Net Neutrailty is back

[Jimmy Higgins]

I fear the FCC eventually regulating it as poorly as they do radio and tv with the fines etc for silly things they find offensive ie Janet Jackson's breast. Its too bad the big ISPs insatiable greed led to this.

Blaming the FCC for the ten or so people that faked the thousands of public complaints to the FCC about Breastgate?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I'm sure that these regulations are exactly what was promised, and doesn't mean that the government will regulate internet content in the name of "fairness" or "accuracy".

 

[dismal]

Before you get too excited remember outside of the minds in ksenville and Caracas people generally don't believe firms respond to more government uncertainty and the prospect of reduced profits with a higher desire to invest.

Good advice, also before you get dragged down into dismaldom and Mogadishu remember that these regulations will make it easier for your municipality, google, or even your electric company to build out a fiber network to your location so you're not forced to wait for Comcast, or whomever, to decide it's worth the expense to them to provide your area with a faster connection to the internet.

Yes, it's amazing we are keeping this thread from sputtering and crashing at our feet given we are writing it from here in internet Somalia.

 

[prideandfall]

FCC Approves new rules as it labels Internet as utility.


This is good stuff.

So does this make it more or less likely that the html packet from TFT I'm still waiting for on my road's 18,000 foot DSL line is going to have to wait literally in line behind ten thousand video packets from YouTube my neighbor wants delivered to him with no perceptible delay?

neither - it just means that your DSL provider can't go to TFT and say "hey, if you don't give us money, we'll make sure that you're always in line behind youtube for everything"

this doesn't cover the user-side of data transfer - it doesn't regular people being obsessed with cat videos. it just means that internet providers can't charge companies or customers more money for "preferred" network access.

 

[ksen]

I'm sure that these regulations are exactly what was promised, and doesn't mean that the government will regulate internet content in the name of "fairness" or "accuracy".

Do they regulate phone call, electricity and water usage for content based on "fairness"?

If not, then why would you think they'll start doing it for the internet?

Oh yeah, Obama.

 

[ksen]

FCC Approves new rules as it labels Internet as utility.


This is good stuff.

So does this make it more or less likely that the html packet from TFT I'm still waiting for on my road's 18,000 foot DSL line is going to have to wait literally in line behind ten thousand video packets from YouTube my neighbor wants delivered to him with no perceptible delay?

Depends on if your ISP was overselling their capacity. If they don't have the infrastructure in place to give every customer that wants 150Mb/s speed then they shouldn't be selling those packages.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I'm sure that these regulations are exactly what was promised, and doesn't mean that the government will regulate internet content in the name of "fairness" or "accuracy".

Do they regulate phone call, electricity and water usage for content based on "fairness"?

Bad comparison. Try television and radio.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

So does this make it more or less likely that the html packet from TFT I'm still waiting for on my road's 18,000 foot DSL line is going to have to wait literally in line behind ten thousand video packets from YouTube my neighbor wants delivered to him with no perceptible delay?

Depends on if your ISP was overselling their capacity. If they don't have the infrastructure in place to give every customer that wants 150Mb/s speed then they shouldn't be selling those packages.

Unless they use the magic words "up to"... ain't that right Comcast?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Do they regulate phone call, electricity and water usage for content based on "fairness"?

Bad comparison. Try television and radio.

Or maybe you might want to compare it to the telephone. The phone company cannot dictate who you can talk to or block you from connecting with non-preferred businesses.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Bad comparison. Try television and radio.

Or maybe you might want to compare it to the telephone. The phone company cannot dictate who you can talk to or block you from connecting with non-preferred businesses.

No, you want to compare to television and radio.

Actually, you don't want to compare to television and radio for the exact same reasons I say you should compare to television and radio - if you did you'd get my point and realize that there are issues you don't want to discuss.

But if you really want to compare it to the power company, let's go with it. I got really pissed at my power company a few years back. I lodged all sorts of complaints, even sent them a bill for the hassle they cause me. Their response was that if I was unhappy I could purchase my power from someone else. They are the only legal provider of electricity in my area, other firms are forbidden to compete with them in the provision of electricity. They told me if I didn't like the service they were providing that I should buy from someone else.

Yeah, maybe you're right, I should compare to the power company.

But if you are up for a discussion of the more serious problem, this makes good introductory reading.

 

[ksen]

Do they regulate phone call, electricity and water usage for content based on "fairness"?

Bad comparison. Try television and radio.

Why? Television and radio aren't regulated under Title II.

 

[Nexus]

I fear the FCC eventually regulating it as poorly as they do radio and tv with the fines etc for silly things they find offensive ie Janet Jackson's breast. Its too bad the big ISPs insatiable greed led to this.

Blaming the FCC for the ten or so people that faked the thousands of public complaints to the FCC about Breastgate?

If the FCC can't accurately determine legitimate complaints then yes I do blame them for unjust fines.

 

[Rhea]

You have made my day. I would SOOOOO love to be able to get online radio. And watching a video from time to time would be kinda cool. Sharing photos... and, lastly, the possibility of working from home. Wow. That would rock.

Before you get too excited remember outside of the minds in ksenville and Caracas people generally don't believe firms respond to more government uncertainty and the prospect of reduced profits with a higher desire to invest.

Firms don't express ANY desire AT ALL to invest in my area unless the government forces them to, e.g. rural electrification project. Hence my question.

 

[ksen]

Or maybe you might want to compare it to the telephone. The phone company cannot dictate who you can talk to or block you from connecting with non-preferred businesses.

No, you want to compare to television and radio.

Actually, you don't want to compare to television and radio for the exact same reasons I say you should compare to television and radio - if you did you'd get my point and realize that there are issues you don't want to discuss.

Actually, we don't want to discuss tv and radio because they are regulated under a different title than what ISPs will now be regulated under so it makes no sense to talk about tv and radio.

But if you really want to compare it to the power company, let's go with it. I got really pissed at my power company a few years back. I lodged all sorts of complaints, even sent them a bill for the hassle they cause me. Their response was that if I was unhappy I could purchase my power from someone else. They are the only legal provider of electricity in my area, other firms are forbidden to compete with them in the provision of electricity. They told me if I didn't like the service they were providing that I should buy from someone else.

Yeah, maybe you're right, I should compare to the power company.

These regulations force states to allow competing ISPs into the markets so I'm not sure what the problem would be here either. If anything more competition is better than less competition, right?

But if you are up for a discussion of the more serious problem, this makes good introductory reading.

You should spend more time understanding what Net Neutrality is about because it has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine. Like, not even a little bit.

 

[dismal]

Before you get too excited remember outside of the minds in ksenville and Caracas people generally don't believe firms respond to more government uncertainty and the prospect of reduced profits with a higher desire to invest.

Firms don't express ANY desire AT ALL to invest in my area unless the government forces them to, e.g. rural electrification project. Hence my question.

I don't think this law regulation forces anyone to invest in broadband for your area.

 

[Rhea]

Firms don't express ANY desire AT ALL to invest in my area unless the government forces them to, e.g. rural electrification project. Hence my question.

I don't think this law regulation forces anyone to invest in broadband for your area.

Sigh.

 

[ksen]

Firms don't express ANY desire AT ALL to invest in my area unless the government forces them to, e.g. rural electrification project. Hence my question.

I don't think this law regulation forces anyone to invest in broadband for your area.

No, not forced to invest.

Major Provisions of Title II that the Order WILL APPLY:

o The proposed Order applies “core” provisions of Title II: Sections 201 and 202 (e.g., no unjust or unreasonable practices or discrimination)

o Allows investigation of consumer complaints under section 208 and related enforcement provisions, specifically sections 206, 207, 209, 216 and 217

o Protects consumer privacy under Section 222

o Ensures fair access to poles and conduits under Section 224, which would boost the deployment of new broadband networks

o Protects people with disabilities under Sections 225 and 255

o Bolsters universal service fund support for broadband service in the future through partial application of Section 254.

 Universal Service Fund

 

[Bomb#20]

So does this make it more or less likely that the html packet from TFT I'm still waiting for on my road's 18,000 foot DSL line is going to have to wait literally in line behind ten thousand video packets from YouTube my neighbor wants delivered to him with no perceptible delay?

neither

Yeah, that's what I thought. It's why I have trouble seeing it as "good stuff". It's a fight over who will be paid how much to guarantee I get wretched service.

- it just means that your DSL provider can't go to TFT and say "hey, if you don't give us money, we'll make sure that you're always in line behind youtube for everything"

I.e., when response time for low-bandwidth users is treated as low priority, which it inevitably will be, regardless of who wins at the FCC, it just means youtube doesn't have to pay extra for that outcome.

this doesn't cover the user-side of data transfer - it doesn't regular people being obsessed with cat videos. it just means that internet providers can't charge companies or customers more money for "preferred" network access.

I lost you. If they can't charge customers more this does cover the user-side. If you mean Verizon isn't allowed to offer me a premium service at a higher price that cuts the long waits, be still, my beating heart.

Depends on if your ISP was overselling their capacity. If they don't have the infrastructure in place to give every customer that wants 150Mb/s speed then they shouldn't be selling those packages.

Beats me whether they lack the infrastructure to deliver 150Kb/s to everybody on the line, or only the competence. Oh, wait, that wasn't a typo, was it? You were serious.

Sigh.

 

[Rhea]

Depends on if your ISP was overselling their capacity. If they don't have the infrastructure in place to give every customer that wants 150Mb/s speed then they shouldn't be selling those packages.

Beats me whether they lack the infrastructure to deliver 150Kb/s to everybody on the line, or only the competence. Oh, wait, that wasn't a typo, was it? You were serious.

Sigh.

What do you mean here? Isn't 150MBps normal broadband (cable, DSL) speed? 150kbps is what I got on dial-up on a very excellent day (usually it is 56kbps, though on very bad days with heavy static it was 8-12kbps).

Now that I am on Satellite I ostensibly get 5-12MBps (when I am not being punished for going over my 17GB/month allotment, as I am right now, with a reduction back to 100kbps)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I fear the FCC eventually regulating it as poorly as they do radio and tv with the fines etc for silly things they find offensive ie Janet Jackson's breast. Its too bad the big ISPs insatiable greed led to this.

The real problem is that the big ISPs are also in the content business. It's a conflict of interest. They want you buying TV from them, not from someplace like Netflix.