FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules 631
muggs sends word that the U.S. Federal Communications Commission has voted 3-2 to approve an expansion of their ability to regulate ISPs by treating them as a public utility.
Under the rules, it will be illegal for companies such as Verizon or Cox Communications to slow down streaming videos, games and other online content traveling over their networks. They also will be prohibited from establishing "fast lanes" that speed up access to Web sites that pay an extra fee. And in an unprecedented move, the FCC could apply the rules to wireless carriers such as T-Mobile and Sprint -- a nod to the rapid rise of smartphones and the mobile Internet. ... The FCC opted to regulate the industry with the most aggressive rules possible: Title II of the Communications Act, which was written to regulate phone companies. The rules waive a number of provisions in the act, including parts of the law that empower the FCC to set retail prices — something Internet providers feared above all. However, the rules gives the FCC a variety of new powers, including the ability to: enforce consumer privacy rules; extract money from Internet providers to help subsidize services for rural Americans, educators and the poor; and make sure services such as Google Fiber can build new broadband pipes more easily.
nice, now for the real fight (Score:5, Insightful)
4-5 years in the courts...
Re:nice, now for the real fight (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:nice, now for the real fight (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that this ideal world is completely imaginary, and the things that the free market is supposed to do in it never actually happen in the real world, why imagine a world where it's specifically free markets that have these magical powers? Why not an imaginary world where these things happen without free markets? Why not one where elves come in the middle of the night and solve everything?
Or, if this ideal world you've imagined doesn't map to the real one, why not try to imagine one that does?
Re:nice, now for the real fight (Score:5, Informative)
Given that this ideal world is completely imaginary, and the things that the free market is supposed to do in it never actually happen in the real world, why imagine a world where it's specifically free markets that have these magical powers? Why not an imaginary world where these things happen without free markets? Why not one where elves come in the middle of the night and solve everything?
Or, if this ideal world you've imagined doesn't map to the real one, why not try to imagine one that does?
I find it odd that there's the sort of idea that government regulation is somehow inherently anti-competitive in the US. If the government wants to be anti-competitive, they'll just say that business isn't allowed to do X and monopolize that function themselves.
If there were no limits to free market, the majority of the population would be morphine addicts, or possibly something even more addictive.
Re:nice, now for the real fight (Score:4, Insightful)
Wireless spectrum is limited. Right-of-way access is limited. The number of potential customers is limited. Sources of capital needed to build infrastructure is limited.
I heard your technical monopoly (artificially created by government) theory before, but I believe that when it comes to supplying "the last mile" of high speed internet there is no such thing as pure technical monopoly.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:nice, now for the real fight (Score:5, Insightful)
Municipal governments grant monopoly access to cable and phone companies who double as ISPs.
The harsh reality of building physical infrastructure is that you MUST have government force involved, for the power of eminent domain. Otherwise it would be impossible to negotiate contracts with individual landowners for rights-of-way, easements, etc for every single plot of land that needs to be traversed. And one person could block construction (or make it too expensive to route around) for everyone else.
The only real answer to this is having the government (i.e. the public) own all infrastructure, and lease it out for service providers. That would have required some long term planning to contract out all the building work but retain ownership.
Re:nice, now for the real fight (Score:5, Insightful)
In an ideal world, the free market would step in and protect consumers in place of the government having to do so.
You think so? Isn't it the free market which lead to the situation that we have today with a few major companies having the power to control the network and shut out competitors? Did all that happen in some sort of socialist vacuum?
Re: (Score:3)
Who else has that power to restrict the competition?
The laws of physics [wikipedia.org]?
Re: nice, now for the real fight (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, because what we have now is really working...The ISPs brought this on themselves, they are trying to at like toll boths to me, I dont pay them to be that, and I dont have the ability to stop it. If they had not acted in this way then this would not have happened.
Re: nice, now for the real fight (Score:5, Informative)
They literally did. The FCC tried to put into place weak rules that would have done nothing. Verizon sued (over the objections of the other major ISPs) and got the rules thrown out. However, the courts said if the FCC wanted to put network neutrality rules into place, they needed to use Title II.
So Verizon is either to blame or to thank (depending on which side of the debate that you're on) for these rules.
Re: nice, now for the real fight (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not happy about government intervention usually but with the way the ISP's were going something had to be done. The greedy bastards at AT&T and Verizon and Comcast and others caused this.
Re: nice, now for the real fight (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: nice, now for the real fight (Score:5, Informative)
Comcast is fighting against this tooth and nail and has promised to file lawsuits to stop it.
But don't let facts get in the way of your political bullshit.
Re: nice, now for the real fight (Score:5, Interesting)
Cpmcast will win their lawsuite too.
The FCC back in 1998 already determined with well thought out reasoning that congress never intended the internet to be regulated under title 2 and stated so clearly with lots of supporting evidence that its intent was as an information service. They even mention their computers II working paper that the 1998 law was modeled after. No law concerning this has changed since either.
You can find this report in ghe federal register as the bi anual report to congress on accessability or something like that. It is the only FCC report to congress in march or may of 1988. The internet stuff is around page 28 or so. I am posting from a phone so your google finger will have to look it up.
Re: nice, now for the real fight (Score:4, Interesting)
Yep. I have had to fight with them on so many levels, in both personal and professional settings; they were bad actors. They've brought regulation on themslelves because they've done bad things and then they've tried to shut down discussion of the issue while stonewalling any form of redress. I can't wait for them to become a utility, as in France, where the speeds to the curb are a damn sight faster than here in the Valley....
Re: nice, now for the real fight (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: nice, now for the real fight (Score:5, Informative)
As a Libertarian, I am often dismayed by other Libertarians saying "all regulation is bad". But that's not the actual Libertarian philosophy. Which is "the minimum regulation that works". Too many have seemed to forget those all-important last 2 words.
Clear back to Adam Smith, it was clear that free market forces could lead to monopoly or oligopoly. And that's where the government's role comes in: antitrust laws keep people playing within the rules of an open, free market.
But Congress has abdicated its responsibility in recent years, in regard to antitrust. It, and its regulators, have allowed mergers that would have been laughed at 20 years ago.
As a result: giant net providers like Comcast and Verizon. They have formed an oligopoly, not a free market. As such regulation is absolutely necessary. All these people shouting "no regulation of free markets" are off their nuts. There hasn't been one.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As a Libertarian, I am often dismayed by other Libertarians saying "all regulation is bad". But that's not the actual Libertarian philosophy. Which is "the minimum regulation that works". Too many have seemed to forget those all-important last 2 words.
If you're a Libertarian how do you feel about the second vote, the one where the FCC is claiming for itself the authority to preempt State level legislation against municipal broadband services? [dslreports.com] I am not a Libertarian, nor a Republican, but I find that vote extremely disturbing; it has always been the sole province of the States to set the parameters within which their political subdivisions operate. If New York State wishes to preclude my municipality from setting up an ISP what business is that of the F
Re: (Score:3)
I am generally supportive of what the FCC is trying to do with Title II but they're going a bridge too far if they think it's appropriate to step into the middle of the relationship between States and their political subdivisions.
Just as with regulation, I am tempted to agree. But on the other hand, those State laws are pretty definitely protectionist and anti-competitive in nature. Considering that they also very definitely involve interstate commerce (the internet), I would -- very reluctantly -- have to side with the FCC on this one too.
The vast majority of the time I would be in favor of States' rights to see to their own business. But again I think this is really a necessary thing. I am just as much in favor of the cities wh
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, regulating greed doesn't work. You have to fix the problem. You have to have a society of people that aren't greedy. Good luck with that!
"We're greedy! Let us run the show! We know what's best!"
"No, you are providing a valuable service and doing a shitty job of it. We're here to make you do a better job."
"Oh, ok! That's fine, we want to do a better job. Just know that it will make our service more expensive."
"We will be back later with more regulations ... "
Re: nice, now for the real fight (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, regulating greed doesn't work. You have to fix the problem. You have to have a society of people that aren't greedy. Good luck with that!
It worked pretty well with telephones for 40-50 years. Granted, significant corruption was leaking in toward the end, but for a very long time the ill effects of monolithic monopoly were kept at bay, while we kept the advantages (i.e., world's best interoperability, reasonable rates for their day).
During that time, in some countries in Europe which allowed competition in the market, you couldn't call the neighbor on one side because he was using a different phone company, and even the respective voltages were not compatible. And you couldn't call the other neighbor on the other side, because she was on yet a different company. And there were 3 times as many wires on the poles.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Seeing your job as an anti-neutrality shill drying up, are we?
Re: nice, now for the real fight (Score:5, Funny)
I hope so. The longer the fccstays the fuckout of t he Internet, th e better.
You see, if we already Net Neutrality rules in place, your ISP wouldn't be able to screw up your connection so badly that your text isn't even making it through in the right order.
Re: (Score:3)
You see, if we already Net Neutrality rules in place...
My ISP wouldn't be able to screw up my connection so badly that entire words get dropped.
Re: (Score:3)
He likely wouldn't have internet af all. These rules allow service providers to flood the profitable markets and ignore the unprofitable ones. Expect rate increases in those unprofitable markets like low income areas and places where yhe population density isn't high.
Forgive my ignorance, but what regulation has been requiring ISPs to provide cheap access in unprofitable market up until now? If the answer is "none" then what makes you think these new rules will cause unprofitable markets to be any more undeserved than they currently are?
Re: nice, now for the real fight (Score:4, Insightful)
A better option would be getting some of the larger carriers, webhosting companies, regular users, activists alike and forming an alliance to keep comcast from regulating the internet. Either no one was intrested, or didn't care enough. the FCC option is better than nothing.
Re: nice, now for the real fight (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Can't be enforced. (Score:4, Insightful)
Is there a definition of what is THE internet?
Its the internetwork connect. Its a framework of voluntarily linking connections for mutual
surely comcast can create a parallel construction and sell however they wish like a private toll road. It could have discrete points where it could tap into the "real" internet. Thus amazon or netflix or whomever could connect into this autobahn on the goes-into side and pop out into "the" internet at some Comcast hub in the customers town.
If this happens, I'll eat my hat. No one is going to buy anything but the real internet, and you won't see company set up shop without users, which are all on the real internet. Also, the instant they start offering an internet gateway they become an ISP and regulatable, so there is no loophole. If they don't, they will need content on their private network, which no one is going to provide, because most of the content exists outside their networks. No one wants their shitty content, and thats their problem. If people did, they wouldn't have to throttle netflix for competing with their services.
Picture it like FED Ex, transporting a package 90% of the way, then mailing it. the postoffice might not charge differently for different customers and Fed Ex might not either (or they could) but only customers with valuable deliveries would be willing to pay the cost of the combined service, which would be dominated by the Fed Ex high speed service.
almost completely diffrent because niether fedex nor the post office own any of the infrasturcture, just the delievery mechanism. Any delivery service can use the same roads.
Re:Can't be enforced. (Score:5, Insightful)
As I understand it, the FCC and the description of common carriers under "Title II" of the Communications Act of 1934 was created by Congress. The FCC is ruling that Internet Service Providers are "common carriers" under the language of Title II, and not "information service providers" under the language of Title I. This ruling includes adjustments/interpretations of the Title II language as the FCC envisions it would be applied to Internet Service Providers.
The FCC didn't give themselves this authority, the FCC was created by Congress to have this authority.
Re:Can't be enforced. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, I'm getting annoyed at this whole "years in court" thing too. Title II is NOT new. It was established in 1933-4? and lasted until the late 90s I believe. Title II is very well tested. Further, we've had several DC circuit court cases in 2014 where the judges said that the FCC had the authority if they reclassified. They have. Done Deal.
They left out one important detail though... we didn't get unbundling back. It used to be that the phone carriers had to lease their lines to whomever asked for a decent price. That let mom and pop ISPs into the field to compete on service, and it was awesome for creating competition.
The big thing that is missing (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there is no local loop unbundling. This was the real solution. With competition to supply the service who cares if comcast or time warner are pieces of crap. You can drop them like hot potatoes. Instead we have more control and less freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The big thing that is missing (Score:5, Insightful)
local loop unbundling may have been a better choice, but just like actual single payer socialized healthcare, it's likely a bridge too far in the current political climate.
more control is not the same as less freedom. they aren't antithetical.
in this case, we are simply preserving the current status quo of the internet, which is that Comcast cant block Netflix and force you to use hulu.
which by the way is still a concern even if actual forced competition were to occur.
in an ideal free market, the companies wouldn't be able to force you to use their service, but an ideal free market along with ideal competition doesn't exist regulatory intervention anyway, because by their very definition free markets inevitably devolve.
Re:The big thing that is missing (Score:5, Interesting)
Once again, this is about logical net neutrality, not physical net neutrality, which is a whole other ball of wax. This is about making sure that Comcast doesn't charge you extra for access to NetFlix or Twitch.tv, and then turn around and charge NetFlix and Twitch.tv more to access you. Because prior to Title II classification, that was entirely possible.
Local loop unbundling is not a simple thing and does have significant technical barriers and significant cost. Politics is a slow, gradual, arduous process. It will take time to get where we need to be. Don't proclaim the journey a failure because the first step was taken with the left foot instead of the right.
So when do we get to SEE these rules? (Score:4, Insightful)
So when do they release these 322 pages of new rules? With all this transparency, what could POSSIBLY go wrong?! /s
I mean, after the broadcast flag incident, how is it everyone so comfortable with letting the FCC become the packet police? The regular court system has proved to be inadequate... when?
Re:So when do we get to SEE these rules? (Score:4, Insightful)
The FCC sucks. Allowing ISPs to openly and brazenly fuck over content producers and their own customers is worse. The ISPs brought this on themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably once they get them on their site..
They already have the key parts of it there, for someone who would actually look instead of be spoon fed by an entertainment network:
http://www.fcc.gov/document/fc... [fcc.gov]
Re:So when do we get to SEE these rules? (Score:4, Funny)
Ouch. you can't present facts to the Fox crowd. They have never seen a fact before, it is an alien thing. It sparks a fight-or-flight response.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a bit curious why the leftist talking points right now seem to solely be focusing on Fox News. Even the EFF had serious issues with the vast extent of the FCC's net neutrality rules, see, e.g.:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/dear-fcc-rethink-those-vague-general-conduct-rules [eff.org]
I do not know what the status is of the general conduct rules. Do you?
How will this affect the current Netflix/ISP fight (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm assuming such deals are now rendered unenforceable.
is it 4/1 already (Score:5, Funny)
this seems to good to be true... it's what the populace wants, what the corporations didn't, and it makes sense.
I can't correlate this with being a current government agency that interfaces between the public and commerce...
after so many time being disappointed by the choices our government makes i guess im in battered wife syndrome type shock.
Re: (Score:3)
this seems to good to be true... it's what the populace wants, what the corporations didn't, and it makes sense.
Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Netflix aren't corporations, now?
I don't understand the need to delude oneself about the parties on each side of the debate.
Lots of corporations wanted this badly (Score:4, Interesting)
it's what the populace wants, what the corporations didn't
All sorts of corporations wanted this passed.
It's 300 pages. Does what *you* wanted take 300 pages to express? No? HMM.
Good luck with that, as the saying goes. I am really looking forward to you all finding out what has really happened today.
Re: (Score:3)
I just don't understand that logical leap. How is the FCC controlling "every bit that flows across the country"? They're saying ISPs can't exert control over which bits. How does that mean the government de facto gets that control? Seriously. I don't get it at all.
My Mon Cal sense is going off... (Score:4, Interesting)
"IT'S (probably*) A TRAP!"
- Rear Admiral Akquixotic of the Mon Calamari
*: There's a small chance that this will end up actually helping consumers. A broken clock is right twice a day, and a reg-captured FCC occasionally does things that benefit the common man.
For example, the Block C Open Access provisions on Verizon and AT&T's LTE bands (or at least some of them) are what prevented these carriers from preventing tethering or the use of custom devices. Any FCC-certified device, rooted or not, tethering or not, can be on those bands, and there's nothing the carrier can do to stop it without breaking the law.
Those provisions have been a lifesaver for many customers of these two carriers who want to use the LTE from their phone to tether a laptop on the go, but don't want to pay extra or buy dedicated hardware for it. So the FCC definitely helped in a pragmatic sense with those rules.
Then again, I'm sure the industry coalitions have fully formed lawsuits written up, signed, in the envelope, and just waiting to be mailed when this decision hit. Who knows how long it'll be until the results of this trickle down through carrier policy and plan offerings to affect the everyman?
It's a step in the right direciton but... (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't go far enough. What we really need is to separate content creators from the network providers. Have a separate utility company that only provides your internet connection and nothing else. That way, every company that wants to sell you product is on 100% equal footing. Make the market truly free for everyone to participate on a level playing field. After all, isn't that what's most fair to everyone? Distributing your cable TV service over your now independent internet link will open it up so you can get your TV service from anyone you want. Think of what the competition will do to the industry and how much better it will be for the consumer.
Oh wait. I forgot that the cable companies will bribe everyone in congress they can in order to keep their municipal monopolies firmly entrenched. So much for real free markets and competition. Rats.
Re: (Score:2)
Coming: Revenge of the junk fees (Score:3)
I approve of the FCC decision, but I have a concern about lack of regulation on pricing matters.
I suspect this will end up like POTS. Here is a sample of a future bill.
25/5 Broadband Service Base Fee $39.99
Advertising Fee $20.00
Plant maintenance Fee $20.00
Regulatory Capture Fee $20.00
Washington Lobbying Fee $20.00
Bandwidth Fee for data over the cap limit 100.00
Total amount due this month: $219.99
Some action on the FCC's part to limit these fees will be required in the future.
So netflix no longer has to pay Comcast?? (Score:5, Interesting)
How Time Warner, et al, Will Defeat This (Score:5, Insightful)
How companies like Time Warner will defeat Net Neutrality: Self-divestiture.
The "Time Warner Cable/Internet" you know of today becomes a myriad of companies specifically designed to continue on with business as usual while still adhering to the letter of the law:
- Time Warner Broadband - a company which does nothing more than operate Hybrid-Fiber-Coax outside plant (the actual wires on the actual poles).
- Time Warner Cable - a company which leases spectrum from TWB (above), and provides cable-video service on that outside plant
- Time Warner Transit - a company which does nothing more than provide wholesale (non-retail, non-mass-market) internet connectivity to ISPs and other service providers. As a wholesaler, TWT is not encumbered by net neutrality regulations.
- Time Warner Internet - a company which leases spectrum from TWB (above) to provide IP connectivity to end-users. It obtains *all* of its internet connectivity from TWT (above), and charges metered billing to all its end-users (you pay a flat rate PLUS you pay "by the bit", the same way you pay for water or electric today).
Netflix, et al, will have to tithe properly to TWT if they want access to TWI's customers, since TWT is the only path to GET to TWI's customers. The FCC can't really punish TWI for this move, without opening up an even messier Pandora's box of trying to tell ISPs "which upstreams they HAVE to obtain connectivity from".
Yes, it'll all be a LITTLE more complicated than that, but they've got teams of lawyers to work out the details.
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks Obama! (Score:3)
Re:Get ready for metered service (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean like the ISPs already seem to want to go to?
Re: (Score:2)
Won't the market solve this problem? ISPs with smaller limits will be at a disadvantage?
Re: (Score:2)
Won't the market solve this problem? ISPs with smaller limits will be at a disadvantage?
What market?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, if new players can lay fiber now, we might start to see one.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
second world country called the United States
Can you people please learn what first, second, and third world mean/meant.
First world - Connected to the United States and the West diplomatically.
Second world - Inside the Soviet sphere of influence, I guess this applies to Russia today.
Third world - Nations not allied with any side in the cold war. This had a connotation of rather backwards less developed. This was not necessarily the case of all Third world places though. It simply meant they were not strategically interesting enough to First or Secon
Re:Get ready for metered service (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm in a city of 50,000, in a country of 4.5 million. I have more choices than I can poke a stick at. The company that owns the copper is not allowed to sell internet access and the wholesale price they charge is regulated.
There's also fibre.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because gas and water are matter that gets consumed. Physical things that need to be transported. Electricity has to be generated and the charge differential is consumed. Transmitting a lot or a little data uses nothing, except maybe minuscule amounts of extra electricity once the infrastructure exists. Metering data usage is a transparent cash grab.
Re:Get ready for metered service (Score:5, Interesting)
They do that out here. The cities have laid a fiber network and charge a small fee to anyone who hooks up to it. The providers are all given equal access to that network. We have 12 of them, and they fight tooth and nail to get your business. No caps, cheap costs, and customer service just this side of fellatio.
Re:How do we know? (Score:5, Informative)
What process has been in secret? He has been open from the start. Just because republicans state it has been a secret does not actually mean it has been, unless you watch Fox news.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How do we know? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you mean 8 pages of regulations, 300 pages of summary. I mean unless you are claiming that citing justifications is the same thing as a regulation... Also what do the people lose, besides the ability for the ISPs to unilaterally act as paid gate keepers to us...
Re:How do we know? (Score:4, Insightful)
so then you're opposed to the internet as it stands right now?
you oppose the preservation of the status quo in lieu of ISP's being able to block services they don't want you do have?
Say being blocked from Amazon Prime and forced into Verizon Prime?
Or Comcast redirecting Netflix users to Hulu?
Or otherwise turning internet delivery into a fancier cable channel, with certain websites available in certain tiers of service?
You're a shill.
Or a liar.
Or just ignorant.
But likely all 3.
Net neutrality is the basis of the internet as we know it: ISPs provide access to the entire internet, not just the parts they want us to see.
If you like the internet as it stands, then you like NN. \
It's that f!@#()% simple.
Re:How do we know? (Score:5, Informative)
Rush Limbaugh remembers the days of the fairness doctrine [wikipedia.org]. There are a handful of politicians who think it should make a comeback. I'm not a big fan of Mr. Limbaugh's but in his defense if you read what has been said by supporters of the Fairness Doctrine it would send shivers up your spine:
The shooting is cause for the country to rethink parameters on free speech, Clyburn said from his office, just blocks from the South Carolina Statehouse. He wants standards put in place to guarantee balanced media coverage with a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, in addition to calling on elected officials and media pundits to use 'better judgment.'
Most people, left or right would recoil whenever a politician starts talking about a need to rethink the "parameters of free speech."
Re:How do we know? (Score:4, Insightful)
Fox News refusing to show you the open and up front discussions on this does not mean they didn't happen. You should try a different source for your information.
Re:How do we know? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How do we know? (Score:5, Insightful)
this ladies and gentlemen is the RWNJ Brain At Work.
They (the FCC) literally have a series of meeting, press releases, and publicly proposed rules, public commentary, all saying "Here it is! This is what we want to do, what do you think?", and still the RWNJ's decry "we have no idea what's going on, why won't they tell us what's going on, they're hiding it from us".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Be careful what you ask for... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Be Careful What You Wish For (Score:4, Informative)
There is no what it "might do" it is what they have been actively doing, and trying to get money out of...Also there is nothing in this that allows the NSA to get taps on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Be Careful What You Wish For (Score:4, Informative)
Your hatred of Comcast and fear of what it might do has lead to the biggest restrictions on freedom since the Patriot Act
Your sense of reality needs to be rebooted. "Might do?" They've been doing it openly, for a couple of years now, you twit. You're the one pissing your panties over imaginary "might do" and using bullshit conspiracy theorist "reasoning". Look up how much censorship power Title II gave over landlines, for starters.
Jesus Tapdancing Christ. You need your dosage upped.
Re: (Score:3)
Silicon Valley not only backs it, they created it.
The father of the internet supports it.
It's nothing secret, its simply the codification of the current status quo.
As for "what Comcast might do" ... they've ALREADY DONE IT. Several times. Tried several more. Its why they oppose NN in the first place, and if they could have gotten NN declared totally dead (instead of merely struck down on technicality a few years ago) they wou;d have been even more brazen more immediately.
"This whole thing" (your post) is a
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly, my Title II regulated Phone line is constantly being censored.
Re: (Score:3)
Disregarding your rant against Fox News, the EFF had some serious objections too:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/dear-fcc-rethink-those-vague-general-conduct-rules [eff.org]
I do not know what the status is of the general conduct rules. Do you?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It absolutely was an objection! I don't see how you could possibly read the EFF's letter and think anything else.
Snippets:
Our message has been clear from the beginning: the FCC has a role to play, but its role must be firmly bounded.
But we are deeply concerned that the FCC’s new rules will include a provision that sounds like a recipe for overreach and confusion: the so-called “general conduct rule.”
First, it suggests that the FCC believes it has broad authority to pursue any number of practices—hardly the narrow, light-touch approach we need to protect the open Internet.
We are days away from a final vote, and it appears that many of the proposed rules will make sense for the Internet. Based on what we know so far, however, the general conduct proposal may not. The FCC should rethink this one.
The EFF clearly has a problem with the general conduct rule. Leave the partisan group-mindedness behind--there are clearly some not-black and some not-white (grey, you might even say) shades here.
Re: (Score:3)
It was not an objection, it was a request for clarification.. Here is the snip it you conveniently left out:
Late last week, as the window for public comment was closing, EFF filed a letter with the FCC urging it to clarify and sharply limit the scope of any “general conduct” provision:
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Gonna see a Net Neutrality Fee (Score:5, Insightful)
No need. Taxpayers already gave Comcast and Verizon $2.5Bn to ensure that rural broadband is set up.
Of course, they immediately used it to increase executive salaries and pay out bonuses to themselves- but they will do as they promised eventually, right? Its only been 10 years, it would be absurd to expect some sort of progress on this already.
Re:Gonna see a Net Neutrality Fee (Score:5, Insightful)
I keep hearing from free-market capitalists that prices would naturally trend towards whatever the market will bear. If that's true, then regulation would never increase prices. After all, if the sellers could get away with raising the price, they would have already done so.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People love to talk about the free market as if it were a genie.
The law of capitalism means that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a regulation to raise the price of anything - all it can do is reduce the profit a corporation takes.
Re: (Score:3)
The law of capitalism means that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a regulation to raise the price of anything - all it can do is reduce the profit a corporation takes.
Bull. Shit.
Regulation means compliance. Compliance means paperwork. Paperwork means overhead. Overhead means expenses. Expenses mean increased costs passed on to customers.
You owe the Oracle a copy of a transcript showing that you have passed ECON101.
Re: (Score:2)
One day they may welcome you to post under your real name, AC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If the Federal Government can't determine what's fair, then who can?
Is it fair for someone to have exactly one choice of "broadband" ISP, when that choice is extremely unreliable, outdated, overpriced ADSL?
Is it fair that corporations get to ignore what customers want and only sell what's the most profitable for them, paying absolutely no attention to customer satisfaction, with a three-pronged "bend over and take it / don't have Internet / move house" ultimatum?
If the Federal Government won't stand up for
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed... Oh that right, you can't, because we don't even know the rules they voted on!
The FCC is, however, claiming a broad discretion to review non-neutral practices that may “harm” consumers or edge providers and force action. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/... [eff.org]
Repeat after me: "The FCC is not my friend." These are not "Net Neutrality" regulations, these are Title II rules that claims the Internet is not an "information system." Ha. Haha.
Re: (Score:3)
Now don't you feel ridiculous?
Re:Shortsightedness (Score:4, Informative)
And like it did to the only other segment under title 2 right? I mean I just hate it every time I say a curse word on the phone and it is bleeped out...
Re:Shortsightedness (Score:5, Insightful)
What will happen when the FCC decides to use the new powers to "clean up" (i.e. censor) the Internet the same way it's done to TV and Radio?
Yeah, it might be like when they regulated the phone service and suddenly there were no phone sex lines -- oh, wait.