1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

FCC to vote on Title II requirements for Internet providers today

Discussion in 'Bits & Bytes' started by Biker, Feb 26, 2015.

  1. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    The CSM has a rather decent article about the lead up to today's vote.

    How John Oliver 'turned the tide' on net-neutrality debate - CSMonitor.com

    Obviously, this isn't going to be the last say on the vote as the usual suspects are going to immediately take it to court. The key will then be if the judge sees Internet access along the same lines as having phone service. If he does, the FCC ruling will stand.
     
  2. Allene

    Allene Registered User

  3. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Very happy about this.
     
  4. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    Yep. It's doubtful Congress can muster enough votes to overturn this, and the courts should view Internet access as a public utility considering the amount of data that travels over it each day.
     
  5. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    Have any of you actually read, let alone seen these regulations????? You are going off what they are telling you is in the regulations. Could it be conceivable that these regulations were not revealed before they were voted on (which is probably a violation of their own rules) because they are not in the best interest of the People? If you have the intent of controlling others who do not want to be controlled, would you not conceal what you are doing until you have everything in place?

    Considering how the government has totally fucked up health care, abandoned the rule of law concerning immigration and by fiat decided to start banning ammunition, what in the mother-fucking fuckity fuck makes you think this will be good for anybody other than the government?!?!?!?!?!

    Christ on a minibike! If DHS passes 300 pages of secret regulations titled, "Sunshine and free puppies to everybody," but ends up giving themselves the power to "invite" anybody who speaks out against the government into a "reeducation camp," would you consider that good?

    Using laws that were written 40+ years before the conception of the Internet, a system that is meant to be diversified, by using regulations that were designed to tightly regulate telephone monopolies, this is a good fit HOW? This is like using a pile driver to thread a Mercedes through a sewing needle. Ain't gonna happen, no matter how much force you use.

    Biker, Ethics and the rest of the mods, would you like to pay out of your pockets or hold an annual fundraiser to pay the $5,000 annual license for this domain? None of us here are big fans of the current administration and frequently are critical of it. If you give bureaucrats the authority to judge content of a website and "adjust" the fees necessary to "regulate" said content, what makes you think it won't happen?

    When the bureaucrat has the latitude to decide how the regulation is to be enforced and to what degree, we are no longer a country of laws, we live in a dictatorship.

    On an anger scale of 1 to 10, I am probably up around 15,000 over this. :Censored-5::verymad-27::Censored-5::Censored-5::Censored-5::Censored-5::verymad-27::verymad-27::verymad-27:
     
  6. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    Please. Do your research before regurgitating the bloviation coming from the clueless on the right. The misinformation out there is mind boggling, especially from those who haven't followed what's been happening with the major providers for the past 10 years.
     
    Susan Addams likes this.
  7. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Wow, no offense to Mark, but Tom... massive applause.
     
  8. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    The major providers (AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, etc.) have been lying to the public for years, all in the name of profits.

    As far back as 2011, Netflix was accounting for nearly 30 percent of all Internet traffic. ISPs don't like this, especially the larger conglomerates like Comcast, Time Warner and AT&T where Netflix is competing against their own Pay Per View offerings. Instead of developing a competing model, ISPs take the easy way out by imposing usage caps designed to limit the amount of bandwidth a user can use each month.


    Most of these providers will tell you that they just don't have the infrastructure to handle unlimited traffic for all users. What they're really saying is it's bad enough they have to compete with other companies for Internet service, but they're terrified of Netflix and refuse to play on a level playing field when it comes to pricing. So, what do they do? They impose usage caps in the hopes that you'll use THEIR service which won't count towards your Internet usage (and is more expensive!).

    They'll claim that usage caps are the norm in the rest of the world (it's not), or they'll try to claim that a few bandwidth hogs who are using P2P are ruining it for everyone else (again, false false false). Nobody has taken them to task to prove their claims with numbers, and of course the media (controlled by the same companies who provide your Internet service), perpetuate the lies.

    The reason why the courts smacked the FCC a couple of years ago when they tried to reign in Verizon was because at that time, the FCC didn't have the authority over Internet services. In a way, we have Verizon to thank for the inclusion of Internet providers under Title II. Now the FCC does have authority and regardless of the whining from the industry, I don't see this being legislated out of existence, nor do I see the courts overturning the ruling from the FCC.

    Providers are going to do everything they can to ensure massive profits continue to roll into the companies. First they tried packet shaping. the uproar from the public was rather spectacular and the practice was rapidly done away with. And when Pay Per View profits continued to decline, they hit upon the strategy of limiting bandwidth (expect for their own offerings, of course). To this day, providers in the US and Canada use some of the most draconian bandwidth caps in the world. In addition, they continue to claim that the infrastructure isn't in place to handle all this extra traffic that their competitors take up. This is another fallacy that providers don't want you to find out.

    The infrastructure has been in place for decades. There was a huge push to get thousands and thousands of miles of fiber laid in the 90s. The majority of this fiber remains dark (in other words, unused). Providers have the capability to increase speeds AND bandwidth to accommodate virtually everyone. But if they were to do this, their hold on the end user would pretty much evaporate.

    So when you hear the cries of "control" and "killing innovation", look a little deeper. In fact, look a LOT deeper. The providers do not want you to know the con game they've been playing since the 90s. Nor do they want the FCC to force them to clean up their act. They've been fleecing their customers for years, and they don't want that cash cow to dry up.
     
    Allene and ethics like this.
  9. eakes

    eakes Registered User

    I remember the state of the consumer telephone service prior to the mid 70's lawsuits that essentially brought down T2 and broke up Ma Bell. In that era Ma Bell controlled virtually all telephone service, one leased your phone(s) from the telco, paid dearly for long distance calls and paid additional fees for caller ID and touch tone service. There were tariffs for everything except if a tariff did not exist for your desired service, that service could/would not be provided. And, of course, rates went up every year dutifully approved by the PUC.

    Translating that experience to internet services would indicate that anything connecting to pipe entering the consumers home must be an approved device and leased from the provider. Namely, modems, routers, etc. would all be leased from the provider at a 'reasonable' fee approved by the PUC. Also expect that all available taxing entities will want a share of the pie hence a tack-on of taxes and fees from Federal, State and Local government.

    Is there a lot of dark fiber out there? Sure is. But it only exists between cities, not in the neighborhoods. Which means that while there may be several Terabits of capacity between Dallas and Fort Worth, users in the 'burbs of those two cities are at the mercy of TWC for capacity actually available to their home. T2 will not improve that condition as it is primarily an incumbent protection batch of regulations. The only winners here will be lawyers and lobbyists as they jockey for position.

    Verizon is divesting itself of its fixed-line holdings. AT&T has U-verse on hold and has not plans to expand. Their future is in wireless. Fixed-line will be left to Comcast/TWC, Frontier (who is buying Verizon's fixed-line infrastructure), a plethora of small cable companies and a few cities that have built their own cable plant. Google has built out a few cities and has plans for a few more, but I expect they will lose interest or be shut out by T2 regulations.

    For those in the rural areas (the majority of the US land mass) use of radio delivered internet is the most likely solution, but T2 regulations coupled with lawyers and lobbyists getting involved will likely delay or prevent development of that technology.

    Government regulation of the internet via rules developed for a different technology and conditions is a really BAD idea. Net Neutrality will NOT be achieved by T2, but the application of T2 regulations will open the door to a lot of mischief that the NN'ers will not like.

    Hopefully, shortly after the 'new' T2 rules are announced the law suits will begin and eventually they will be shot down much as they were in the mid 70's.
     
  10. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    What a lot of people forget is Title II was given an overhaul in 1996 with the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The claims that Title II is applying 1930's language to today's standard is bogus.
     
  11. eakes

    eakes Registered User

    So, we have 300+ pages of 'rules' that are based on legislation intended to 'manage' a monopoly telephone company. Those rules are then to be applied to those companies and entities providing internet service (which is decidedly NOT telephone business). I sense a disaster waiting to happen!

    The NN'er basic complaint of ISPs not treating all bits equally is certainly valid. However, rules derived from "monopoly telephone company law" is not likely to get the desired results. Government regulations tend to stifle competition and 'lock-in' technology. Those regs are usually protective of incumbents resulting in extreme difficulty for new 'players' and technology to enter the market place.

    Obviously, the new rules have to be published for public consumption before we can determine what damage has been done. But I doubt the NN'ers basic object will be met and there will be a number of factors that cause the price of internet service to escalate with little or no benefit to consumers.

    Let the lawsuits begin!
     
  12. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    My bold. This alone worries me. The First Amendment (along with the rest of the Constitution) limits the power of the government, rather than the People. This phrase implies that the First Amendment imposes restrictions on the People.

    When I see the rules and read them, I will revisit my comments.
     
  13. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    Here you go. We haven't seen the regulations passed, and probably won't until everyone gets upset at something else.

    Please, don't take *MY* word this will fuck everybody, here's what the two who voted gainst the regulations say:

    According to two FCC commissioners, those new regulations are bad all around

    When we let the bureaucrats determine what is "just and reasonable," there will be favoritism shown. This administration has repeadly shown a willingness to let its "friends" get away with almost everything short of murder, while punishing those who they don't like (i.e. suck up to them) well beyond the extreme level. I mean, you can't have a "friend" of the President who just so happens to owe the IRS $3.5 Million in back taxes walk in and out of the White House and not arrest him, right?
     
  14. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    I have obtained the document and am reading it. I have gotten to about page 10 and I am not happy. In fact, I am very angry. I will report in full after I have completed digesting it.
     
  15. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    That is just so "liberal speak." You have to pass it before you know what's in it. Take our word for it, we have a problem, and the only way we can solve the problem is by the government passing regulations to ... regulate it.

    There isn't any fucking problem!!! Things are fine now. The only thing the gummint can change things is to fuck it up the same way they fucked up healthcare.

    "If you like your Internet you can keep your Internet." Yeah, my ass! By the time they get done with it my only use for the Internet will be Wikipedia and having ebooks delivered from Amazon. Kiss off my Internet business/hobby. I might as well just get dial-up if they pass this pile of Obamanet.

    I might as well get rid of my Internet connection and just use my phone's hot spot feature. (I currently have 100 Mbps service.)
     
    Susan Addams likes this.
  16. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    There is a problem and it is obvious you don't know what you're talking about.
     
  17. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    There is a problem that you are going to get the Internet you deserve and I don't want to share the same boat with you.
     
  18. tke711

    tke711 Oink Oink Staff Member

  19. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    Shame on you! You have to pass it before you can read it! :(

    Trust me, it fulfills the liberal agenda, and ask the liberals and they'll tell you they are good, and they are right about everything.

    The Internet is too fair. Liberals never saw a fair deal that wasn't worth tilting, putting their thumb on the scale.
     
    Susan Addams likes this.
  20. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    This is what happens when a person writes about something they really don't know anything about.

    Virtually every single article, opinion piece, post I've read that rages against the FCC ruling has not put forth a single argument describing the rules in detail and then arguing why it's so bad. Nope. It's all a general "the sky is falling" because it doesn't allow the big carriers to do what they want to do.

    I've read the majority of the ruling.

    I can find nothing, absolutely nothing that an end user would whine about, unless they're whining just because of partisan politics. Yes, there are rules set forth that are going to make the providers cry in rage. All in the name of they're no longer able to screw the consumer in the name of getting more $$$. There will be no more throttling (remember Comcast's throttling of peer to peer traffic?), no traffic prioritization just because you paid the provider more to have YOUR traffic take priority, and no more killing a connection because your unlimited data plan has gone over a magic threshold resulting in dial up speeds.

    It also prohibits providers from blocking applications just because it competes with one of theirs. It requires providers to ensure open access to any destination as long as it's legal.

    Now, if any of the above is an Internet killer, I must not have learned anything in my almost 40 years in the biz. Oh wait. It's NOT an Internet killer and all the whining and arguments that are so vehemently against the FCC ruling is nothing more than partisan bloviation from the clueless. Gotcha.
     

Share This Page