Ramblings of an old Doc

 

Well, there must be the gnashing of teeth and moaning in the inner sanctums of telcos and ISPs (probably Congress, as well): The Chairman of the FCC has come down supporting the classification of the internet as a Title II public utility (which it truly is), and the FCC will relate to it as such. This means the business interests of the telco/ISPs will come second to those of the public, and that there will be no further receiving subsidies they receive to maintain net neutrality, while trying to profit on the other side by rate differentials for broadband width:

“Specifically, Wheeler says the new rules will ban paid prioritization, which lets ISPs charge for faster access to its networks, as well as the slowdown of "lawful content and services." – engadget

Also: Mobile users, rejoice: These open internet protections will apply to you as well! Wheeler reminded everyone that the internet would look radically different had the FCC not opened up access to networking equipment in the early 1960s. Also, he reminded everyone that the phone network’s didn’t happen by accident, but by FCC rule.” Wheeler is making a very clear choice that he is favoring consumers more than businesses.

"My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone's permission," Wheeler wrote. "All of this can be accomplished while encouraging investment in broadband networks." – FCC Chairman Wheeler

There’s lots of industry pushback based on “over-regulation” calling it a European styled internet with overly protective regulations [right, because business has proven government shouldn’t protect the pblic – lol]. The industry also stated this would likely “balkanize” the net into private networks and specialized services…whatever…seems to me political entities such as China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc. have already done that.

So how will all this affect you? The FCC will apply provisions of Title II that allow for enhanced consumer protections and tighter controls against "unjust practices" and "discrimination," for instance, while legally ignoring ones that make other Title II companies subject to "tariffs or other form of rate approval, unbundling, or other forms of utility regulation". Hopefully not with a heavy hand.

So, a great couple of weeks for consumers: Redefinition of “broadband services” to 25Mbps/3Mbps from the laughable 4Mbps/1Mbps and Title II definition and protection of the net.

Good job, Mr. Wheeler. Thank you for listening to the public, and thank you for having the public good foremost in mind.

To the industry: This will continue to encourage innovation and HOPEFULLY some competition for a change. Don’t feel bad. This is “trickle up” for a change.

Source:

http://www.engadget.com/2015/02/04/fcc-net-neutrality/?utm_source=Feed_Classic_Full&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Engadget&?ncid=rss_full


Comments (Page 4)
7 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last
on Feb 12, 2015

I don't have a problem paying with there being two charges for data, one on the senders end and one on the receivers end. However, I don't think ISP should be allowed to charge a toll for senders to access receivers and basically there is three charges for the data - one for the sender, one for the receiver, and toll on the sender from the receivers ISP because the receiver doesn't have any other options of accessing the internet.

 

So yeah if Netflix is setting up a CDN and is using comcast/verizon's infrastructure I have no problem with Netflix paying them, but as I've understood it, Netflix doesn't use the ISP's infrastructure to transmit, instead it connects with these companies via transit companies and sends them data across interconnects. Then comast and the other big ISPs made sure these were so congested that Netflix and other companies have to pay. 

 

Analogy wise, I want to see the American internet made to resemble a massive freeway, instead of a series of one lane toll roads. 

on Feb 12, 2015

Unless you live in Southern California, you clearly haven't seen what happens when freeway systems aren't properly invested in to keep up with growth.  That's my big worry of what will happen to the Internet if there's not enough RoI on a heavily-regulated cost structure to make investing in growing available bandwidth a good idea, and I really don't want to see mass-transit ideas applied to Internet traffic in response to clogged pathways.

on Feb 13, 2015

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-throttling-netflix-traffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth

 

It's not all puppies and rainbows, the world is filled with corrupt, dishonest people, which is why Title 2 is such a bad idea.  That wont be all puppies and rainbows either, we'll just have crooks in DC deciding how we get screwed, and crooks in a company anyway.

 

It's still not what the fake net neutrality advocates are saying it is though.  For one, their fake net neutrality isn't even stopping paid peering, they specifically said they wouldn't be setting rates to fix this primarily mythical issue.  For another, a CDN, which is what Amazon and Netflix are running, is a fast lane they themselves are paying for.  They aren't going through the internet at large, they run through their own dedicated infrastructure, and it's almost entirely a one way affair.  They're going to have to pay people to accept all that data in return for nothing.

on Feb 17, 2015
on Feb 19, 2015

Be careful what you wish for: link

on Feb 19, 2015

A shame one has to register for that site...

on Feb 19, 2015

Odd.  You can read it from Drudge's link (today).

And here's some more info about it.

on Feb 19, 2015

Lack of transparency bothers me as well...and frankly, I'm tired of the bs. Don't get me started. Please.

There's a limit to this nonsense...and they passed that limit about 200 years ago.

on Feb 19, 2015

The drudge link is "the fix is in".

on Feb 25, 2015

I fear this will not end well for freedom of expression on the Internet.  Netflix might stay cheap, but at a potentially staggering non-monetary cost.  Content "appropriateness" will become subject to the whim of unelected bureaucrats.

on Feb 25, 2015

And again...

 

on May 08, 2015

Whatever you may think of Limbaugh, he and Pai are right about this: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/05/08/drudge_has_what_they_all_want

 

on May 09, 2015


Whatever you may think of Limbaugh, he and Pai are right about this: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/05/08/drudge_has_what_they_all_want

 

 

His argument is the FCC will censor conservative sites because of net neutrality. Besides this article, please provide proof of that accusation. The FEC has basically said they can't do this, and yet the FCC is?

 

The leader of the Federal Election Commission, the agency charged with regulating the way political money is raised and spent, says she has largely given up hope of reining in abuses in the 2016 presidential campaign, which could generate a record $10 billion in spending.

“The likelihood of the laws being enforced is slim,” Ann M. Ravel, the chairwoman, said in an interview. “I never want to give up, but I’m not under any illusions. People think the F.E.C. is dysfunctional. It’s worse than dysfunctional.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/us/politics/fec-cant-curb-2016-election-abuse-commission-chief-says.html?_r=0

on May 09, 2015

Hard to 'prove' something that hasn't happened yet.  But the structure and mechanisms the FCC adopted will make regulating content in the name of 'fairness' and 'neutrality' a straightforward proposition, quite apart from the FEC.  Whether 'net neutrality' as enforced by the FCC turns out to be a Trojan horse or not, only time will tell.  But the possibility can't be denied.  You think Pai is clueless in this?

 

on May 09, 2015

His argument is the FCC will censor conservative sites because of net neutrality. Besides this article, please provide proof of that accusation. The FEC has basically said they can't do this, and yet the FCC is?

 

Theoretics are theoretic for a reason, it's still theory until it happens.  You can't give proof of an expected behavior until after.  What you give is evidence of similar actions.  X does Y when we do A, and we expect it to do Z when we do B.

 

The IRS began using the rules to deny 501c4's to conservative groups in the wake of the Tea Party movement.  Almost all of these otherwise routine applications were held up indefinitely despite Congressional hearings and admissions that there was no cause to do so.

 

Various companies run by conservatives have been harassed by law enforcement agencies, notably Gibson Guitars, which was raided multiple times, by tactical teams from Fish and Wildlife of all things, over legally imported wood that was supposedly in violation of the origin country's laws, despite their expressed support of the company as legally compliant.  The seized goods were kept for years, and the cost to Gibson was in the millions, including a $250,000 fine for their non existent violation of foreign laws.  Liberally minded competitors in non right to work states, importing the exact same wood, from the exact same countries, have never been bothered.

 

Your quote from Ann Ravel is itself evidence that this will happen if at all possible.  The leader of the FEC has given up trying to abridge free speech and shut down legal entities, even though she thinks the laws give them the right to do so.

7 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last