[BartSimpson]

TheHopFather TheHopFather:

These rules aren't a regulation of the internet, they are regulating internet providers.

Here's the foundational document of net neutrality for you: "The Reinvention of Journalism"

http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/ ... ussion.pdf

Read the government's own words and tell me how this administration's plans to regulate bias in online journalism are not something to be concerned about?

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

TheHopFather TheHopFather:

These rules aren't a regulation of the internet, they are regulating internet providers.

Here's the foundational document of net neutrality for you: "The Reinvention of Journalism"

http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/ ... ussion.pdf

Read the government's own words and tell me how this administration's plans to regulate bias in online journalism are not something to be concerned about?

That is six years old and long before net neutrality. It has nothing to do with the current FCC decision.

[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

That is six years old and long before net neutrality. It has nothing to do with the current FCC decision.

Thus it's called a 'foundational document' and it has everything to do with the current decision since it was the government's first formal discussion on internet regulation.

Net neutrality is one of the products of this initial discussion.

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Tricks Tricks:

That is six years old and long before net neutrality. It has nothing to do with the current FCC decision.

Thus it's called a 'foundational document' and it has everything to do with the current decision since it was the government's first formal discussion on internet regulation.

Net neutrality is one of the products of this initial discussion.

Not really. Net Neutrality has nothing to do with journalism or it's regulation. It has to do with companies being able to pay for preferential speeds. One aspect of internet regulation doesn't mean everything else is on the table.

[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

Not really. Net Neutrality has nothing to do with journalism or it's regulation. It has to do with companies being able to pay for preferential speeds. One aspect of internet regulation doesn't mean everything else is on the table.

Well, the 302 pages of regulations have yet to be released so I guess we'll see them when we see them.

[N_Fiddledog]

TheHopFather TheHopFather:

Tom Wheeler himself said it best I think,

Tom Wheeler himself?

Tom Wheeler who's the chairman of the FCC says not to worry about the FCC, right?

Uh yeah...OK.

So here's the thing though. The Associated Press tells me Title II will reclassify the internet from what it used to be, which apparently was an "Information Service" to a new classification as "Telecomm Service".

Is that correct?

Canadian Journalist, Brian Lilley says this change in classification will allow the ITU and the UN claim to greater controls.

Now you tell me that's not what reclassification is and really it's just a big, fat nothing. I mean after all "Tom Wheeler himself" said nothing to see here, right?

But then there's this...

$1:

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-SD) used a hearing on the US hand-off of domain naming system/IP address oversight to hammer on the Federal Communications Commission's Feb. 26 vote on Title II-supported network neutrality rules.

Chairman Thune asked whether reclassifying Internet access as a telecommunications service would strengthen or weaken America's ability to keep the International Telecommunications Union from tariffing the Internet, as some ITU members have wanted to do. Ambassador David Gross, former US coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy, said he was still waiting to see what the FCC was going to do and that the details would be important. But with that caveat, he also said that it has long been US policy under Democratic and Republican Administration's alike, that the ITU should have no jurisdiction over Internet-related issues. He pointed out that there has been an ITU contingent that says its scope is telecommunications, so that if the FCC does classify Internet as a telecommunications service, they will assert they do now have jurisdiction. He said that would make the job of his successors more difficult in insuring that the ITU does not seek jurisdiction.

https://www.benton.org/headlines/sen-th ... impact-itu

See my problem? I don't actually know a lot about this, but who am I to believe here?

[xerxes]

A good rule of thumb is: if it involves some nefarious UN conspiracy, it's BS.

[bootlegga]

xerxes xerxes:

A good rule of thumb is: if it involves some nefarious UN conspiracy, it's BS.

Except for the Black Helicopters. And ZOG of course. Those are real

[herbie]

The problem is greater than 'the gov't says'...
Up until about 2010 we HAD TO use an equalizer for last mile. If you ran torrents or downloaded a lot, you would hog the entire bandwidth available to serve the whole community - which was a whole 10Mbps at the time.
After 2010, 30 Mbps was available, and in just the last couple years 100Mbps
So how do you serve an entire community 'net neutral' with a connection the speed of Joe Blow's $50 home connection in the city?
You're all talking about competition but in the end, the fiber is owned by the telco, and it is expensive to a reseller. In 2001 a T1 (1.Mb) was $5000 a month here. When I left a 100Mb link was $4000 a month. Shit the links to serve a reserve were heavily subsidized by the gov't and still were $750 a month for 10Mb

[DrCaleb]

TheHopFather TheHopFather:

Reclassification by the FCC to Title II is a totally separate issue, they've got nothing to do with each other. At all.

Title II simply classifies ISP's as "common carriers". That means that ISP's must carry traffic in a reasonable and nondiscriminatory way. So each packet travelling over the network must be treated the same as any other packet. Your Xbox Live game must be treated the same as my Netflix movie. Someone else's Skype traffic is treated the same as another person's Amazon shopping cart. This was put into place because ISP's started mucking around with traffic on the net, famously with Netflix traffic this past summer. The idea was to slow down Netflix traffic so that people with fast connections were buffering video to the point it was unwatchable. Netflix paid the ISP's for "priority" and suddenly their traffic worked great again. This regulation simply forces ISP's to act as a "dumb pipe" rather than continue to set themselves up as the internet gate keeper.

Tom Wheeler himself said it best I think,

"This proposal has been described by one opponent as, quote, a secret plan to regulate the Internet. Nonsense. This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concepts: openness, expression, and an absence of gate keepers telling people what they can do, where they can go, and what they can think."

There is a ton of misinformation about the new rules out there and Republicans seem to be leading the charge. They are simply trying to scare people into not supporting these rules which are in their own best interest.

[DrCaleb]

herbie herbie:

The problem is greater than 'the gov't says'...
Up until about 2010 we HAD TO use an equalizer for last mile. If you ran torrents or downloaded a lot, you would hog the entire bandwidth available to serve the whole community - which was a whole 10Mbps at the time.
After 2010, 30 Mbps was available, and in just the last couple years 100Mbps
So how do you serve an entire community 'net neutral' with a connection the speed of Joe Blow's $50 home connection in the city?
You're all talking about competition but in the end, the fiber is owned by the telco, and it is expensive to a reseller. In 2001 a T1 (1.Mb) was $5000 a month here. When I left a 100Mb link was $4000 a month. Shit the links to serve a reserve were heavily subsidized by the gov't and still were $750 a month for 10Mb

Big ISPs are asking that same question as well, because they have oversubscribed their lines. If they sold Joe Blow a 10Mb connection, then why can't he use the whole 10Mb? If he's only paying for 1Mb, then it's right to limit him to 1Mb. But it's not right to sell 100 people 1Mb on a 10Mb line and throttle them all back to 100Kb!

But the FTC isn't trying to avoid this kind of thing - that's a business decision. It's trying to stop things like Comcast vs Netflix thing that happened a couple years back where Comcast specifically degraded Netflix traffic across it's network until Netflix paid it money for access. Money it's customers were already paying for access to Netflix. When Netflix met the ransom demand, Comcast didn't make any other changes to it's network, other than to remove the packet filtering.

The FCC is trying to stop this, and the reverse situation, from affecting people's ability to access the internet. The Internet was able to produce things like Youtube and Facebook because the playing field was level. Steve in his parents basement has the same access as General Electric does, and is able to innovate the same as they can. If he's got to pay each ISP hundreds or thousands of dollars to access their subscribers, then he doesn't have the same access anymore.

Innovation will be stifled unless everyone has equal access to the internet, as was the intent of the internet when it was created.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Tricks Tricks:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Tricks Tricks:

The argument can also be made for anti-competition on the TV front. The ISPs are for the most part cable providers as well. What an easy way to make sure people don't cut their cable by making the biggest online streaming service either a) pay more or b) be unusable.

LOL The ISPs will never have anything to worry about from me. I hate watching stuff on my computer, even with a 23" flat screen. And screw those handhelds, I grew up in the era of the 12" TV screen. I sure as hell don't want to watch TV or a movie on something even smaller.
Plus I've got a big screen TV where my computer is and I like doing shit on my computer while I watch TV or a movie.

Connect the TV to the computer. Then you get the experience of TV but the control of a computer.

I know I can connect my computer to my TV but how does that help? For example, if my computer is hooked up to my TV to watch a movie, can I still play something like Lord of the Rings Online on the same computer without it showing up on the TV screen instead of the movie?

[andyt]

If it doesn't show up on the screen, it's probably going to be a very difficult game to play. I'm also not sure what the point is of running watching cable TV on the computer. We just had a discussion on data caps - streaming TV that you're only half watching sure isn't going to help with that. And can you even stream all the cable channels?

[DrCaleb]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Tricks Tricks:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

LOL The ISPs will never have anything to worry about from me. I hate watching stuff on my computer, even with a 23" flat screen. And screw those handhelds, I grew up in the era of the 12" TV screen. I sure as hell don't want to watch TV or a movie on something even smaller.
Plus I've got a big screen TV where my computer is and I like doing shit on my computer while I watch TV or a movie.

Connect the TV to the computer. Then you get the experience of TV but the control of a computer.

I know I can connect my computer to my TV but how does that help? For example, if my computer is hooked up to my TV to watch a movie, can I still play something like Lord of the Rings Online on the same computer without it showing up on the TV screen instead of the movie?

Windows can have multiple screens, and dedicate programs to a single screen. In theory, you could treat the laptop and TV as two screens, and play a game on one and not have it show on the other.

In practice, your video driver and chipset have to support this. I run one computer where it's dedicated screen is my TV, because I use it only for things like Netflix. I have another with 3 screens that I use for games, and another with multiple screens for work, where one is for documents (portrait orientation), Remote sessions (landscape orientation) and another screen for videos, web browsing etc.

[BartSimpson]

xerxes xerxes:

A good rule of thumb is: if it involves some nefarious UN conspiracy, it's BS.

Saul Alinsky would be proud of you.