# The FCC will vote on net neutrality on February 26th



## Athlon646464

*The FCC will vote on net neutrality on February 26th*

(engadget.com) - The FCC may be about to redefine American internet access in a big, big way. Chairman Tom Wheeler has narrowed down the Commission's vote on new net neutrality rules to its next meeting, on February 26th. It's still not apparent exactly what those proposed regulations will be, although they're likely to bridge the gap between the President's desire to treat the internet as a utility and the anti-regulatory approach of internet providers. There's a common ground between the FCC and the President, Wheeler says -- they both want to prevent networks from blocking or throttling apps, and they both value transparency....

Full Story Here


----------



## AntAltMike

I'd've thought that this would be a hot topic at a site named *D*igital *B*it *S*tream, so I clicked here to read the comment thread. Surprise, surprise!

I used to be a C-band guy, and I remember how Satellite Monthly changed its name to Satellite and Broadband and then to Broadband Monthly, at which time I dropped my subscription, not in protest but because the content was no longer of any interest to me.

I was expecting the same thing to happen here (except for the subscription part, of course). I don't spend much time here anymore, but from what I see, looking at the category indexes' "Posts" and "Replies" subtotals, the nature of the user activity doesn't seem to have changed.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

The problem with a topic like this and being "hot" is... there hasn't been a lot of movement for what seems like years... at some point it becomes a non-topic until something actually happens. We can only talk about net neutrality so much when nothing is happening.


----------



## Drucifer

F.C.C. Net Neutrality Rules Clear Hurdle as Republicans Concede to Obama


----------



## Athlon646464

*Update: **FCC adopts historic Internet rules*

(cnn.com) - The FCC has passed a historic measure to more strictly regulate the Internet.

The new rules, known as "net neutrality," act to provide equal opportunity for Internet speeds and access to websites.

The central question was whether network owners -- like Comcast or Time Warner Cable -- can discriminate what runs on their cables. The FCC's answer on Thursday was: No....

Full Story Here


----------



## Mark Holtz

So, now that the FCC passed those rules, can we please see those 300+ pages of rules? 

Anyone?

Anyone? 

That's the biggest problem I have... we have new rules, but have no idea what they are. We weren't allowed to see then prior to the vote today either. And, I'm wondering what surprises lurk within.


----------



## Jasqid

All your bits are belong to us!!

errr.. Obama.


----------



## lwilli201

Mark Holtz said:


> So, now that the FCC passed those rules, can we please see those 300+ pages of rules?
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> That's the biggest problem I have... we have new rules, but have no idea what they are. We weren't allowed to see then prior to the vote today either. And, I'm wondering what surprises lurk within.


Reminds me of a law that was passed so we could see what was in it.


----------



## James Long

Athlon646464 said:


> Full Story Here


From the article:

"Don't believe the hype. Take a deep breath. It's a long, tricky road ahead.
The FCC rules won't be official until maybe summertime."

"But this monster is actually a phantom menace. Sure, in the past, telecoms have been bullies. Verizon blocked Google Wallet. AT&T blocked video chatting apps. Comcast slowed down file-sharing services like BitTorrent. Rural telephone provider Madison River blocked Vonage's over-the-Internet phone calls. However, the FCC used existing rules to fix those problems.

"The new rules essentially maintain the status quo. The Internet sure feels free today. It'll feel the same way tomorrow."


----------



## keith_benedict

I agree with the concept and goal of net neutrality. I disagree with the idea that the Internet should be a public utility like phone service. I'm even less enthusiastic about the prospect of having to pay a 16.1% universal lifeline tax the way I do with my phone service.

It's a shame companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon got greedy.


----------



## djlong

In all the time that the internet has been around, Congress has actually voted to REFRAIN from taxing the Internet. The shrill cries of net neutrality opponents, in fear of theoretical things the FCC *might* do falls flat to me.

The fact that ISPs *have* blocked sites and *do* throttle bandwidth tells me that these rules are to prevent things that happened in the past FOR REAL.

I'll take the protection against real actions of corporate ISPs over fear of THEORETICAL actions that a government MIGHT take every day.


----------



## keith_benedict

djlong said:


> In all the time that the internet has been around, Congress has actually voted to REFRAIN from taxing the Internet. The shrill cries of net neutrality opponents, in fear of theoretical things the FCC *might* do falls flat to me.
> 
> The fact that ISPs *have* blocked sites and *do* throttle bandwidth tells me that these rules are to prevent things that happened in the past FOR REAL.
> 
> I'll take the protection against real actions of corporate ISPs over fear of THEORETICAL actions that a government MIGHT take every day.


There's really no reason why the 16.1% tax won't be added. Look at your phone bill. It's called the Federal Universal Service Charge. On a $25 pricing tier, I'm paying $2.76.


----------



## camo

I would rather take my chances without any government involvement. Let the internet stay open with no controls and it will work itself out, if Comcast or Verizon wants to block Netflix it will fix itself as it always does in a free market. Customers will either go without Netflix or change to different carriers. Keep the Government out of it, nothing good will come once they get control.


----------



## Christopher Gould

camo said:


> I would rather take my chances without any government involvement. Let the internet stay open with no controls and it will work itself out, if Comcast or Verizon wants to block Netflix it will fix itself as it always does in a free market. Customers will either go without Netflix or change to different carriers. Keep the Government out of it, nothing good will come once they get control.


Except sometimes you have no choice as to where u get your internet. What's your fix for that. I dislike like government but I trust greedy corporations less.

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## camo

Christopher Gould said:


> Except sometimes you have no choice as to where u get your internet. What's your fix for that. I dislike like government but I trust greedy corporations less.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


I live in the middle of nowhere and have 5 options, large markets have many more. My options are satellite, wireless by local provider with outdoor radio, Verizon wireless ,Viaero Wireless, and cable through 3 rivers. 
I actually used Verizon unlimited account prior with a wireless (wifi wan router) I spent a bunch of money on setup and dumped them because they were slowing Netflix down causing buffering. I now use cable its only 5 meg speed vs what I was getting 20 Mbps on Verizon but they lost a customer and I still have Netflix. I just think everything will work itself out without government intervention causing more issues vs free-market.


----------



## harsh

Universal service originally started with the Rural Electrification Administration in an effort to bring power to those who chose to live off the beaten path.

We either need to stop coddling these people or bring them online; the suspense is killing us.


----------



## harsh

camo said:


> I live in the middle of nowhere and have 5 options, large markets have many more.


I live 25,000 wire feet from the franchised telco's central office and I have four options: 512K DSL, satellite, Comcast or Verizon Wireless. I have neighbors that live four blocks away that have only 512K DSL or satellite as options.

You don't have to live way out in East Jesus to have limited options.


----------



## Mark Holtz

In some aspects, things were better when we had multiple local dial-up providers. The problem is that when high-speed Internet and DSL were offered, the phone companies charged a high rate to colocate equipment in their facility... and that was when you were a reseller of DSL service. There is nothing that encourages a competing provider to enter into a market, nor is there a good incentive to develop in rural areas because the density isn't there. Where I live, there is only two options for good, fast, low latency Internet.... Comcast cable and DSL service. While Internet is available via cellular and satellite, data caps and high latency make them non-viable options. 

The added wrinkle is that often, the source of high-speed Internet is the cable company, and some of the products offered (Netflix, Hulu) compete directly with the cable companies bread and butter.


----------



## NR4P

keith_benedict said:


> There's really no reason why the 16.1% tax won't be added. Look at your phone bill. It's called the Federal Universal Service Charge. On a $25 pricing tier, I'm paying $2.76.


This is from the official FCC Press Release issued Feb. 26. I did not add emphasis.
The complete press release is attached.
Hopefully we will soon see the full order of 300+ pages.

From the Press Release
-Rate regulation: the Order makes clear that broadband providers *shall not* be subject to
utility-style rate regulation, including rate regulation, tariffs, and last-mile unbundling.

-Universal Service Contributions: the Order *DOES NOT* require broadband providers to
contribute to the Universal Service Fund under Section 254. The question of how best to
fund the nation's universal service programs is being considered in a separate, unrelated
proceeding that was already underway.

-Broadband service will remain exempt from state and local taxation under the Internet
Tax Freedom Act. This law, recently renewed by Congress and signed by the President,
bans state and local taxation on Internet access regardless of its FCC regulatory
classification.


----------



## chaney

While i understand where you guys are coming from, understand where i come from. I am by no means a company fan boy because i work for them. i work for mediacom which im sure you have seen in the news trying to stop this from happening. My company services primarly rural small towns. I for iinstance work in carbondale ks, burlingame ks, scranton, lyndon, osage city, lebo, and many more along highway 75. The average new internet only customer can get a 25mbps down and 3mbps up with 45 ms ping for 12 a month incluincluding the modem rental for 1 year then goes up to 22 after. Please tell me how anyway my companu is greedy compared to companies such as comcast, cox, time warner or charter who for instance cox only offers 5 mbps for 20 no discount or a 50mbps for 66. Now my company also regularly increases speeds and infrastructure to maintain overhead and allow for high traffic volume from services like netflix. We have even installed netflix servers in our headends to satisfy buffering issues. All while maintaing overhead and services the small towns other companies pass by or overcharge. I would also like to point out my companie has provided more than 100% of its advertised speed to every company for years, look it up if you think im lieing. I have personally installed the servers and maintained them myself. So when this happens to put the "big" companies in check lets make sure we dont group all cable companies together. We are also in 24 states nationally services mainly small towns.


----------



## Mark Holtz

chaney said:


> While i understand where you guys are coming from, understand where i come from. I am by no means a company fan boy because i work for them. i work for mediacom which im sure you have seen in the news trying to stop this from happening.


The problem is that Mediacom is small potatoes compared with Time-Warner, Comcast, and Verizon. Some of the program content that is available is owned by Comcast. The problem is the antics of these big mega-cable companies. You even mentioned the following:


chaney said:


> Now my company also regularly increases speeds and infrastructure to maintain overhead and allow for high traffic volume from services like netflix. We have even installed netflix servers in our headends to satisfy buffering issues.


As I understand it, Netflix even offers those servers for FREE to the ISPs. The last I heard, Verizon Internet was even declining those servers.

We need to have more competition, and I see nothing in the FCC actions to encourage that.


----------



## Athlon646464

My fear is we've jumped from the frying pan into the fire. At least in the private market there is a chance market forces can make the bad guys change their ways or go away. 

Once the government takes control you will see higher taxes to pay for new bureaucracy and the dumbing down of new technology.


----------



## camo

Athlon646464 said:


> My fear is we've jumped from the frying pan into the fire. At least in the private market there is a chance market forces can make the bad guys change their ways or go away.
> 
> Once the government takes control you will see higher taxes to pay for new bureaucracy and the dumbing down of new technology.


My fears too. I say let it play out as is.


----------



## NR4P

Everyone is citing Netflix and speed.
NN goes very far beyond that.

Without an open internet, here's what could and in some cases has happened:
-Your internet provider is a cable co. But you get TV from Directv or Dish. Click on VOD and that internet provider slows down Directv's/Dish's VOD especially 1080p and 4K movies but the cable co. gives preference to their own VOD service. You call to complain and they sell you their service.
-You go out a buy a home security camera at your local retailer and find the modem ports blocked. Your ISP says, we don't have to give you the password to unblock them for your camera. We have our own cameras, buy theirs.
-Or they allow their own security cameras to stream at 15fps but the ones you buy on the web work at only 3fps.
-And that remotely controlled thermostat you purchased from the big box home improvement store, paid $249, plus (maybe) paid $150 for the installation and you can't connect to it remotely because the Telco providing internet wants you to get the one they offer with a monthlyservice instead.

This isn't only about Netflix. It's about using the internet for what you want to do, how you want to do it, and when you want to do it. 4M people wrote to the FCC asking for this.

And market forces could solve it if everyone had multiple choices for high speed internet. As others have posted, they don't have such choices.


----------



## Athlon646464

And big government will solve those problems? I don't think so. You will see less choice than you would have as time goes on. My point was if you don't like the current situation you're going to hate what you're about to get.


----------



## Wilf

Athlon646464 said:


> My fear is we've jumped from the frying pan into the fire. At least in the private market there is a chance market forces can make the bad guys change their ways or go away.


What are these market forces of which you speak? After 20+ years of internet, these "market forces" have not materialized. Many countries (such as Estonia, Latvia, South Korea, etc) have much cheaper and faster broadband that we have. How much longer do we have to wait for these "market forces"?


----------



## SayWhat?

With the latency, caps and prices, I don't consider satellite to be an option, unless it's the ONLY choice. I dumped it once DSL came in. It is not on par with terrestrial services.


----------



## Athlon646464

Wilf said:


> What are these market forces of which you speak? After 20+ years of internet, these "market forces" have not materialized. Many countries (such as Estonia, Latvia, South Korea, etc) have much cheaper and faster broadband that we have. How much longer do we have to wait for these "market forces"?


This ruling doesn't mean you will have more choices, it means the government can now enact legislation that can control your ISP. When was the last time you saw the government take something over and that something get better and cheaper?

Yes, they can stop 'throttling', but at what cost (and not just dollars)? Again, my point is that our overall internet experience will not get better and cheaper, but worse and more expensive (read: taxes).

I'm tired of reading every month about more and more government intrusion. It's simply never a good thing.

As for your point about other country's infrastructure - do you think Verizon, AT & T et all are more inclined to upgrade now, or less inclined? If you were them, would you spend more billions and lay better cable now, or less?

I don't understand the mentality of folks today, especially given recent evidence. How can folks think government regulation will solve a problem without creating 20 other problems? The same folks who hate the NSA for spying on us would like to see that same government take over the internet.

Go figure.


----------



## SayWhat?

I'm not entirely opposed to higher volume users paying more. We already see that with water, electric and phone services.

The question becomes the threshold of what is 'more'? If they decide to go that route, should it be a set figure, or a percentage? And what would it be a percentage of? The average user?


Does this keep 'control' at the FCC? Or does it bring in the Public Utility Commissions in the states?


----------



## Wilf

Athlon646464 said:


> This ruling doesn't mean you will have more choices, it means the government can now enact legislation that can control your ISP. When was the last time you saw the government take something over and that something get better and cheaper?


I have a choice for electrical power - it has worked out well. As a retired civil servant, the government sponsored health plan is terrific. I am not saying all government programs work out well. But after 20+ years of broadband with no progress, something had to be done.

As far as Verizon and AT&T, they have bribed state politicians to keep competition out of states and cities - how's that for "market forces"?


----------



## Athlon646464

SayWhat? said:


> I'm not entirely opposed to higher volume users paying more. We already see that with water, electric and phone services.
> 
> The question becomes the threshold of what is 'more'? If they decide to go that route, should it be a set figure, or a percentage? And what would it be a percentage of? The average user?
> 
> Does this keep 'control' at the FCC? Or does it bring in the Public Utility Commissions in the states?


Both.

I'm not saying what we have is perfect. What I'm saying is now there is no hope of things getting better, only getting worse.


----------



## Athlon646464

Wilf said:


> I have a choice for electrical power - it has worked out well. As a retired civil servant, the government sponsored health plan is terrific. I am not saying all government programs work out well. But after 20+ years of broadband with no progress, something had to be done.
> 
> As far as Verizon and AT&T, they have bribed state politicians to keep competition out of states and cities - how's that for "market forces"?


Your health plan was earned by you. And your're not getting your health care from the government. They are simply paying for it. The only government agency actually giving care is the VA I believe. Need I say more?


----------



## camo

Athlon646464 said:


> Your health plan was earned by you. And your're not getting your health care from the government. They are simply paying for it. The only government agency actually giving care is the VA I believe. Need I say more?


Exactly my health care and pension plan are something I earned and payed for with reductions in my salary over my career. Nobody is giving me anything for free.


----------



## Wilf

You have a very low opinion of government. I have a very low opinion of corporations and their oligarchs. Let as agree to disagree.


----------



## chaney

Exactly in a press release prior to this happening my company ceo sent to the fcc detailing exactly why this is a problem because of existing government funding and controlled local isps dont perform as needed and break down constantly and take long before the government employee gets out to repair it. I am on call 24/7 every 3rd week. so if it goes down we scramble and get it up in less than 2 hours in most cases. Compared to the average government ran outfit takes 48hrs minimum


----------



## Athlon646464

camo said:


> Exactly my health care and pension plan are something I earned and payed for with reductions in my salary over my career. Nobody is giving me anything for free.


And I acknowledged that in my post. I said you earned that benefit.

My point was that your care itself is private. If it was a government run hospital like the VA you would not be happy with it regardless of who is paying.

We are all paying for broadband. If the government takes it over it will not be as good as it is today - and some of us are already complaining about it.


----------



## Athlon646464

Wilf said:


> You have a very low opinion of government. I have a very low opinion of corporations and their oligarchs. Let as agree to disagree.


Yes - when it comes to getting things done in an efficient way I certainly do. There is way too much evidence not to think that way about Washington's bureaucracy. And the internet is the definition of efficiency, at least for now.

Is Verizon, AT & T, Comcast etc. perfect? Of course not. But if you think Washington will do it better then you are at least ignoring recent history.


----------



## fireponcoal

Athlon646464 said:


> And big government will solve those problems? I don't think so. You will see less choice than you would have as time goes on. My point was if you don't like the current situation you're going to hate what you're about to get.


Ok, let me hate it then. I love government control!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Athlon646464

fireponcoal said:


> Ok, let me hate it then. I love government control!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Well, then I'm happy you're happy.

:grin:


----------



## chaney

If anything big government will slow down systems and choke off services due to lack overhead and funding. Then you know how you just love to pay for those wonderful free government cell phones for lower income people. it wont take long before you will see free government subsidized tax paid lower income internet. I can see it causing loss in jobs due to the leaches of this country we give a free ride to.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I'm confused at the "fear" of the "government taking over the Internet"... People do know that the government started the Internet, right?

In the competitive home computer and home entertainment market we have competitors who make sure their stuff isn't directly compatible with each other... whereas the government set out to design the Internet with the goal of being connectable between everyone, no matter what hardware you had. IF the government didn't come up with the Internet, it would not be where it is today with people all over the world able to connect from different hardware and software... we would instead have AT&T users only able to communicate with other AT&T users, and Verizon only able to connect to Verizon, and so forth because they each would have invented their own thing... you know, like how when you buy a cellphone the SIM often only works with one specific cellphone provider and sometimes you even have to buy a new phone entirely if you want to switch carriers!


----------



## SayWhat?

chaney said:


> it wont take long before you will see free government subsidized tax paid lower income internet.


I sure hope so. The Lifeline credit I get only puts a small dent in the bill.

As it is, I pay more for 3M than many pay for 10M or higher.


----------



## SayWhat?

chaney said:


> I for iinstance work in carbondale ks, burlingame ks, scranton, lyndon, osage city, lebo, and many more along highway 75. The average new internet only customer can get a 25mbps down and 3mbps up with 45 ms ping for 12 a month incluincluding the modem rental for 1 year then goes up to 22 after. Please tell me how anyway my companu is greedy compared to companies such as comcast, cox, time warner or charter who for instance cox only offers 5 mbps for 20 no discount or a 50mbps for 66.


Those numbers don't even compute out here in the sticks.. No cable. The average new customer can't get DSL at all, if they do, it's 1Mb for now. I got in at 3M before they had to cut back so as not to overload the system. There's a big upgrade in progress to get DSL available to anyone that wants it, but most will still only get 3M at most. And it's a whole lot higher than $22.

Bring on those Gub'Mint $$$ to help further.


----------



## camo

SayWhat? said:


> Those numbers don't even compute out here in the sticks.. No cable. The average new customer can't get DSL at all, if they do, it's 1Mb for now. I got in at 3M before they had to cut back so as not to overload the system. There's a big upgrade in progress to get DSL available to anyone that wants it, but most will still only get 3M at most. And it's a whole lot higher than $22.
> 
> Bring on those Gub'Mint $$$ to help further.


It really depends on the area of the country. The Plains have fiber everywhere IE Kansas, Nebraska even less populated areas because it's flat and easy to run. Just takes ambitious companies to invest. The small cable company I'm with is soon bringing fiber 50 Mbps speeds to 7-9 rural communities populations 1000-5000. How they can afford to do it I have no idea but its happening along with cable over Ethernet which rivals HD availability that Dish and Directv provide. Directv I think will feel the affect the most, because of lack of locals across much of central Nebraska.


----------



## fireponcoal

Instead of hoping that our countries Internet infrastructure improves because of this we're taking about low income folks getting cell phones. Get ones head out of the talk radio daily bullet points for a second and think logically about this. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SayWhat?

camo said:


> How they can afford to do it I have no idea but its happening ...


They're doing it with the Federal money that others are whining about.

That's what it's supposed to be for ... building the backbone to allow rural areas to get more people on board.

I wish the Big G would take on a rural area task instead of overlaying another system on top of areas that already have several.


----------



## chaney

SayWhat? said:


> Those numbers don't even compute out here in the sticks.. No cable. The average new customer can't get DSL at all, if they do, it's 1Mb for now. I got in at 3M before they had to cut back so as not to overload the system. There's a big upgrade in progress to get DSL available to anyone that wants it, but most will still only get 3M at most. And it's a whole lot higher than $22.
> 
> Bring on those Gub'Mint $$$ to help further.


dsl theres your problem, old crap twisted pair 24 gauge wires that barely can handle phone calls shouldnt be used for internet.


----------



## Athlon646464

fireponcoal said:


> Instead of hoping that our countries Internet infrastructure improves because of this we're taking about low income folks getting cell phones. Get ones head out of the talk radio daily bullet points for a second and think logically about this.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Well, I haven't mentioned cell phones once in my comments. And I understand some of the arguments put forth by folks here who disagree with my point of view.

*By the way, this ruling has nothing to do with infrastructure. Nothing. It has to do with the FCC grabbing the power to regulate internet traffic and how it's delivered.*

The 300+ pages of the ruling haven't been disclosed yet. That alone gives me pause, and when coupled with the history of government causing prices to go up and service to get worse does make me nervous.

The word 'neutrality' has a nice ring to it. But I fear it's a ruse. And, yes, I have a mistrust of government over reach. Yes, I do. And that is not a bad thing. I'm not an angry person. I'm an American, and as such I should have a healthy wariness of too much government power. That's what makes us free.

A quote from Tom Wheeler:

"&#8230;my proposal includes a _general conduct rule_ that can be used to stop new and novel threats to the Internet. This means the action we take will be strong enough and flexible enough not only to deal with the realities of today, but also to establish ground rules for the as yet unimagined."

That is not a talk radio bullet point - it's a fact - he said it.

A 'general conduct' rule? And who decides what that is? Free speech anyone? The greatest tool for freedom of expression to come along in our lifetime is in danger. You cannot have genuine freedom of expression with a government monitor, an overseer, a censor prepared to immediately shut down any "threats" to the state.

Commissioner Ajit Pai has called the new FCC plan "a massive shift in favor of government control of the Internet&#8230;everything from your wireless service plan, to your wire line connection at home."

Again - he said that - not a bullet point - a fact.

This slow erosion of our freedoms gives me pause, and it should give you pause as well.

It's fun to say the government invented the internet, so the government must be good. Actually the government funded some of the research that went into the version of the internet we are using today. They provided much needed funds to colleges and universities so they were able to take Arpanet to the masses. And that was a good thing. That is and should be government's role when it comes to something the masses will benefit from. But then government should get out of the way.

And until this week, that's exactly what Washington did and how the internet has evolved.

The next step in the internet's evolution was that private companies saw profit potential, invested and built the infrastructure. If the government had actually been the ones to do that we'd still be using dial up. I may be exaggerating when I say dial up, but I doubt it would be what we have today. You can't believe it would be better, cost less or be as free as it is today if it was built and controlled by Washington. If you do believe it would, then we must respectfully agree to disagree.

Again - I'm not saying what we have today is perfect by any means. All I'm saying is that given Washington's history - it would/will be worse when they take it over. And in the end, that's what makes me unhappy about the ruling.


----------



## chaney

SayWhat? said:


> They're doing it with the Federal money that others are whining about.
> 
> That's what it's supposed to be for ... building the backbone to allow rural areas to get more people on board.
> 
> I wish the Big G would take on a rural area task instead of overlaying another system on top of areas that already have several.


actually a former co worker just went to a new company called madison tel co who has a 10 year contact with local government to build a 10gig backbone for whole town and surrounding ares no need for big government to help.... enough said. dont like your progress? talk to your local area government in your rural town.


----------



## Chris Blount

I kind of look at like being on a freeway with 10 lanes. The two lanes on the left are the toll lanes where you pay extra to go fast. Now the government swoops in and says no more toll lanes. All of the people that were using the toll lanes now have to use the other lanes or slow down in the left lanes. THIS SLOWS EVERYONE DOWN! On top of the that, the road builders are no longer getting extra cash to improve the freeway. 

In this case, now the ISP's will have no reason to improve their infrastructure for the companies that need fast lanes (like Netflix). On top of that, we will all be paying more because that extra cash is no longer flowing.

Any government intervention is a bad idea period.


----------



## harsh

Mark Holtz said:


> In some aspects, things were better when we had multiple local dial-up providers.


Lots of things were better then simply because the www content was a lot more conservative. Loading a page on a modern forum may require accessing 30 or more different domains now to assess traffic and deliver advertising.


----------



## NR4P

Chris Blount said:


> I kind of look at like being on a freeway with 10 lanes. The two lanes on the left are the toll lanes where you pay extra to go fast. Now the government swoops in and says no more toll lanes. All of the people that were using the toll lanes now have to use the other lanes or slow down in the left lanes. THIS SLOWS EVERYONE DOWN! On top of the that, the road builders are no longer getting extra cash to improve the freeway.
> 
> In this case, now the ISP's will have no reason to improve their infrastructure for the companies that need fast lanes (like Netflix). On top of that, we will all be paying more because that extra cash is no longer flowing.
> 
> Any government intervention is a bad idea period.


Chris glad to see you jump in here. But I don't agree with you on the roads analogy, here's why.
Take I95 for example.
It was built with Federal Funds. All 10 lanes of it in Miami.
But during certain parts of the day, two left lanes are fast lanes. Those that can afford it get to go faster.
But wait, those lanes were built with Federal Funds and now unless I pay more, up to $5.00 one way during rush hour, I can't use them.
That's wrong.

Same thing in other States.

On the other hand, if someone foots the whole bill, 100% of it at their cost, then charge people to use it.
But the internet isn't a private network.

Perhaps your cable MSO or Telco foot the bill to run wires/fiber to your community but the government helped. Those ISP's are riding on top of or within public rights of way. Managed and protected by local or Federal Government.

More important as you operate this great site, what if Cable Co. xxx decides dbstalk conflicts with their messages. dbstalk bashes them. etc. At this moment, they can block dbstalk from every user they choose.
That's the power they have and what the rulemaking is about. The fast lanes got the hype but even slow content can be restricted.


----------



## Wilf

Chris Blount said:


> Any government intervention is a bad idea period.


Then was phone number portability a bad idea because it was mandated by the government - and enforced by the FCC, like net neutrality will be?


----------



## Chris Blount

NR4P said:


> More important as you operate this great site, what if Cable Co. xxx decides dbstalk conflicts with their messages. dbstalk bashes them. etc. At this moment, they can block dbstalk from every user they choose.
> That's the power they have and what the rulemaking is about. The fast lanes got the hype but even slow content can be restricted.


But that is where the free market comes into play. If people don't like this practice, they will choose another provider. With this ruling, competition is stifled.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chris Blount

Wilf said:


> Then was phone number portability a bad idea because it was mandated by the government - and enforced by the FCC, like net neutrality will be?


 That would have happened eventually anyway through a competitive market.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Athlon646464

Chris - just wait until everyone's internet taxes go up (a 16% tax is the current rumor to pay for the new 'watchdog'), just so granny doing only emails next door must have the same pipe to the T1 line that I need to watch Netflix.

This ruling is, as most everything else from Washington, is also a tax grab.


----------



## sigma1914

I see lots of FUD.


----------



## harsh

NR4P said:


> But the internet isn't a private network.


Is it not a patchwork of mostly private networks?

The highways were built and maintained (such as they are) with public monies on public rights of way.


----------



## Chris Blount

Look, let me put it this way. It's obvious I'm somewhat against the government sticking their fingers in where they don't belong. Sure, some regulation is fine on a case by case basis. In this case though, I feel nothing was broken in the first place and as Athlon pointed out, this is going to end up costing all of us more money with little or no return. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh

Doing things on a case-by-case basis seems inherently unfair as timing and political climate can have a big impact.


----------



## Athlon646464

harsh said:


> Is it not a patchwork of mostly private networks?
> 
> The highways were built and maintained (such as they are) with public monies on public rights of way.


Not as private as it was a week ago...


----------



## Stewart Vernon

The problem with "the market will make it happen" is that history shows this to not be true...

Child labor laws were enacted to prevent people from abusing use of children in the workplace... Other workplace safety laws were enacted to prevent, you guessed it, abuse of workers and promote safety in the workplace. You would say "if the employer abuses you, quit and find a new job leave the government out of it" except... if most of the employers have the same shady practices, there is no "other job" to go to...

Can regulation go too far? Sure. Too much health food will make you sick too... you can drown from drinking too much water, which is otherwise needed to live! Your body needs oxygen, but breath pure oxygen and it causes problems... Anything can go too far. Everything in moderation, including moderation... and so forth.

We live in a free country, but that doesn't mean free to do anything. We the people are regulated too! There are laws meant to discourage murder and robbery... those things still happen but there is a mechanism in place to catch and punish transgressors. Without those laws, there would be nothing to discourage the good thief from continuing his job as it would be profitable for him and nobody could stop him. Free speech still doesn't let us stir trouble by yelling "fire" in a crowded public place without penalty.

While we might sometimes disagree on where the line should be... no one can say they don't want a line in the sand somewhere for government to regulate some things. History tells us that without laws and rules and regulations, there are people who will perpetuate things that are bad for everyone. The regulations aren't foolproof either... but we have to start somewhere.

Plus I keep coming back to... the government started the Internet in the first place. This isn't even government taking over something that used to always be private.


----------



## Athlon646464

Stew - the government provided funding which helped get the version of the internet we use today started. Then they got out of the way. That is their role, and surprisingly they adhered to it until last week.

Child workplace laws are about safety - a perfect example of what government is there for.

This ruling has nothing to do with our safety an/or protection. It has to do with regulating content and with collecting more taxes, and in the end more erosion of our freedoms.

Most of my issue is with the way this thing went down. It's not even a law - it's a ruling made by the FCC. Five unelected people on a panel decided on a 300+ page document (which is still secret) that allows unprecedented control of the 'net. 

The irony - you can't even read their ruling on the 'net. :grin:


----------



## inkahauts

And it can and likely will be challeneged


----------



## NR4P

I agree we should be reading the ruling but all the tax shouts are in conflict with the FCC official press release. It says no taxes and no USF. 

Could Congress tax it in the future? Possibly. But for now the FCC says no. 

And up until this ruling your ISP could regulate content. I have seen it done in the past with port blocking. This says they cannot any longer.


----------



## James Long

Athlon646464 said:


> This ruling has nothing to do with our safety an/or protection. It has to do with regulating content and with collecting more taxes, and in the end more erosion of our freedoms.


I have not read the new rules ... I am trying not to freak out too much until I do. It seems that we have more heat than light on the issue. "Fear, uncertainty and doubt" indeed.


----------



## Athlon646464

You are correct. Let's see the document before we go crazy here. 

Some statements by the players, and history have me concerned however.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I guess the thing that gets me on this one...

There is a lot of conjecture about how the government will take over and control/limit stuff... but no evidence to back that up.

Meanwhile, lots of evidence that ISPs were trying to control/limit stuff... but people seem to be ok with that?

That's what confuses me.

It's like when people say "don't let the Feds tell you" but then want to enact a law at the State level to do the same thing... or "don't let the State tell you" and then join a homeowner's association and try to limit you that way.

What I'm saying is... people are always trying to control stuff. Will the government make a mess of it? Maybe. But we already know the ISPs wanted to make a mess of things. We've seen how they handle it without more rigid regulation.

Like the child labor laws I mentioned... why not let the "market" fix that? Surely if most people are against child labor then companies that used it would have lost customers? Except, that never happened... hasn't happened to companies abusing outsourced workforce in other countries either.

Companies are made of people... and people like to get away with stuff when no one is looking. I don't trust the government farther than I can throw them... but the companies aren't earning trust either! We keep bouncing back and forth, and for the moment I think it is time for more regulation in this particular area to crack the whip a little and get the ISPs back in line.


----------



## James Long

Stewart Vernon said:


> Like the child labor laws I mentioned... why not let the "market" fix that? Surely if most people are against child labor then companies that used it would have lost customers?


I agree that most people would be against child labor abuses. But bringing such laws into the conversation just raises the emotion pf the argument (more heat than light). The political appointees at the FCC are not solving child labor.

But thanks to the government (of the people, by the people and for the people) we have child labor laws to protect our children. And wage equality between men and women, whites and minorities. And people are paid a minimum wage that is a living wage. All thanks to the government. (We are not quite done yet as a country - so some of that praise is premature by a generation or more.)

Getting back to the actual issue of net neutrality ... the people praising the yet to be published rules seem to think government can do better than business. Those against the rules seem to think business can do better than government. Somewhere in the middle is the truth.


----------



## Wilf

Remember we are the government. We idiots vote for the idiots that serve in congress. Walt Kelley once wrote a cartoon strip called Pogo, which had a great quote - We have met the enemy and it is us!


----------



## Athlon646464

Wilf said:


> Remember we are the government. *We idiots vote for the idiots that serve in congress.* Walt Kelley once wrote a cartoon strip called Pogo, which had a great quote - We have met the enemy and it is us!


I agree completely.

In this case, however, 5 unelected people made the ruling without any public debate in Congress. And the ruling has still not been disclosed. All we have are statements from some of the 5.


----------



## camo

Athlon646464 said:


> I agree completely.
> 
> In this case, however, 5 unelected people made the ruling without any public debate in Congress. *And the ruling has still not been disclosed.* All we have are statements from some of the 5.


 We Have To Pass it, So You Can Find Out What's In It. :blackeye:


----------



## harsh

Athlon646464 said:


> Not as private as it was a week ago...


The gubmint can't take it over by fiat and they certainly can't afford to acquire and maintain it.

Soon enough the partisan decision of the FCC will meet up with the partisan Congress and feel the necrotizing sting of politics.


----------



## Athlon646464

harsh said:


> The gubmint can't take it over by fiat and they certainly can't afford to acquire and maintain it.


I don't think this ruling is about the 'net's infrastructure. It's about regulating it's content and how that content gets delivered.

As for taking something over by 'fiat', there are recent examples of that nearly happening in very recent history, but I'm trying to walk a fine line here when it comes to politics.


----------



## James Long

Wilf said:


> We idiots vote for the idiots that serve in congress.


I do not vote for idiots ... but I am outnumbered by those who do. 

As far as the ruling ... the government is not taking over ownership of the Internet. They are asserting more control. Private companies will continue to run the Internet - they will just have more influence from "big brother" to tell them how to run their businesses.


----------



## harsh

Athlon646464 said:


> I don't think this ruling is about the 'net's infrastructure.


Remember the threatening dialog back in November where AT&T was talking about merger conditioned fiber network expansion plans being dependent on the final outcome of 'net neutrality.

The entities who operate the infrastructure hold most of the marbles.


----------



## Athlon646464

harsh said:


> Remember the threatening dialog back in November where AT&T was talking about merger conditioned fiber network expansion plans being dependent on the final outcome of 'net neutrality.
> 
> The entities who operate the infrastructure hold most of the marbles.


Again - I was commenting on the ruling. Of course ISP's will react to the ruling - just as most businesses do when Washington makes a change.


----------



## djlong

Just a few things to remember.

Congress has repeatedly resisted taxing the internet - and actively voted against doing that.

Other countries have FAR faster internet access than we do at much better prices.

Corporate ISPs *have* blocked access, throttled users and sold private information without consent.

I may not be a fan of "big government" but I trust "Big Data" FAR less.

Again, my position is to imagine if this was 80 years ago as telephones were becoming popular. In today's corporate culture, AT&T would LOVE to have been able to sell access to your phone - to interrupt your phone calls with "exciting new offers" from paid advertisers to "enhance your phone experience". The FCC stops them from doing that. Are you worried about high-priority data not getting through? We ALREADY HAVE a solution for that - it's called a leased-line. It's completely legal, a private line and has guaranteed levels of service. That's FAR different from taking the trunk lines and cordoning off a section for "special" customers.


----------



## peds48

Athlon646464 said:


> I agree completely.
> 
> In this case, however, 5 unelected people made the ruling without any public debate in Congress. And the ruling has still not been disclosed. All we have are statements from some of the 5.


while there might not been a debate in congress, the genral public did spoke

http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/16/6257887/fcc-net-neutrality-3-7-million-comments-made

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Athlon646464

The way I read most of the comments (including here), many are just happy to blindly spank large companies, even at the cost of some of the freedom we enjoy on the 'net today.

It's the old cut off your nose just to spite your face. Be careful what you wish for. Washington has a long history of screwing things up and making them more expensive for us.

Once they begin to regulate content under the guise of 'neutrality' we'll all be sorry for it. I know some have said there won't be taxes, but I wouldn't take that bet either.


----------



## peds48

Everyone had the chance to comment, those that are in favor and those that were against. it seemed as if there one in favor spoke more loudly


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## djlong

Athlon646464 said:


> The way I read most of the comments (including here), many are just happy to blindly spank large companies, even at the cost of some of the freedom we enjoy on the 'net today.
> 
> It's the old cut off your nose just to spite your face. Be careful what you wish for. Washington has a long history of screwing things up and making them more expensive for us.
> 
> Once they begin to regulate content under the guise of 'neutrality' we'll all be sorry for it. I know some have said there won't be taxes, but I wouldn't take that bet either.


Except they are not regulating content. There are no "freedoms" being infringed upon. This is to make sure the Internet STAYS THE WAY IT IS and treats all data equal. As I said up-topic, if you have a critical need for a certain function (and hospital telecons come to mind), then you buy a PRIVATE line - you do not get to cordon off some of the PUBLIC internet.

Back some years ago, I worked for a company that processed telecommunications data. I've also been involved in situations where private networks are needed. Heck, my current employer has an entire worldwide, secure, encrypted network IN ADDITION to the "non classified" public stuff.


----------



## harsh

djlong said:


> As I said up-topic, if you have a critical need for a certain function (and hospital telecons come to mind), then you buy a PRIVATE line - you do not get to cordon off some of the PUBLIC internet.


It is the belief that a "public Internet" exists in the US that is at the root of the issue. In the US, precious little of the Internet is publicly owned and/or operated -- it is a patchwork of private backbones and networks.

Entitlement is a debilitating epidemic.


----------



## Athlon646464

djlong said:


> Except they are not regulating content. There are no "freedoms" being infringed upon. This is to make sure the Internet STAYS THE WAY IT IS and treats all data equal. As I said up-topic, if you have a critical need for a certain function (and hospital telecons come to mind), then you buy a PRIVATE line - you do not get to cordon off some of the PUBLIC internet.
> 
> Back some years ago, I worked for a company that processed telecommunications data. I've also been involved in situations where private networks are needed. Heck, my current employer has an entire worldwide, secure, encrypted network IN ADDITION to the "non classified" public stuff.


So, a 317 page document that does nothing? hmmm What a waste of time and effort just to keep the status quo.

I understand the frustration and lack of trust many have with the Comcasts of the world. I mistrust large corporations as well. My trust level is generally proportionate to their size.

For example, I trust my neighbor - I know him. I trust the guy who owns the local hardware store. I know them. My trust level begins to drop off the larger the company/corporation is. Size-wise the Government dwarfs all of them, so I trust them even less than Comcast for example. And that's really where folks opinion on this diverges. It's all about who you trust. Some trust Washington more than Comcast. I don't.

At least with Comcast we as consumers have some say, however minimal that is. Sad to say, but we have even less to say about what Washington does. And don't tell me we can vote the bums out. In the end there is very little difference in who gets voted for in today's world.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I'm neither pro corporation or pro government... too much of anything is a bad thing... as I've said before, everything in moderation... including moderation! That applies to regulation as well.

The thing we are faced with here, though... the government wasn't trying to take something away from the public... companies were trying to take something away from the public and the government stopped that. Unless we find out there is something else sinister in the pipe, I don't see why there is panic and outrage here. The Internet didn't change since last week that I'm aware of... did it?

Companies have routinely and publicly stated things they wanted to do to curb Internet usage or restrict access or prevent some customers from even getting broadband in some parts of the country... That seems to be to be everything people are freaking out afraid the government "might" do... while somehow giving a pass to all the companies that were already doing just that fearful thing!


----------



## Athlon646464

Who here is giving the companies a pass?


----------



## James Long

djlong said:


> This is to make sure the Internet STAYS THE WAY IT IS and treats all data equal.





Athlon646464 said:


> So, a 317 page document that does nothing? hmmm What a waste of time and effort just to keep the status quo.


Putting a lock on my bicycle when I park it is doing something to preserve the status quo (ownership of the bike). Preserving the status quo is doing something.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Athlon646464 said:


> Who here is giving the companies a pass?


There are a lot of people condemning the government for stuff they have yet to do via this new set of regulations... but aren't recognizing that companies were already doing those exact things they claim they fear the government might do... that seems like giving the companies a pass to me. Am I wrong?


----------



## Athlon646464

As for me, see my post #84.



Athlon646464 said:


> For example, I trust my neighbor - I know him. I trust the guy who owns the local hardware store. I know them. My trust level begins to drop off the larger the company/corporation is. Size-wise the Government dwarfs all of them, so I trust them even less than Comcast for example. And that's really where folks opinion on this diverges. It's all about who you trust. Some trust Washington more than Comcast. I don't.


----------



## fleckrj

The difference between corporations and the government is that corporations answer only to their shareholders. They are obligated to do whatever increases profit regardless of how it affects the customer. The government, at least prior to Citizen's United, answers to the public. Citizen's United; however, has given corporations more power over the government, but that is a topic for a different rant. 

In general, deregulation has been a disaster for markets that are too small to have competition. Corporations profit more from deregulation, but the customer, especially in small markets, is paying more. Government relation is necessary to create a level playing field.


----------



## b52pooh

The problem as I see it, was that the FCC "Panel" that voted on this took comments from the public, but no one knew what was in the document. I, personally, am tired of the "let's pass this so we can see what's in it" philosophy. How's that Affordable Care Act working for you?


----------



## Stuart Sweet

OK, let's not go there. This isn't about politics, it's about technology.


----------



## fleckrj

It is all about politics. Some people feel the government should regulate the industry so that everyone plays by the same rules, and other people want the government to give business the freedom to set its own rules regardless of what effect that will have on anyone else. It comes down to whether everyone should be able to pay the same rate for the same service, or whether the industry should decide what content gets transmitted at what speed, and whether the ISP can block some content or charge more for some content.


----------



## Athlon646464

fleckrj said:


> It is all about politics. Some people feel the government should regulate the industry so that everyone plays by the same rules, and other people want the government to give business the freedom to set its own rules regardless of what effect that will have on anyone else. It comes down to whether everyone should be able to pay the same rate for the same service, or whether the industry should decide what content gets transmitted at what speed, and whether the ISP can block some content or charge more for some content.


You make it sound black and white - it's not that simple. It's not one or the other. It's a slippery slope for me on the most important invention in our lifetime and what has been the most free way to communicate in history.

In my town, for example, we have Charter Cable as our provider. That gives me 2 choices for internet, Verizon DSL (slow) or Charter Cable. I chose Charter Cable because of their rate/speed/cost combination.

If the folks 'running' our town (government) had done the right thing about 5 years ago, we would also have FIOS as a choice. My guess is someone's palm didn't get greased (speculation on my part), or they held Verizon hostage for a new school donation. In any case, government got involved and Verizon went to the next town instead. I know my rate/speed combination would be lower today if FIOS was in town.

If we had a choice here, I really do believe the competition would have eventually sorted bad practices out. Look at the current price war with cell phones for a good example. The government did a good thing and broke up that monopoly (a job of government) and the resulting competition has been lowering rates and giving us cell phone choice.

What you are talking about is the government setting rates. That would actually stifle competition and slow the growth of technology as a result. In the long run we would suffer for the immediate perceived benefit (fairness). Why would Comcast want to invest more for less profit? Why would they advance technology?

If we had true competition, and not over regulated meddling, you could then chose a provider with the fairest deal for you. They would then have to continue to compete for your business.

This ruling goes beyond that. It gives them the ability to regulate traffic. Free speech could suffer. It's a slippery slope thing. It may be a 1 on a scale 1 to 10, but we will not have the same freedoms online we had a month ago. They have their foot in the door. I trust them less than I do Charter, Comcast and FIOS competing for my business. That's where you and I differ. And that's okay.

You trust the government more. I get that. I'm in my 60's and have seen in my lifetime an erosion of our liberties, property rights and now the potential erosion of what may be the greatest invention in our lifetime - the internet. And yes, I know, the government funded the research to get the version of what we are using today off the ground. That is their role when something touches all of us for our benefit. Fund it and then get out of the way. Until last month, that was the story of the internet.

I know I sound down about this. I may change my tune when the ruling is published, but the fact that it is not published really frosts my ass. And makes me very suspicious. Three of the five who voted on the ruling are in the camp of monitoring speech and content. They have said as much in public. Two of them actually want to limit right wing talk radio. I don't listen to it, but I would fight for the right for it to exist.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

The thing about competition being good for all... it's a semi-myth. Real-life doesn't always work that way.

IF two companies want the same customers, then competition does work in the consumer's favor... because each company will try to improve product offerings AND lower prices to get that market.

Cool!

BUT... when the dust settles... and Company A has market A locked up... and Company B has market B locked up... "competition" is now an illusion. Each company has reached a point where it costs them too much per customer to try and steal from the other company... this also means there is not a reason to be competitive anymore... and both companies start to do the things they wanted to do all along, knowing you don't really have much choice and their competitor isn't going to offer you anything attractive enough for a large customer exodus.

Now, I'm not arguing the government needs to fix ALL of these situations... but the "market correction" argument falls apart at certain points in the free market. Customers do have leverage, but not enough to make a difference once co-dependency has set in and you need Internet and they know you need it.

So, it's a delicate balance between regulation and freedom... just like all things. We have laws against lots of things that otherwise would be "freedoms" in part to curb the bad behavior that people invariably exhibit when left to their own devices. If people were inherently honest and nice, there would be no laws against stealing and killing... but in any society, there are people who do these things regardless of the law BUT more importantly, people on the fence who might do it IF they weren't afraid of the punishment. FCC regulations do the same thing. Some companies are going to push the line no matter what... but other companies don't want to rock the boat and these regulations will prevent them from doing harmful things. FCC regulation doesn't have to go any farther than that.

Keep your eyes open, of course... but "the sky is falling" over new regulations seems premature given what companies were already doing that was already harmful to the freedom of the Internet.


----------



## harsh

Stuart Sweet said:


> OK, let's not go there. This isn't about politics, it's about technology.


The problem is that it IS about politics. The partisan split on the vote made that very clear.


----------



## NR4P

Athlon646464 said:


> *This ruling goes beyond that. It gives them the ability to regulate traffic. Free speech could suffer.* It's a slippery slope thing. It may be a 1 on a scale 1 to 10, but we will not have the same freedoms online we had a month ago. They have their foot in the door. I trust them less than I do Charter, Comcast and FIOS competing for my business. That's where you and I differ. And that's okay.


The FCC docs I've posted state just the opposite. 
But maybe I missed something. Can you please post something that maybe I missed?


----------



## WestDC

What this will do is allow all the broad band company's to put meters on usage -just like Electric company and that will become taxable making revenue to be taken and to fund the Company's & gov't coffers.

MONEY GRAB = NET-Neutrality


----------



## Athlon646464

NR4P said:


> The FCC docs I've posted state just the opposite.
> But maybe I missed something. Can you please post something that maybe I missed?


Where are the docs? I haven't seen them and would very much like to read them.

As I've said over and over I thought they were unpublished. I've been speculating based on the chairman's past comments and public statements made by the 5 unelected committee members who voted for the new rules.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

WestDC said:


> What this will do is allow all the broad band company's to put meters on usage -just like Electric company and that will become taxable making revenue to be taken and to fund the Company's & gov't coffers.
> 
> MONEY GRAB = NET-Neutrality


Umm... broadband companies already want to meter usage and have caps and charge you for usage. This ruling has nothing to do with that. Also, taxing of usage could happen whether it is metered usage or not. IF they wanted to impose a tax, a flat fee on each broadband speed tier would be the easiest way to do it. I've seen no drive to do this, however.


----------



## harsh

Why is it that when someone's advertising or retail product is pressured that "Free Speech" is the howl?

I see this as similar to the argument that exotic dancing is "protected" by freedom of expression; the protections are for exhibiting your _personal_ opinion, not any other part of your person.


----------



## NR4P

Here is the FCC released order

View attachment NN Order Feb 2015 FCC-15-24A1.pdf
.


----------



## harsh

The order seems to be more about the FCC's victory over Verizon than anything new or game changing.

I'm unable to pick out what's new (if anything) from the self promotion.


----------



## Athlon646464

harsh said:


> The order seems to be more about the FCC's victory over Verizon than anything new or game changing.
> 
> I'm unable to pick out what's new (if anything) from the self promotion.


New (and game changing): applying Title II rules to broadband.

While I'm happy to see there is nothing in there that may hinder free speech, I still maintain that this ruling may raise costs and hinder investment in our broadband infrastructure in both the short and especially long run.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I don't see where this particular ruling will result in higher costs. Companies were doing that on their own... raising prices, claiming it "wasn't worth" upgrading some areas... refusing to build in some neighborhoods AND petitioning local government to prevent those customers from developing their own broadband in areas the companies said "weren't profitable"... and so forth.

The companies have been as much about higher prices and against freedom as anything I've seen in the discussion about the FCC "coming down" on anything.

Imagine if the same was true of phone companies... oh wait, it kind of was at one point and the government broke AT&T up over it which is how we got the competition in phone service that we have today.


----------



## peds48

> Talking a Big Game
> 
> The story starts a decade ago, when suits at Big Telecom gave everybody reason to think their Internet provider would throw a tollgate in front of any popular site.
> 
> "Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that, because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it," SBC CEO Ed Whitacre told BusinessWeek in 2005 as if he had been personally stringing wire from telephone poles.
> 
> Later that year, BellSouth Chief Technology Officer William L. Smith said that company (which SBC later bought after renaming itself AT&T) ought to be able to charge a search engine for having faster loading times than its competitors.
> 
> And in 2006, Verizon Senior Vice President John Thorne decried Google for "enjoying a free lunch that should, by any rational account, be the lunch of the facilities providers"- as if it were a slacker on the couch borrowing the neighbor's Wi-Fi, not a company that's spent billions on data centers and high-speed links.
> 
> Opponents of stronger net neutrality rules can fairly argue that we haven't seen many examples of the abuse they'd prevent (aside from Netflix becoming unwatchably slow over some large ISPs). *But they can't say these fears didn't come straight from telco executives' own mouths*.


It came from the horses mouth....

Full story here


----------

