Remove Advertisements

Net Neutrality Passes FCC

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Net Neutrality Passes FCC

Postby Thalia » Tue Dec 21, 2010 12:22 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/12/21/fcc.net.neutrality/index.html

This passed on a 3-2 partisan vote line.

I don't know much about it..but since it was a 3-2 vote..is this a good thing or bad thing?

I do remember many many net industry leader warning against this, but I'm ignorant to the policy or to the effects it might cause.

Any opinions?
User avatar
Thalia
 
Posts: 1081
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: Net Neutrality Passes FCC

Postby cerwillis » Tue Dec 21, 2010 12:29 pm

Technically it's a win for internet freedom advocates, but they don't think it went far enough. This is really just the first round of what promises to be a very long and drawn out fight.
Mistawillis - Cerwillis - Turbowillis - Evilan
<Silent Resolve> Durotan/SW:TOR Shii-Cho
Miniwillis <PK> SC
User avatar
cerwillis
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 1306
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Net Neutrality Passes FCC

Postby Sabindeus » Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:56 pm

cerwillis wrote:Technically it's a win for internet freedom advocates, but they don't think it went far enough. This is really just the first round of what promises to be a very long and drawn out fight.


This. Also the courts have so far not upheld the FCC's right to police the internet, so sadly this is pretty meaningless.
Image
Turn In, an NPC interaction automator - http://wow.curse.com/downloads/wow-addo ... rn-in.aspx
User avatar
Sabindeus
Moderator
 
Posts: 10472
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 9:24 am

Re: Net Neutrality Passes FCC

Postby Fivelives » Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:01 am

Doesn't the FCC have the right to police the internet providers though? I have to admit, I'm not all that up to speed on the net neutrality issue, except insofar as the broadband internet providers want to charge for "tiered" access to content that they deem to be premium. Which would suck. It would suck a lot.

Personally, I think I'm all for it if the FCC were to use the old analog bandwidth to broadcast free nationwide broadband wifi. As long as that's unregulated (meaning I can watch my goddamn fetish midget donkey transvestite granny smurf porn), let the "premium" providers battle it out on the open market.

But until the free wi-fi gets to the point that it's implemented and usable, then keep it where it is now.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Net Neutrality Passes FCC

Postby Sabindeus » Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:03 am

Fivelives wrote:Doesn't the FCC have the right to police the internet providers though?


No. That's what I meant by "police the internet" in my previous post.
Image
Turn In, an NPC interaction automator - http://wow.curse.com/downloads/wow-addo ... rn-in.aspx
User avatar
Sabindeus
Moderator
 
Posts: 10472
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 9:24 am

Re: Net Neutrality Passes FCC

Postby Fivelives » Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:19 am

I thought the FCC was the governing body for the cable and phone companies?
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Net Neutrality Passes FCC

Postby Njall » Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:35 am

Fivelives wrote:I thought the FCC was the governing body for the cable and phone companies?


Its powers of regulation are an empty mandate and it has, for the longest time, treated ISPs as "common carriers" in the same way that the Post Office and delivery services are. How they operate is relgulated. What they deliver is, on the whole, not. They are not responsible for the contents of the items beyond certain safety guidelines required to ship items. So long as these are met, they are not responsible for the contents of the delivery.
Image
Flight to Peru: £1000
Camping gear: £200
Native guide: £50
Sledgehammer to break down stone door: £12.99
Awakening one of the Great Old Ones: priceless.

There are some things man was not meant to know. For everything else,
there's Mastercard.
User avatar
Njall
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: Thank heavens! Heavy Metal!

Re: Net Neutrality Passes FCC

Postby Fivelives » Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:07 pm

So it sounds to me like the FCC is in the right in this case - they're mandating how the service is provided, not the content of that service.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Net Neutrality Passes FCC

Postby Njall » Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:13 pm

Fivelives wrote:So it sounds to me like the FCC is in the right in this case - they're mandating how the service is provided, not the content of that service.


The problem is that companies want the right to dictate how they award the service. This creates a tierd system where favored content (such as the usual network tripe) is easily obtained while material belonging to corporate rivals or sources obejectionable to the carrier are given a lower priority.

If you are under the legal protections provided by the common carrier, this sort of behavior is not permitted - you take the freight and you deliver it. You don't quietly decide to send the client's material on a slow boat to China and then claim that you had nothing to do with it.

Basically, companies cannot have it both ways. Either they are liable for content and providing/policing it (and have the right to serve how and what they wish) or they are common carriers who must provide coverage and throughput without playing favorites but they are then in turn not responsible for what is delivered.
Image
Flight to Peru: £1000
Camping gear: £200
Native guide: £50
Sledgehammer to break down stone door: £12.99
Awakening one of the Great Old Ones: priceless.

There are some things man was not meant to know. For everything else,
there's Mastercard.
User avatar
Njall
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: Thank heavens! Heavy Metal!

Re: Net Neutrality Passes FCC

Postby Rachmaninoff » Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:23 pm

Njall wrote:
Fivelives wrote:So it sounds to me like the FCC is in the right in this case - they're mandating how the service is provided, not the content of that service.


The problem is that companies want the right to dictate how they award the service. This creates a tierd system where favored content (such as the usual network tripe) is easily obtained while material belonging to corporate rivals or sources obejectionable to the carrier are given a lower priority.

If you are under the legal protections provided by the common carrier, this sort of behavior is not permitted - you take the freight and you deliver it. You don't quietly decide to send the client's material on a slow boat to China and then claim that you had nothing to do with it.

Basically, companies cannot have it both ways. Either they are liable for content and providing/policing it (and have the right to serve how and what they wish) or they are common carriers who must provide coverage and throughput without playing favorites but they are then in turn not responsible for what is delivered.


Prioritizing. Right. Thats what I thoughts what this was all about. Regulating the carries to not prioritize against other services causing a slower connection. Now you would think this is a good thing, right? But what is it leading to? I think is is a good control for the FCC. I am a big fan of minimal government involvement, but making sure companies are purposely giving slower connections to their competitors to detour the customers is wrong. With that said why are people so against it? Is it opening pandora's box?
User avatar
Rachmaninoff
 
Posts: 865
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:33 am
Location: Connecticut

Re: Net Neutrality Passes FCC

Postby Njall » Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:33 pm

Rachmaninoff wrote:Prioritizing. Right. Thats what I thoughts what this was all about. Regulating the carries to not prioritize against other services causing a slower connection. Now you would think this is a good thing, right? But what is it leading to? I think is is a good control for the FCC. I am a big fan of minimal government involvement, but making sure companies are purposely giving slower connections to their competitors to detour the customers is wrong. With that said why are people so against it? Is it opening pandora's box?


No, this is, supposedly, what people do want. However, the corporate interests (and hence the 'if it is good for business, it is good for everyone/we hate regulating things' Republicans) do not favor this as it means they are not always acting in their own best interests.

Wrap it up in some "but think of the children" propaganda and surround it with bafflegab and people will happily support something like that. Just say, 'we want the right to control content' and 'we don't need more government interference in business' and "oh, we'd NEVER discriminate against our paying customers, no no."...

A few years late, and suddenly, we've got Time Warner and Fox piped directly into our computers and why the hell is it taking so long to download my bit torrent, and why is it taking so long to load up the BBC website?
Image
Flight to Peru: £1000
Camping gear: £200
Native guide: £50
Sledgehammer to break down stone door: £12.99
Awakening one of the Great Old Ones: priceless.

There are some things man was not meant to know. For everything else,
there's Mastercard.
User avatar
Njall
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: Thank heavens! Heavy Metal!

Re: Net Neutrality Passes FCC

Postby Krazed » Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:24 pm

If the business did what they wanted to do it would be Red internet Vs. Blue internet (Yes political party colors). We all know how well that is going to go.........

Net Neutrality is really the only smart way to go, but sadly history has taught us that this will not happen.
Through nature's inflexible grace I'm learning to live - Dream Theater
User avatar
Krazed
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 7:53 am

Re: Net Neutrality Passes FCC

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:44 pm

Yeah you guys are right if businesses could manage the internet completely on their own, it would be utter shit. Good thing net neutrality laws passed a long time ago to save us...oh wait.

There are lots of negatives to net neutrality legislation, and generally speaking nearly everyone's internet access would suffer for it, and technology implementation would be considerably slower. We have plenty of evidence of this with cable. The biggest positive addresses a problem that basically doesn't exist. You could probably make the case that there is not enough competition in the US to keep carriers honest, but with wireless speeds creeping up, that becomes a tougher sell.

Nobody wants throttling at a non service level but that can be managed without sweeping net neutrality legislation (which this really isn't). When I want to watch HuluHD, I expect a little more bandwidth than your standard phpbb forum.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Net Neutrality Passes FCC

Postby Fivelives » Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:57 am

There really isn't enough competition. Each service area basically has 2 providers, each of which has a monopoly in their own "type" of service - your local cable company with cable internet, and your local phone company with DSL internet. There really isn't any other arena of competition - satellite internet, again, goes through either the cable or phone company, based on whichever satellite provider they contract with. In my area, the cable company contracts with DirecTV and the phone company with Dish Network.

So I guess I'm kind of ambivalent, then. Both DSL and cable service in my town are spotty, with numerous problems regarding slow service and service outages. If more competition entered the market, then the service would naturally begin to improve, to prevent "sniping" of customers by the competition. But on the other hand, I don't want to have to pay for tiered services based on content - it's enough that they already have speed tiers, especially when you take into consideration that broadband speeds are theoretically unlimited.

I still think the best compromise would be for the FCC to provide free wireless internet using the old analog bandwidth that they used to use to broadcast television on, and then let the market open up for tiered services. The availability of free broadband should keep the private market honest, but still be enough of an incentive to improve already existing services.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Net Neutrality Passes FCC

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:16 am

Fivelives wrote:There really isn't enough competition. Each service area basically has 2 providers, each of which has a monopoly in their own "type" of service - your local cable company with cable internet, and your local phone company with DSL internet. There really isn't any other arena of competition - satellite internet, again, goes through either the cable or phone company, based on whichever satellite provider they contract with. In my area, the cable company contracts with DirecTV and the phone company with Dish Network.

Those contracts are just for POS related stuff, the data traffic probably doesn't go through any of the cable or phone companies systems when you are using satellite. (DirectTV working with the cable company is a rather odd one though). There are also the various cell providers with 3G and soon 4G, and the localized wireless broadband like ClearWire, particularly in the urban areas.

The wireless marketplace is a pretty interesting beast, and companies who are staunch supporters of net neutrality kind of reverse their stance a bit in dealing with wireless (see Google) partially because there is a bit more competition there, but also because of the frequent technological advances that such laws could hamper.

It really just depends on how far the FCC is going to go.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Next

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: culhag and 1 guest


Remove Advertisements

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: culhag and 1 guest