Net Neutrality Rules Now In Place

[mrjarrell]

The machine wins again. The rules don't seem particularly onerous, but they've now established control and more will follow. It's the way the machine operates.

FCC's net-neut rules now official - The Register

 

[Bitter Clinger]

Scary.

We have to fire Obongo.

 

[Garb]

Scary.

We have to fire Bush 2.0.

FTFY

 

[rugertoter]

I am afraid that the only way the "machine" is going to be stopped, is when either by our own hands, or by the hands of nature, we are sent back to the stone age. With the technology at hand, yes I mean stupid computers and other devices we all praise and scorn at the same time, it has become easy for "them" to monitor and control the masses in ways that "they" never could have dreamed of before. We are all wrapped up in and a part of the "machine", and we will all collectively pay the price of that. "They" will too. One sad-assed state of affairs in my humble opinion.

 

[RockofStrength]

I am afraid that the only way the "machine" is going to be stopped, is when either by our own hands, or by the hands of nature, we are sent back to the stone age. With the technology at hand, yes I mean stupid computers and other devices we all praise and scorn at the same time, it has become easy for "them" to monitor and control the masses in ways that "they" never could have dreamed of before. We are all wrapped up in and a part of the "machine", and we will all collectively pay the price of that. "They" will too. One sad-assed state of affairs in my humble opinion.

Technology makes it easier, true, but it wouldn't happen so peaceably if people actually cared to be free. They want to live in their little bubble of government provided happiness and protection without worrying about having to take responsibility for their own well being and now they're getting what they ask for.

 

[steveh_131]

I'm conflicted on this subject.

On the one hand, I'm all for the free market. Keep the government out of as much as possible.

On the other hand, it seems that internet providers operate on a largely publicly owned infrastructure that they use the government to control.

Wireless providers all have to share airspace. Fiber optic, cable, dsl, providers all have to share the wires parallel with the roads.

Internet providers don't have a truly free market. There are a limited number of providers that can make use of the physical infrastructure in place. These companies have used the government to create their gigantic monopolies and now want to insist that they not be restricted when they begin abusing their power. They cry "Free market, free market!" while utilizing property that is publicly owned.

It's kind of a messy situation and I'm not sure how there could ever be true competition in these markets. How many of you have multiple realistic options for internet access? In my last two homes I've only ever had one option. That's not a free market.

 

[rambone]

The machine wins again. The rules don't seem particularly onerous, but they've now established control and more will follow. It's the way the machine operates.

I am afraid that the only way the "machine" is going to be stopped, is when either by our own hands, or by the hands of nature, we are sent back to the stone age.

We are all wrapped up in and a part of the "machine", and we will all collectively pay the price of that.

This seems appropriate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJKbDz4EZio

 

[IndyBeerman]

The machine wins again.

So how does the machine win again?

Before this takes effect, for example, if you are a AT&T subscriber (or any other), they can throttle your speeds and even deny you from using any thing that is even part of the Comcast world (yes that includes NBC Universal).

You could even be denied access to INGO if they feel that there is an absurd amount of traffic being redirected there from their competitors.

Another example, 3G apps on smart phones are currently blocked from using 3G internet connections, a perfect example of this is NetTalk Duo's app to place internet phone calls over 3G and bypassing the need to use your minutes for a phone call. An app that I currently have, but can only use if I am using a wireless network for my net connection.

There is a ton of abuses out there by internet providers and this is supposed to try and clear things up.

Not every thing that is done is something to try and "keep the man down".

There must be transparency, fixed and mobile broadband providers must now disclose their network management practices, performance characteristics, and commercial terms of their broadband services to their paying customers.

Fixed broadband providers may no longer block lawful content, app's, services or non-harmful devices. Mobile broadband providers may no longer block lawful web sites or block app's that compete with their voice or voip services.

No more unreasonable discrimination, meaning fixed broadband providers may no longer unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.

What is so bad about the above, everyone reading this post can be effected in one way or another by their internet provider "Just because they choose to do it" and you have to either suck it up or toss your internet.


I don't see it as a bad thing, and I want to hear your biotch about why it's a back thing, and don't give me saying it's more government control, I want a legitimate reason on why it's bad.

 

[jgreiner]

FTFY

Bush was a PIKER in the spending and big gov't areas compared to Obama.

 

[cordex]

I don't see it as a bad thing, and I want to hear your biotch about why it's a back thing, and don't give me saying it's more government control, I want a legitimate reason on why it's bad.

Um .... because it's more government control?

You see providers throttling bandwidth as an abuse. I see it as poor customer service. It isn't the government's job to ensure that you only sign good deals, or do business with companies with good broadband plans.

There is nothing morally wrong with a company offering high speed access to their products with throttled or limited access to external content. In fact, it could be a very good business model in many respects - and good for some customers. There were always other options if you don't want that kind of restriction, and the ability to choose another provider when one screws you over was one of the great things about the free market.

Not that we have a free market, mind you.

 

[IndyBeerman]

Um .... because it's more government control?

You see providers throttling bandwidth as an abuse. I see it as poor customer service. It isn't the government's job to ensure that you only sign good deals, or do business with companies with good broadband plans.

There is nothing morally wrong with a company offering high speed access to their products with throttled or limited access to external content. In fact, it could be a very good business model in many respects - and good for some customers. There were always other options if you don't want that kind of restriction, and the ability to choose another provider when one screws you over was one of the great things about the free market.

Not that we have a free market, mind you.

Throttling bandwidth is in no way any form of poor customer service, if you it see that way, rather than abuse, then maybe you'll change you mind if your power company decides to reduce the amount of power you have from 100% down to 50% so they don't have to buy more power or increase their power generating capacity. Hmm... what do I shut down, Furnace/AC or the stove and eat cold supper.

You can't buy your power from anyone except whose lines run down your street, and in most cases you can't get cable internet from anyone else except who has franchise rights for your area so your thought of the ability to choose another provider in the free market don't fly.

They throttle things down so they are not forced to improve fiber optic lines and infrastructure, all while racking in the profits. Then when they hit the bursting point, they use the "we need to improve our system" in order to get a rate increase. Very few utilities/providers anymore factor in infrastructure improvements with a monthly payment, they wait to have enough ammo to justify a big rate increase so they can make their improvements with out suffering any loss of profits. After all imagine the stockholder outcry if they don't get the dividend payment that they thought they was supposed to.

 

[Noland]

I am all for letting the market decide, but that can't happen when there is no market.

A lot of people purchase their broadband from a government sanctioned monopoly, and they need some sort of protection since competition is not allowed.

Without some sort of regulation, couldn't Comcast could just stop allowing its customers to watch Netflix by throttling it to a trickle? If you live where Comcast is the only choice for service what can you do?

I am all for free markets, and that is the ideal solution, but since we don't have that I am not totally against rules for the monopolies that do not have to worry about competing.

 

[Lex Concord]

I am all for letting the market decide, but that can't happen when there is no market.

A lot of people purchase their broadband from a government sanctioned monopoly, and they need some sort of protection since competition is not allowed.

Without some sort of regulation, couldn't Comcast could just stop allowing its customers to watch Netflix by throttling it to a trickle? If you live where Comcast is the only choice for service what can you do?

I am all for free markets, and that is the ideal solution, but since we don't have that I am not totally against rules for the monopolies that do not have to worry about competing.

Government-sanctioned monopoly? Is there any other kind ?

 

[Noland]

Government-sanctioned monopoly? Is there any other kind ?

There is. There is the kind the government charges with anti-trust violations, and then there is the kind that the government creates and protects -like cable/ISP companies.

 

[IndyBeerman]

I am all for letting the market decide, but that can't happen when there is no market.

A lot of people purchase their broadband from a government sanctioned monopoly, and they need some sort of protection since competition is not allowed.

Without some sort of regulation, couldn't Comcast could just stop allowing its customers to watch Netflix by throttling it to a trickle? If you live where Comcast is the only choice for service what can you do?

I am all for free markets, and that is the ideal solution, but since we don't have that I am not totally against rules for the monopolies that do not have to worry about competing.

The above highlight is exactly one of the reasons of the new FCC rules, Comcast is guilty as sin for doing this along with others.

About 2 weeks after I started streaming NetFlix (was getting HD content with no problem) all of a sudden I started seeing my connection to NetFlix servers tank while everything else was cruising along fine. Yep, they throttled my NetFlix connection in hopes me me dropping it and hitting up their POD/MOD options. Well they don't have to worry about me streaming that anymore because of NetFlix effectively slitting their throat for the DVD/Stream split.

 

[cordex]

You can't buy your power from anyone except whose lines run down your street, and in most cases you can't get cable internet from anyone else except who has franchise rights for your area so your thought of the ability to choose another provider in the free market don't fly.

Really? I can choose between five or six wireless data providers, cable, and DSL. Other folks have the option for fiber to their home or to their neighborhood. Satellite internet is available in most places where other options are limited. Edit: Oh yeah, some power companies offer broadband through their power transmission lines. Sure, some of them have their own limitations - cost, bandwidth, monthly data transfer limits, whatever. The point is, there are alternatives out there.

People like cable because it's (usually) fast and cheap. It's cheap because they oversell available bandwidth. It's usually fast, which is good enough for most folks. As an ISP, one of the ways they can decrease cost and increase revenue (which means keeping broadband cheap for the average user, mind you) is to throttle people who hammer the network or use resource-intensive products that compete for services they offer at an additional charge.

Morally speaking, if an ISP wants to give people a discount on internet service with the condition that any streaming movies have to come from their pay service ... what is wrong with that?

If you don't like that and you want guaranteed speed without throttling, most providers have business-class plans with just that sort of guarantee and Service Level Agreements. No government intervention necessary.

Government "magic bullets" never work out the way people hope.

The only valid argument I've heard for net neutrality is that the packet inspection requirements automatically interfere with the "common carrier" exemptions that telecom companies have when it comes to illegal content.

 

[96firephoenix]

On the one hand, I'm all for the free market. Keep the government out of as much as possible.

On the other hand, it seems that internet providers operate on a largely publicly owned infrastructure that they use the government to control.

pretty much what I was gonna say.

 

[bigg cheese]

Even if there's only one provider, as long as it is within the bounds of a private contract between customer and provider, I see nothing wrong with it.

I don't like it, but it isn't fair to compare it to heating costs. My internet connection (while pretty beefy since I get fiber where I'm at) is completely expendable, given the right conditions. The wife and I have sat down and documented in what order and severity all luxuries will be removed if finances dictate such a move.

You don't have to have an ipad -- you don't have to have internet, netflix, or anything else. There may be a "convenience" monopoly, but since when is that illegal?

 

[Noland]

Should an ISP be able to throttle any traffic that it wants to, such as the bits going to and from the INGO site, for example?

If you think not, then you support net neutrality.

 

[Expat]

Since algore created and owns the internet, he should be able to run it however he wishes.