First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next  Last
Post Reply FCC enforces net neutrality
65319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Atlanta, GA
Offline
Posted 2/26/15 , edited 2/26/15

evilotakuneko

Oh the Net Neutrality fight has been brewing for a lot longer than that, predating Netflix's streaming service. It's just in the last year or so that's been in the mainstream media. Previously it was something only techies talked about.

It's great that we finally won a major victory today.

Yeah, you're right on this. Since it's notable stuff I've heard recently, it's poisoned the well a bit I think for me and probably really tipped the scales in terms of public support too for net neutrality issues.

To me, I strongly agree net neutrality is appropriate, just not really sure what to make of FCC rules and any legislation that might arise here.
Posted 2/26/15


Ah okay, thanks for the explanation
96 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Kentucky, USA
Offline
Posted 2/26/15

ZodiacA17 wrote:

The idea of Net Neutrality has a "good overtone." But what is possible now for the Government to do with the internet is frightening. I am also upset that five board members just decided the fate of the internet for the entire United States public.


What do you feel is now possible?

You honestly feel that allowing companies like Comcast to control what information is available to you is a good thing?

96 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Kentucky, USA
Offline
Posted 2/26/15

crazykl45 wrote:


evilotakuneko

Oh the Net Neutrality fight has been brewing for a lot longer than that, predating Netflix's streaming service. It's just in the last year or so that's been in the mainstream media. Previously it was something only techies talked about.

It's great that we finally won a major victory today.

Yeah, you're right on this. Since it's notable stuff I've heard recently, it's poisoned the well a bit I think for me and probably really tipped the scales in terms of public support too for net neutrality issues.

To me, I strongly agree net neutrality is appropriate, just not really sure what to make of FCC rules and any legislation that might arise here.


I do question what else is folded into the 317 pages.
96 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Kentucky, USA
Offline
Posted 2/26/15 , edited 2/26/15
Sorry to be spamming the thread but there is some good information to be gleaned from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier#Telecommunications
26434 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Future Gadget Lab...
Offline
Posted 2/26/15

Hairbelly wrote:

Just went down... not sure how much it will affect Crunchyroll and what-not. Interesting regardless:

- FCC enforces net neutrality, voting to regulate broadband providers as common carriers under Title II and ban paid fast lanes
- http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/fcc-votes-for-net-neutrality-a-ban-on-paid-fast-lanes-and-title-ii/

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) today voted to enforce net neutrality rules that prevent Internet providers—including cellular carriers—from blocking or throttling traffic or giving priority to Web services in exchange for payment.

More of the story at the link above...

Further reading:

- FCC overrules state laws to help cities build out municipal broadband
- http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/26/8114205/fcc-decision-municipal-broadband-internet

Before it tackles net neutrality, the FCC is setting a major precedent for municipal broadband: it's just voted to preempt state laws that were preventing two cities from building out their own locally run broadband networks.

The decision was prompted by separate petitions from Wilson, North Carolina, and Chattanooga, Tennessee — both cities that've established high-speed, gigabit internet services, but have been barred from expanding to neighboring communities due to existing state laws. So far, 19 states have similar regulations to those that the FCC is overriding in Wilson and Chattanooga, but today's ruling affects only those two specific cases.

- FCC's enforcement of net neutrality rules confirms the Internet is a mainstream political issue
- http://www.buzzfeed.com/mathonan/now-the-internet-belongs-to-us-and-to-politics#.cePV5Qz36


Just to make this clearer for anyone not aware of the issue, what was occurring was Cable Companies were making streaming sites (like Crunchyroll) pay more so that anyone using that Cable Company's service received faster streaming services. If they didn't pay, then their service would be slower and would be superseded by other streaming providers.

Hence, this makes the Internet no longer neutral to all streaming providers; the companies with more money will ultimately receive faster service while making it nearly impossible for newer, lower budget streaming companies to compete. This then affects the consumer of those providers. For example, let's say I have Verizon and a friend of mine has Comcast and Comcast tolls Crunchyroll for faster streaming speed but Verizon does not. If Crunchyroll refuses to pay Comcast's toll, then Crunchyroll will stream slower for someone paying for Comcast. In other words, Crunchyroll streams normally for me, but slower for my friend.

Net Neutrality basically then sets regulations under Article II of the FCC's Communication's Policy stating that it is illegal for service providers to force companies to pay for better internet service, hence making the internet equal for everybody since all companies will run theoretically at the same speed (if we do not include how fast one's processor is or the website's streaming capacity without interference of a service provider).

i hope this helps.
26434 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Future Gadget Lab...
Offline
Posted 2/26/15

crazykl45 wrote:


evilotakuneko

Oh the Net Neutrality fight has been brewing for a lot longer than that, predating Netflix's streaming service. It's just in the last year or so that's been in the mainstream media. Previously it was something only techies talked about.

It's great that we finally won a major victory today.

Yeah, you're right on this. Since it's notable stuff I've heard recently, it's poisoned the well a bit I think for me and probably really tipped the scales in terms of public support too for net neutrality issues.

To me, I strongly agree net neutrality is appropriate, just not really sure what to make of FCC rules and any legislation that might arise here.


Just to clarify the issue, what was occurring was Cable Companies were making streaming sites (like Crunchyroll) pay more so that anyone using that Cable Company's service received faster streaming services. If they didn't pay, then their service would be slower and would be superseded by other streaming providers.

Hence, this makes the Internet no longer neutral to all streaming providers; the companies with more money will ultimately receive faster service while making it nearly impossible for newer, lower budget streaming companies to compete. This then affects the consumer of those providers. For example, let's say I have Verizon and a friend of mine has Comcast and Comcast tolls Crunchyroll for faster streaming speed but Verizon does not. If Crunchyroll refuses to pay Comcast's toll, then Crunchyroll will stream slower for someone paying for Comcast. In other words, Crunchyroll streams normally for me, but slower for my friend.

Net Neutrality basically then sets regulations under Article II of the FCC's Communication's Policy stating that it is illegal for service providers to force companies to pay for better internet service, hence making the internet equal for everybody since all companies will run theoretically at the same speed (if we do not include how fast one's processor is or the website's streaming capacity without interference of a service provider).

In other words, it has nothing really to do with government trying to control the internet. It's about preventing inequality on the internet as a result of Cable Companies trying to force streaming sites to pay for faster streaming. The little guy whose starting out (like Crunchyroll was a few years ago) deserves just as much a chance as a major company like Netflix.

i hope this helps.
65319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Atlanta, GA
Offline
Posted 2/26/15 , edited 2/26/15

Nightblade370 Just to clarify the issue, what was occurring was Cable Companies were making streaming sites (like Crunchyroll) pay more so that anyone using that Cable Company's service received faster streaming services. If they didn't pay, then their service would be slower and would be superseded by other streaming providers.

Hence, this makes the Internet no longer neutral to all streaming providers; the companies with more money will ultimately receive faster service while making it nearly impossible for newer, lower budget streaming companies to compete. This then affects the consumer of those providers. For example, let's say I have Verizon and a friend of mine has Comcast and Comcast tolls Crunchyroll for faster streaming speed but Verizon does not. If Crunchyroll refuses to pay Comcast's toll, then Crunchyroll will stream slower for someone paying for Comcast. In other words, Crunchyroll streams normally for me, but slower for my friend.

Net Neutrality basically then sets regulations under Article II of the FCC's Communication's Policy stating that it is illegal for service providers to force companies to pay for better internet service, hence making the internet equal for everybody since all companies will run theoretically at the same speed (if we do not include how fast one's processor is or the website's streaming capacity without interference of a service provider).

In other words, it has nothing really to do with government trying to control the internet. It's about preventing inequality on the internet as a result of Cable Companies trying to force streaming sites to pay for faster streaming. The little guy whose starting out (like Crunchyroll was a few years ago) deserves just as much a chance as a major company like Netflix.

i hope this helps.

Yeah, earlier in the thread I mentioned an issue that sounds similiar that played out with netflix. The netflix story basically runs along these lines but it's a bit more nuanced.

Netflix paid some other carriers, cogent and level 3 to get them connected to the internet. Cogent and level 3 did that, but when they tried to send the netflix traffic to the comcast networks, things were congested. There are agreements where comcast and cogent "scale up" their connections when things get congested to help alleviate problems accepting the other guys traffic. Cogent and level 3 claim comcast refused to do that when needed. As a result netflix said, "what am I paying these guys for" and jumped ship to connect directly to comcast and verizon networks. As a result, cogent and level 3 lose that valuable netflix business. Cogent claims it's because comcast didn't scale up as agreed and comcast claims it's because netflix traffic is all downstream so cogent never really has to scale up to balance out the agreement on their end. And netflix doesn't care because they just need to deliver streaming video to their customers.

Through all of that, nothing in the net neutrality rules prevent big services like netflix from connecting directly to that "last mile" network as far as I can tell. But it really seems like the netflix story helped drive this vote today.
96 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Kentucky, USA
Offline
Posted 2/26/15

karmacide wrote:


TheFightFan wrote:


crazykl45 wrote:


evilotakuneko

Oh the Net Neutrality fight has been brewing for a lot longer than that, predating Netflix's streaming service. It's just in the last year or so that's been in the mainstream media. Previously it was something only techies talked about.

It's great that we finally won a major victory today.

Yeah, you're right on this. Since it's notable stuff I've heard recently, it's poisoned the well a bit I think for me and probably really tipped the scales in terms of public support too for net neutrality issues.

To me, I strongly agree net neutrality is appropriate, just not really sure what to make of FCC rules and any legislation that might arise here.


I do question what else is folded into the 317 pages.


I'm debating if I want to try read it or not. Ignorance is bliss.

For the most part, I trust the Mozilla Foundation to take the moral highground on these issues, and they seem happy with the results.

https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2015/02/26/a-major-victory-for-the-open-web-2/


What I am assuming it is just a copying of the regulations from 1936 on and the amendments to regulation plus the details of how and why the net is now considered a telecommunication utility.

But you are right ignorance is bliss but when they release the document I will likely read it because I have no life.
37152 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 2/26/15 , edited 2/26/15
For anyone that wants to watch the meeting you can do so here: http://www.fcc.gov/events/open-commission-meeting-february-2015

I would like to note however that the meeting is over 4 hours. They do however have statements you can read from the 5 members of the FCC on the two things they talked about during the meeting. They also include a news release of the two things they talked about during the meeting.

The first one was Community Broadband they decided to go ahead with preempting a state law in both North Carolina and Tennessee that prevented municipal broadband providers from expanding to other areas even if they were requested by the inhabitants of the area.

The other was Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet which we all now how that turned out since this thread exists in the fashion that it does.

Edit: From what I have read the proposal itself is only 8 pages while the other 300+ pages were just supporting documentation.

"The new rules themselves (contrary to recent rhetoric) are rumored to be 8 pages long and, under FCC convention, are an appendix to a larger document that contains the Commissioners’ positions." https://gigaom.com/2015/02/26/net-neutrality-day-is-here-a-guide-to-todays-vote/

"Text of #netneutrality rules are only 8 pages. Rest of proposal responds 2 record submitted by millions of Americans, as required by law." https://twitter.com/GigiBSohnFCC/status/563745632838369280 Gigi Sohn is a special counsel for Wheeler
16152 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 2/26/15
Got this from the TvTropes forum on the topic, and after a quick browse of it, it looks like a pretty accurate description of the situation.

The full order hasn't been published yet, but here's a pretty good breakdown of what's been said about it so far.
ISPs are being reclassified as a telecommunication service (rather than an information service) under Title II of the Communications Act, which puts them in the same category as things like phone companies. This authorizes the FCC to impose certain regulations on them. (They tried imposing some regulations without reclassifying them, but Verizon took them to court over it and won, so the FCC choose to reclassify them in order to give themselves the legal authority to enforce the regulations.)

The new rules ban ISPs from blocking or throttling traffic and from paid prioritization ("fast lanes"), and requires them to disclose their network management practices. That last is largely an enforcement issue, so that they can't claim to be doing something for network management reasons while actually doing it for business reasons. This is because "reasonable network management" is exempted from the rules — ie, ISPs can block/throttle (but not require payment for) something if doing so is necessary for the health of their network. The rules also don't apply to anything not on the public internet — such as VOIP services that don't go through the internet proper, meaning that ISPs can charge you separately for phone service that travels over the same infrastructure as their internet service. (Said phone service is subject to different regulation, as a phone service, rather than being subject to regulation as an internet connection.)
There are other random things not directly related to net neutrality — such as a additional privacy rules, a requirement for ISPs to investigate customer complaints, and the ability for customers to formally complain to the FCC about "unjust and unreasonable" behavior, etc.

There are also things that the FCC could have imposed under Title II and chose not to, including "unbundling" requirements. Unbundling would mean that ISPs would have to sell their network access wholesale — as in, to other ISPs, meaning that no matter who owned the infrastructure that goes to your house, you'd be able to pick any ISP you wanted. (This is how phone lines currently work — if you're talking about actual phone lines and not VOIP service through your ISP, anyway.) The fact that they're not doing that is something of a disappointment, as it would have effectively destroyed the established ISPs' local monopolies. Alas, it is not to be... yet. And what we did get is a hell of a lot better than nothing.

Separate from the Title II thing, the FCC also overturned state laws preventing municipal ISPs from expanding. These laws were largely framed as preventing the government from driving existing ISPs out of business in their service areas, but in reality what municipal ISPs have done is actually introduce competition into markets that were formerly local monopolies. In areas where municipal ISPs exist, they generally provide better service at lower prices than elsewhere. The Communications Act requires the FCC to use "measures that promote competition in the local telecommunications market, or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment", which is their legal basis for this ruling.

The FCC is almost certain to face lawsuits from ISPs about the rulings, and Republicans in Congress have promised to pass legislature overturning the rulings as well. Since the FCC is part of the executive branch, its job is to interpret and enforce the laws passed by the legislative branch (ie, Congress). Thus the repeated mentions of the Communications Act, the law that gives the FCC the authority to do all the stuff they're doing. So if Congress passes new laws that remove the FCC's authority to make these decisions, they won't be able to do what they've said they're going to do. Of course, the chances of such a law making it past President Obama without a veto are virtually nil, so that's effectively impossible at least for another few years. Lawsuits are a dicier matter, but given that the judges ruling on the Verizon lawsuit basically said "the FCC can't do this unless they declare ISPs common carriers under Title II", which is exactly what they've done, there's no obvious case to be made against the rulings.
21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Offline
Posted 2/26/15

KamisamanoOtaku wrote:

Edit: I would have come back and made some edits (and a response) sooner but I kept getting am error trying to access Crunchyroll.

After being told I was wrong by so many I was... not really convinced. KisaiGate gave me some enough to crack through my stubbornness so I went ahead and re-researched the matter. Sure enough, I was half remembering the situation and getting certain terms wrong. Embarrassing? Absolutely. I'm still not thrilled with the FCC being in charge of the matter but I was indeed wrong; at this point something legislative did have to happen. It seems dishonest of me to delete my foolish comments but at the same time leaving them up could lead to further confusion, hence why I'm adding this in front of them via the Edit feature (plus making a follow up comment).



BlueOni wrote:

I don't claim to be especially tech savvy, but it seems to me that the core of the issue is that all data packets are currently given equal priority (neutrality) in their speed of service. That sounds like the right thing to do in order to avoid granting ISPs the ability to "rig the game" as it were concerning matters of electronic commerce, but there may be legitimate technical concerns created by treating all data packets equally which I'm not fully understanding.



There is a lot most supporters don't understand. Increasing government control of the internet will most likely increase operating costs and decrease personal liberty... you know what usually happens with increased government control. It isn't "neutral" to force everyone to get the same regardless of what they are willing and able to pay...


I hate to tell you this but you are wrong historically. I know what the right wing blogs and new are screaming right now less freedom higher prices. When the government regulates a market which is what this is, they create opportunity. We will hopefully now see smaller competitors entering into the market where they couldn't before. The playing field is leveled for everyone which is a good thing, this means more winners.

The direct example of this was when they broke up MA Bell, all the baby Bells popped up lots of competition, new companies came into the market. Prices went down technology improved long distances got cheap; it was expensive to place a long distance call with Ma Bell. More competition means lower prices and better service normally. Especially if they force them to unbundle services like we do where I am at with our municipality. This means lots of baby ISPs all using the infrastructure sure they pay a fee but that get regulated as well.

One of the other things that can and should happen is local municipalities being able to create their own services providers. We did this where I live we had one of the first in the country. I get better service locally than I do with the major cable company. Because I actually have some level of say in how it is run, don't like what's happening I can talk to the mayor and city council. Or file a complaint directly with the city. I have been thinking about talking to them about upgrading the network to a gigabyte pipe, you can get it but it is price prohibitive right now. We pull together and the city can do that, you don't get that level of say with a normal ISP.

The whole notion of government staying out of markets is a false idea, Adam Smith was wrong there is no invisible hand in the market they do not self correct. You need at some level of controls in place so you do not have the housing crash of 08 and the derivatives market crash of 08. If the old regulations had been there we wouldn't have had the crash because they were designed to stop that type of risky behavior. The current markets are not a natural market they have never been a natural market.

What this stops is the monopoly behavior that the ISP's were starting to exercise. This behavior is always bad for the consumer and its competition. Only one person wins in monopoly, and the game really isn't fun towards the end this was designed to teach why monopolies are bad for business and for the country.




...or perhaps supporters would like to apply the same logic to everything else. For example at school everyone can get the same grade based on the mean of scores earned by their classmates. Crunchyroll could start offering less to paid subscribers and more to those with a free account or no account at all.


This argument is fallacious it would be better to improve the students that are failing, rather than tear people down this is also the same stupid argument people make about equality. Improving those that are falling is easier and has a great benefit to society as a whole. This has been done and has been shown to work with students. Companies are not people they can easily abuse the commons if allowed to, this is why they should be regulated whenever possible. There is a limit to the how much regulation but that is easier to judge than no regulations at all. Personally I don't like drinking benzine or breathing smog, eat meat that is tainted, bread that is made with saw dust, and houses that don't fall over. Frankly also I like cheaper internet than what comcast charges locally.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.