That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
https://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/
https://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=76516
Yes. I support the ISPs having the legal authority to screw the consumer, if that's how you choose to look at it.stessier wrote:Are you really against it? Maybe that doesn't mean what I think it means?LordMortis wrote:Being against Net Neutrality I was wondering the same thing.stessier wrote:I'm confused - being for Net Neutrality, did I want this to pass or not?
El Guapo wrote: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.stessier wrote:I'm confused - being for Net Neutrality, did I want this to pass or not?
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.
Why?LordMortis wrote:Yes. I support the ISPs having the legal authority to screw the consumer, if that's how you choose to look at it.
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 wrote:Yes. I support the ISPs having the legal authority to screw the consumer, if that's how you choose to look at it.stessier wrote:Are you really against it? Maybe that doesn't mean what I think it means?LordMortis wrote:Being against Net Neutrality I was wondering the same thing.stessier wrote:I'm confused - being for Net Neutrality, did I want this to pass or not?
Though I still don't understand what was passed or defeated and why.
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.
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.
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.
Fix that for them: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.
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.
msd hasn't posted for years in this thread...deadzone wrote: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.deadzone wrote: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.
You've got a little spunk on your chin there...El Guapo wrote:Also that's way over the line as a personal attack. Keep it civil.deadzone wrote: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.
Is there *any* logical argument that the FCC's new position is consistent with net neutrality?GreenGoo wrote: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.
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.El Guapo wrote:Is there *any* logical argument that the FCC's new position is consistent with net neutrality?GreenGoo wrote: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.
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.El Guapo wrote:Is there *any* logical argument that the FCC's new position is consistent with net neutrality?GreenGoo wrote: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.
I guess that is one fairly Orwellian way of parsing it.ImLawBoy wrote: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.
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.LawBeefaroni wrote: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.
Or what if someone offers to pay for exclusive "neutrality?"El Guapo wrote: 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 wrote: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.LawBeefaroni wrote: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.
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.
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.malchior wrote: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 wrote: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.LawBeefaroni wrote: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.
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.
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...El Guapo wrote: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.malchior wrote: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 wrote: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.LawBeefaroni wrote: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.
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.
For what it's worth an agreement between Comcast and Netflix where Comcast agreed essentially to disadvantage Netflix competitors might violate the antitrust laws.
"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.
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?Isgrimnur wrote: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.