couple of minutes to figure out which way was which before I posted it. I felt like I was back watching Transformers for a second.

Yay, er, boo. Wait, what just happened?

[LordMortis]

I'm confused - being for Net Neutrality, did I want this to pass or not?

Being against Net Neutrality I was wondering the same thing.

Are you really against it? Maybe that doesn't mean what I think it means?

Yes. I support the ISPs having the legal authority to screw the consumer, if that's how you choose to look at it.

Though I still don't understand what was passed or defeated and why.

[Isgrimnur]

The FCC has new rules mandating that the carriers can't block any legal content. The rules are due to go into effect shortly. The article is about a R-led resolution trying to put a stop to those rules going into effect.

And I'm sure I'm not the only one that would like to hear your thoughts on it, LM.

[stessier]

I'm confused - being for Net Neutrality, did I want this to pass or not?

You did not want this to pass. The FCC passed a rule in favor of Net Neutrality - that is, restricting the ability to internet companies to filter based on consent. The Republicans were/are trying to overturn the FCC's rule.

Though FWIW Net Neutrality advocates have significant concerns about the efficacy of the FCC's rule. Though they'd still prefer it to no rule, is my understanding.

I'm guessing you meant content. Ok, that's what I thought it meant. And from Isrimnur's posts, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who found the bill wording confusing. I wonder how many who voted for it were equally confused.

Yes. I support the ISPs having the legal authority to screw the consumer, if that's how you choose to look at it.

Why?

[Pyperkub]

I'm confused - being for Net Neutrality, did I want this to pass or not?

Being against Net Neutrality I was wondering the same thing.

Are you really against it? Maybe that doesn't mean what I think it means?

Yes. I support the ISPs having the legal authority to screw the consumer, if that's how you choose to look at it.

Though I still don't understand what was passed or defeated and why.

It's actually an exercise in monopoly power. As an example they (Comcast in this instance) don't want consumers to use a competing service (say Netflix) to stream video, but rather be forced inclined to use Comcast's video streaming for anything over your internet connection, so they want the right to degrade Netflix streaming in order to promote their own.

[LordMortis]

Part of it is competition. Part of it is innovation. Part of it is hard to remember because what was proposed in its last form was from over a year ago.

The shortest end of it is that if TDS can bundle 4 T1s together and get them to me on the cheap but they openly gimp HD Streamed media to bring me that price, then go ahead and screw me. If Cisco needs to design a better heuristics for transport but can't because all traffic is created a equal, then screw an egalitarian Internet.

Anyhoo, here is some people who can better express my opinions of what was going on a year ago than me (And yes I know their opinions are from more than a year ago but they were on what was still being proposed):

http://www.interesting-people.org/archi ... 00014.html" target="_blank

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/18 ... y_warning/" target="_blank

Again I have no idea what "passed" so I don't know if I'm for or against it. I completely don't understand at all what just happened.

[SpaceLord]

This reminds me: Adult Swim on the Cartoon network now puts the vast majority of their episodes on "Gold." If you don't have the proper cable channels and an account, you won't be allowed to watch said videos. Fuckers.

[Alefroth]

Is net neutrality going to go down this quietly?

But today, that freedom won’t survive much longer if a federal court — the second most powerful court in the nation behind the Supreme Court, the DC Circuit — is set to strike down the nation’s net neutrality law, a rule adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 2010. Some will claim the new solution “splits the baby” in a way that somehow doesn’t kill net neutrality and so we should be grateful. But make no mistake: Despite eight years of public and political activism by multitudes fighting for freedom on the internet, a court decision may soon take it away.

[stessier]

Yes, yes it is.

The Federal Communication Commission's net neutrality rules were partially struck down today by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which said the Commission did not properly justify its anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules.

Those rules in the Open Internet Order, adopted in 2010, forbid ISPs from blocking services or charging content providers for access to the network. Verizon challenged the entire order and got a big victory in today's ruling. While it could still be appealed to the Supreme Court, the order today would allow pay-for-prioritization deals that could let Verizon or other ISPs charge companies like Netflix for a faster path to consumers.

[Isgrimnur]

And you know AT&T is cheering from the sidelines for how this bolsters their new toll-free data content program.

[malchior]

Just skimmed the ruling - there is a lot to argue against here. The court's argument that consumers have choice is a farce. Pointing at Google fiber? Ridiculous. They are in 2-3 markets. Small markets at that. No idea if it'll scale. No idea if it'll be commercially viable. Just an assumption that Google might restore choice. And that'd be in many markets a *2nd* choice.

[stessier]

As noted in the article, there are many ways for the FCC to fix it. Now they just need the political will to do so. I'm not sure what the White House's stance on this is though.

[LordMortis]

Update

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/techn ... w-bna&_r=1

The Federal Communications Commission said on Wednesday that it would propose new rules that allow companies like Disney, Google or Netflix to pay Internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon for special, faster lanes to send video and other content to their customers.

Tom Wheeler, the F.C.C. chairman, defended the agency’s plans late Wednesday, saying speculation that the F.C.C. was “gutting the open Internet rule” is “flat out wrong.” Rather, he said, the new rules will provide for net neutrality along the lines of the appeals court’s decision.

[LawBeefaroni]

The Federal Communications Commission said on Wednesday that it would propose new rules that allow companies like Disney, Google or Netflix to pay Internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon for special, faster lanes to send video and other content to their customers.

Fix that for them:

The Federal Communications Commission said on Wednesday that it would propose new rules that allow Internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon to extort companies like Disney, Google or Netflix for special, faster lanes to send video and other content to their customers.

[malchior]

The telecomm companies make money hand over fist and are largely shielded from meaningful competition so they naturally needed another government handout.

Also don't forget that the FCC Chair was a top lawyer and lobbyist representing cable and wireless companies. Hurray for institutional corruption.

[deadzone]

Yeah MSD for once you need to take the the humongous corporate cock out of your mouth, get off your knees and wipe the dried corporate spunk out of your eyes, and really take a look at this situation.

I know you hate all things government and regulation but this is one of those times when it really is needed. The reason we are at this point is because of de-regulation. No one is saying that the government should completely take it over. The FCC has been a worthless, revolving door, bureaucracy for years now. It's time for these giant companies to be restrained a little.

If you don't see how this will fundamentally change how the internet works in a very negative way then you are blinder than I am.

[Pyperkub]

Yeah MSD for once you need to take the the humongous corporate cock out of your mouth, get off your knees and wipe the dried corporate spunk out of your eyes, and really take a look at this situation.

I know you hate all things government and regulation but this is one of those times when it really is needed. The reason we are at this point is because of de-regulation. No one is saying that the government should completely take it over. The FCC has been a worthless, revolving door, bureaucracy for years now. It's time for these giant companies to be restrained a little.

If you don't see how this will fundamentally change how the internet works in a very negative way then you are blinder than I am.

msd hasn't posted for years in this thread...

[GreenGoo]

I love how the FCC is still referring to this as Net Neutrality as if they've struck a great blow for Net Neutrality rather than gutting it in the exact opposite direction, all the while claiming that people are misunderstanding what they've actually done.

Makes me all stabby.

[El Guapo]

Yeah MSD for once you need to take the the humongous corporate cock out of your mouth, get off your knees and wipe the dried corporate spunk out of your eyes, and really take a look at this situation.

I know you hate all things government and regulation but this is one of those times when it really is needed. The reason we are at this point is because of de-regulation. No one is saying that the government should completely take it over. The FCC has been a worthless, revolving door, bureaucracy for years now. It's time for these giant companies to be restrained a little.

If you don't see how this will fundamentally change how the internet works in a very negative way then you are blinder than I am.

Also that's way over the line as a personal attack. Keep it civil.

[Unagi]

Yeah MSD for once you need to take the the humongous corporate cock out of your mouth, get off your knees and wipe the dried corporate spunk out of your eyes, and really take a look at this situation.

I know you hate all things government and regulation but this is one of those times when it really is needed. The reason we are at this point is because of de-regulation. No one is saying that the government should completely take it over. The FCC has been a worthless, revolving door, bureaucracy for years now. It's time for these giant companies to be restrained a little.

If you don't see how this will fundamentally change how the internet works in a very negative way then you are blinder than I am.

Also that's way over the line as a personal attack. Keep it civil.

You've got a little spunk on your chin there...

[El Guapo]

I love how the FCC is still referring to this as Net Neutrality as if they've struck a great blow for Net Neutrality rather than gutting it in the exact opposite direction, all the while claiming that people are misunderstanding what they've actually done.

Makes me all stabby.

Is there *any* logical argument that the FCC's new position is consistent with net neutrality?

[GreenGoo]

I love how the FCC is still referring to this as Net Neutrality as if they've struck a great blow for Net Neutrality rather than gutting it in the exact opposite direction, all the while claiming that people are misunderstanding what they've actually done.

Makes me all stabby.

Is there *any* logical argument that the FCC's new position is consistent with net neutrality?

No. It takes the very definition of Net Neutrality, does the polar opposite, and continues to call it Net Neutrality. It is about Net Neutrality, in that it murders it completely, but that's as close to Net Neutrality as the FCC comes.

I know it was a rhetorical question, but it's good to write out the answer anyway.

If they want to still use the words Net Neutrality, they need to throw an "anti-" in front of it on all their documentation.

I've seen lots of politicians do this, but it vexes me that this will probably have actual force going forward. I need to keep marriage away from gays to protect the sanctity of my marriage. I need stifle speech to protect the constitution. It's about Freedom! (which is why I'm putting massive restrictions in place).

Anyway. Net Neutrality is about preventing tiered, content/company specific service on the backbone of the internet. FCC has said Net Neutrality is about implementing tiered, content/company specific service on the backbone of the internet.

Sounds good! Run with that!

[ImLawBoy]

I love how the FCC is still referring to this as Net Neutrality as if they've struck a great blow for Net Neutrality rather than gutting it in the exact opposite direction, all the while claiming that people are misunderstanding what they've actually done.

Makes me all stabby.

Is there *any* logical argument that the FCC's new position is consistent with net neutrality?

It depends on your definition of "net neutrality". If you believe that net neutrality means that access providers cannot provide any sort of routing restrictions in traffic, then you'd have a hard time calling this decision consistent with net neutrality. If you believe that net neutrality means that access providers must provide equal access to content providers, then the argument to be made is that as long as content providers are given an equal opportunity to obtain higher classes of service, then this policy is consistent with net neutrality. The FCC appears to be going with the latter definition in this case.

[LawBeefaroni]

My understanding is that it goes like this. Comcast (et al) want to throttle Netflix (et al). This will make Comcast's content more favorable than Netflix's content to Comcast's customers. FCC says no, you can't do that. Comcast pouts. FCC says, well you can't do that but you can charge them for full bandwith.

[Pay money, get] Net Neutrality. Think of it this way. It's not "net" as in "internet." It's "net" as in "in the end, after expenses are taken out."

Net worth. Net profit. Net neutrality. After expenses, content providers receive neutrality.

[GreenGoo]

Heh. Yeah, I guess.

It's not the ISP's fault that some people have more money than others. And hey, ISP's deserve profit too! Despite the lack of competition, the public funds that were used to build the infrastructure in the first place, the already enormous profitability of ISP's, etc etc.

What do you have against competition? It's the foundation of capitalism (which solves everything, obviously). Socialist.

Sure, all pricing structures are available to everyone. That's not neutral though. That's tiered service. Worse, it's ARBITRARILY tiered service.

I wouldn't be so adamant about this if the net hadn't been operating for the last 20-25 years (commerically) without tiered service. But access to the internet has spawned an explosion of economic opportunities for businesses, big and small. It has been a very big part of growing the economy. Now they're saying well, you still have access, but it's 28.8 modem (not literally of course) unless you buy the deluxe package. All your competitors have the deluxe package, but sure, you can stay at the bottom tier. It's your choice. It's neutral.

Rant rant rant rant rant.

[malchior]

It depends on your definition of "net neutrality". If you believe that net neutrality means that access providers cannot provide any sort of routing restrictions in traffic, then you'd have a hard time calling this decision consistent with net neutrality. If you believe that net neutrality means that access providers must provide equal access to content providers, then the argument to be made is that as long as content providers are given an equal opportunity to obtain higher classes of service, then this policy is consistent with net neutrality. The FCC appears to be going with the latter definition in this case.

I guess that is one fairly Orwellian way of parsing it.

[El Guapo]

My understanding is that it goes like this. Comcast (et al) want to throttle Netflix (et al). This will make Comcast's content more favorable than Netflix's content to Comcast's customers. FCC says no, you can't do that. Comcast pouts. FCC says, well you can't do that but you can charge them for full bandwith.

[Pay money, get] Net Neutrality. Think of it this way. It's not "net" as in "internet." It's "net" as in "in the end, after expenses are taken out."

Net worth. Net profit. Net neutrality. After expenses, content providers receive neutrality.

So Comcast can only charge Netflix more for better access if they also offer the same deal to other companies? Say, Amazon? And any plucky start up with millions of dollars burning a hole in their pocket, I assume.

I guess that would be better than nothing in that it could preserve neutrality amongst big companies (Netflix vs. Amazon vs. Hulu, etc.), at least. Though I'm assuming that even that will be riddled with legal loopholes.

[LawBeefaroni]

So Comcast can only charge Netflix more for better access if they also offer the same deal to other companies? Say, Amazon? And any plucky start up with millions of dollars burning a hole in their pocket, I assume.

I guess that would be better than nothing in that it could preserve neutrality amongst big companies (Netflix vs. Amazon vs. Hulu, etc.), at least. Though I'm assuming that even that will be riddled with legal loopholes.

Or what if someone offers to pay for exclusive "neutrality?"

[malchior]

My understanding is that it goes like this. Comcast (et al) want to throttle Netflix (et al). This will make Comcast's content more favorable than Netflix's content to Comcast's customers. FCC says no, you can't do that. Comcast pouts. FCC says, well you can't do that but you can charge them for full bandwith.

[Pay money, get] Net Neutrality. Think of it this way. It's not "net" as in "internet." It's "net" as in "in the end, after expenses are taken out."

Net worth. Net profit. Net neutrality. After expenses, content providers receive neutrality.

So Comcast can only charge Netflix more for better access if they also offer the same deal to other companies? Say, Amazon? And any plucky start up with millions of dollars burning a hole in their pocket, I assume.

I guess that would be better than nothing in that it could preserve neutrality amongst big companies (Netflix vs. Amazon vs. Hulu, etc.), at least. Though I'm assuming that even that will be riddled with legal loopholes.

True but it still smacks of protecting the incumbents when a good portion of our innovation has been by all the upstarts who often aren't flush with cash early on. I"m not saying that there won't be a place at the table for them anymore but there is a risk -- in my mind a significant risk -- that incumbents will use their muscle to make sure the barrier to entry is higher or that they get their taste of the action to get through the door. Is that what we really want? Just to make sure telecomms make even more profit then they already do? They've had no trouble making money in the current environment. This is all about one very heavily entrenched special interest making even more money. Is that a good trade off?

[El Guapo]

My understanding is that it goes like this. Comcast (et al) want to throttle Netflix (et al). This will make Comcast's content more favorable than Netflix's content to Comcast's customers. FCC says no, you can't do that. Comcast pouts. FCC says, well you can't do that but you can charge them for full bandwith.

[Pay money, get] Net Neutrality. Think of it this way. It's not "net" as in "internet." It's "net" as in "in the end, after expenses are taken out."

Net worth. Net profit. Net neutrality. After expenses, content providers receive neutrality.

So Comcast can only charge Netflix more for better access if they also offer the same deal to other companies? Say, Amazon? And any plucky start up with millions of dollars burning a hole in their pocket, I assume.

I guess that would be better than nothing in that it could preserve neutrality amongst big companies (Netflix vs. Amazon vs. Hulu, etc.), at least. Though I'm assuming that even that will be riddled with legal loopholes.

True but it still smacks of protecting the incumbents when a good portion of our innovation has been by all the upstarts who often aren't flush with cash early on. I"m not saying that there won't be a place at the table for them anymore but there is a risk -- in my mind a significant risk -- that incumbents will use their muscle to make sure the barrier to entry is higher or that they get their taste of the action to get through the door. Is that what we really want? Just to make sure telecomms make even more profit then they already do? They've had no trouble making money in the current environment. This is all about one very heavily entrenched special interest making even more money. Is that a good trade off?

Oh I agree. I'm just saying that the FCC's faux net neutrality is probably still preferable to nothing. Big companies might still compete equally, it's the smaller and start ups that get hosed.

For what it's worth an agreement between Comcast and Netflix where Comcast agreed essentially to disadvantage Netflix competitors might violate the antitrust laws.

[LordMortis]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/07 ... adquarters

[Pyperkub]

My understanding is that it goes like this. Comcast (et al) want to throttle Netflix (et al). This will make Comcast's content more favorable than Netflix's content to Comcast's customers. FCC says no, you can't do that. Comcast pouts. FCC says, well you can't do that but you can charge them for full bandwith.

[Pay money, get] Net Neutrality. Think of it this way. It's not "net" as in "internet." It's "net" as in "in the end, after expenses are taken out."

Net worth. Net profit. Net neutrality. After expenses, content providers receive neutrality.

So Comcast can only charge Netflix more for better access if they also offer the same deal to other companies? Say, Amazon? And any plucky start up with millions of dollars burning a hole in their pocket, I assume.

I guess that would be better than nothing in that it could preserve neutrality amongst big companies (Netflix vs. Amazon vs. Hulu, etc.), at least. Though I'm assuming that even that will be riddled with legal loopholes.

True but it still smacks of protecting the incumbents when a good portion of our innovation has been by all the upstarts who often aren't flush with cash early on. I"m not saying that there won't be a place at the table for them anymore but there is a risk -- in my mind a significant risk -- that incumbents will use their muscle to make sure the barrier to entry is higher or that they get their taste of the action to get through the door. Is that what we really want? Just to make sure telecomms make even more profit then they already do? They've had no trouble making money in the current environment. This is all about one very heavily entrenched special interest making even more money. Is that a good trade off?

Oh I agree. I'm just saying that the FCC's faux net neutrality is probably still preferable to nothing. Big companies might still compete equally, it's the smaller and start ups that get hosed.

For what it's worth an agreement between Comcast and Netflix where Comcast agreed essentially to disadvantage Netflix competitors might violate the antitrust laws.

I think we have a winner! But let's not forget the part where Comcast, et al throttle the traffic in order to promote their own competing service, or develop one...

[LordMortis]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014 ... y-protest/

"Since the FCC seems to have no problem with this idea, I've (through correspondence) gotten access to the FCC's internal IP block, and throttled all connections from the FCC to 28.8kbps modem speeds on the Neocities.org front site, and I'm not removing it until the FCC pays us for the bandwidth they've been wasting instead of doing their jobs protecting us from the 'keep America's internet slow and expensive forever' lobby," NeoCities creator Kyle Drake wrote yesterday.

[GreenGoo]

I wish someone who mattered would do that. Too bad we can't get the first trunk they hit to do that.

Maybe neocities is bigger than my 2 second google search indicated.

[Isgrimnur]

Surprise, surprise, surprise...

Despite division on the Federal Communications Commission, the agency passed newly proposed net neutrality rules on Thursday with a provision that could allow content providers to pay for prioritized data traffic on the so-called "fast lanes" delivered by Internet service providers.

The outcome was widely criticized by net neutrality proponents who fear that ISPs would use the new rules to justify discriminating against content providers who are reluctant or can't afford to pay for faster lanes.

The vote played out on political lines with FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, appointed by President Obama last fall, casting the deciding vote after two Democratic commissioners voted in favor and two Republicans dissented.

[LordMortis]

Surprise, surprise, surprise...

Despite division on the Federal Communications Commission, the agency passed newly proposed net neutrality rules on Thursday with a provision that could allow content providers to pay for prioritized data traffic on the so-called "fast lanes" delivered by Internet service providers.

The outcome was widely criticized by net neutrality proponents who fear that ISPs would use the new rules to justify discriminating against content providers who are reluctant or can't afford to pay for faster lanes.

The vote played out on political lines with FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, appointed by President Obama last fall, casting the deciding vote after two Democratic commissioners voted in favor and two Republicans dissented.

And Net Neutrality wins? Some bandwidth is more equal than others?

[Chaz]

Let me get this straight: The FCC proposes new rules that will basically allow ISPs to charge providers for priority access to bandwidth (I'm sure there are no loopholes in that). The commissioners vote, and its the Democrats in favor of the new rules, and the Republicans against? Now I'm sure the Republicans were voting no because they knew it would pass with the swing vote, but couldn't be seen voting in line with the Democrats, but in what reality does it happen that I wish the Democrats had voted in line with the Republicans?

[stessier]

Hopefully the current one?

[gbasden]

Damn it. Yet another step away from a free and open internet.

[Arcanis]

My only question is when will it go into effect so someone with standing can contest it and bring this up though the courts?