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. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    You worked on ARPANET?

    2015 - 40 = 1,975. The TCP/IP protocol was introduced in 1982. In the early '80s NSF began sharing ARPANET with research and educational institutions, renaming it NSFNET. Commercial ISPs began to emerge only in the late '80s. It wasn't until the mid '90s that it became known as the Internet and the last restrictions against commercial traffic ended. That's when I first got on the Internet, in the mid '90s, from work.

    I used to work next to another group in the mid '70s at System Development Corp. that was developing part of ARPANET, that's where I first heard of it. I never dreamed that the public would ever have it.

    You haven't been involved in "the biz" for almost 40 years if you are referring to the Internet. Not unless you were involved in ARPANET, in which case excuse me!
  2. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    Yes, I worked with Arpanet and have been in the communications/networking biz since the late 70s. Now stop your bleating. Thank you.
    Susan Addams likes this.
  3. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    What was it like, ARPANET back in the '70s? All I knew is my colleagues were working on it. I played backgammon with them at lunch, that's all I know.

    Pretty smart dudes.
    Susan Addams likes this.
  4. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    TechDirt has a decent write up that makes a good argument that the recent rule changes don't go far enough and we've just begun to see what promises to be a long haul fight before the dust settles.

    Our Shiny New Net Neutrality Rules Won't Be Worth Squat If The FCC Isn't Willing To Act | Techdirt

    The Electronic Frontier Foundation also chimes in with some concerns that the rules don't go far enough.

    Today’s Net Neutrality Order is a Win, with a Few Blemishes | Electronic Frontier Foundation

    We'll have to see how things shape up, especially in the courts with some of the major players attempting to get these rules overturned. With the FCCs rule that brings providers under the Title II umbrella, it's doubtful that they're prevail in the courts. At that point, we'll have to watch the upcoming elections and the resulting fallout depending on who wins.

    The FCC made a great start with the recent ruling. Hopefully, they'll be able to weather the upcoming storm and maintain a straight course that ensures a fair playing field for all.
  5. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    Maybe we are so used to government getting involved and fucking things up that we automatically assume if the government is getting involved, it's sure to be a disaster.

    If this is all about net neutrality and nothing more, then it seems reasonable. However that may result in increased prices for some services (providers buying bigger pipes and passing the cost to their customers) it seems reasonable that customers should pay for increased provider costs.
  6. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    And it begins:

    First Legal Challenges To FCC's Net Neutrality Rules Filed | Techdirt

    Given that the Verizon ruling back in 2012 was entirely due to the FCC not having the authority to implement rules due to their failure to classify internet providers, I tend to agree that this round of court battles will result in a win for the FCC.
  7. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

  8. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    Again, I see nothing, absolutely nothing in the actual ruling that makes me sit up and go NOPE! This was a good start, and in some cases, didn't go far enough. If some dimwit who doesn't know a bit from a byte wants to foam at the mouth because it's not in favor of big business, more power to 'em. Because the more they rant, the more they show they haven't followed what's been going on in the industry for over a decade.
  9. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative


    It's not the actual ruling that I have a problem with. It's the whole tone of the FCC (and all federal agencies that can issue regulations) that is the issue.

    I know of ZERO LAWS as passed by Congress that give the FCC authority to specifically regulate the Internet. The FCC is acting just because Obama decided it should be done. So, "for the good of all," unelected administrators who are basically not responsible to anybody (other than the President) were directed to take this burden on themselves.

    They decide to use a law written almost a century ago, meant for telephone communications, which the last time it was substantially updated was before the Internet took off. Like with the Web and everything.

    They decided to use only some aspects of parts of the Act they invoked. They are deciding what parts of laws and regulations they are going to use.

    Please let me know, what process does the FCC have to follow to change which laws and regulations they have to follow and/or enforce? Because all I see is if they want to do it or not.

    Just for example, what if the FCC changes their mind and starts levying "usage fees" to access any website on a server that is located outside the State where you access it from? That would probably fall under the old long distance charges we had with the landline phones.

    Or, they are going to institute a "fact check fee" on websites? Someone from the government will read what you have to say and gets to decide on if your website meets or doesn't meet any standard the FCC decides to set? And they will charge you for that privilege.

    Sure, stuff like that isn't in this regulation. Now that the FCC has decided they regulate the Internet in general, what protections, what laws are in place to insure they won't do that tomorrow? The only thing that is saving us for the moment is the self-control of the FCC.

    BATFE declares materials that aren't explosive are explosive and subject to their regulation, the EPA declares drainage ditches as "navigable waterways" so they have authority over said drainage ditches. Or how about if you have farmland a good part that doesn't dry out like the rest of your land gets declared "Federally protected wetlands" that you can no longer farm on.

    I can promise you that's where the FCC is going in the next 18 months before "His Illustriousness" leaves the White House.
  10. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    The FCC has been wrestling with this LONG before Obama came into office. And yes, the Internet SHOULD be regulated under Title II at this point as it's a very integral and important aspect of daily life, much like having a telephone was necessary decades ago.

    As for not having the authority, that's a load of bunk.

    What We Do | FCC.gov

    You may wish to also read up on the law that created the FCC to begin with.

    The Communications Act of 1934

    Now, quit with the partisan BS.
  11. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: Jun 17, 2016
    SixofNine likes this.
  12. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    Welp, looks like we're screwed.

    The FCC Just Caved in to Republican Demands That It Halt Work on Major Issues

    Of course, the morons that voted for Trump don't care about such things as they're totally clueless.
  13. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    **sigh** We're screwed.

    Trump’s FCC Chairman pick Ajit Pai heralds a weaker, meeker Commission

    Say hello to tiered services and outrageous, runaway pricing.
  14. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    Well, tomorrow is the day, and it's expected the FCC will gut the Title II rules for Net Neutrality.

    There's so much BS going on with this, and with the FCC going full steam ahead regardless of what's learned, we can only hope that either Congress (yeah, right) or the courts reign these pudknockers in.

    First we have this:

    A month after a New York woman died, someone used her identity to campaign against net neutrality

    The comment period was so bogus and obviously rigged no person in their right mind would accept what happened and press on as if nothing happened. Yet Ajit Pai is dead bent on ripping those protections out of Title II as if nothing ever happened. This is where I think the courts will step in and ream the FCC a new one (hopefully). And it's rather obvious there's a conflict of interest here with Pai's former gig as counsel for Verizon.

    It doesn't help when the clueless get "air time" and don't do their homework.

    No, the Internet is not about to be destroyed


    End net neutrality. Federal meddling can't improve the Internet.

    Both of these idiots have absolutely on clue as to what the providers have done in the past, all in the name of profits and "because they can".

    Comcast has been caught packet shaping and AT&T was caught red handed blocking sites. Yet these idiots think this is a perfectly fine as it's "their network" and they should be able to do anything they want.

    Seriously?!!! Perhaps if there was true competition among the providers, but most areas suffer from a monopoly and don't have much of a choice when it comes to providers. And folks like me that live out in the boonies have even less choice (if we have a choice at all).

    The shit is about to hit the fan, and once it's all settled we can only hope that the FCC is drowning in a huge steaming pile of it.
  15. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    I've been saying, for many years, how GOP is shit, has been shit.
  16. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    As of now, the GOP has been a shrinking demographic for some time and that change is accelerating.

    Roy Moore had a huge lead in all polls going into the Alabama election last week. He lost. Of course, upsets happen all the time in elections and polls are often wrong. Right HRC? But Moore seemed a lock. Then his loss. So what's so special about the election results. Just look at the detailed demographics of the voters and how each category or types voted. Very telling. IMO the most telling of any election in our time regarding the subject of Dems v Repubs or DNC and RNC.

    The Republican party has no future as it exists today. None. Nada. And that's my non-partisan or non-biased analysis.

    The future we project as of now is a growing Democratic party and number of as well of the percentage of voters and the large cities and their greater metropolitan areas will elect most of the national politicians. Rural and semi-rural are non-factors generally speaking.

    Trump's "GOP" victory in the context of the above was the equivalent of the backlash and galvanization similar to fervor or passions that led to the secession of the states in 1861 that led to the formation of a new nation the Confederate States of America. The response to the CSA was that they were crushed and destroyed by foes far more powerful than them. The power, in that case, was military and industrial might. The same level of destruction will happen to the GOP but by political might via the demographic political route. There will never be a Trump scale election upset victory by any party in the future simply because of the unevenly matched foes per party affiliation.
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2017
  17. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Unregistered User

    I didn't realize this debate had been going on for so long. I read this topic from the beginning and it's all beginning to become a blur. It has more plot twists than snakes having sex!

    Please, somebody, give me the Cliff notes. I recently dumped my cable TV and switched to streaming. I bought a cute little PC the size of an Apple TV that runs Win10. Everything I want is available for free. Currently watching Fox News and it's all blather to me. I tuned into local TV, streaming, and the news was newsertainment. (I won't repeat that mistake.)

    Between what I get for free on Amazon Prime and my friends bringing over movies I don't really need pay TV. Fox News is entertainment enough for me, now that I realized that it's a fake reality show. Sooner or later I always end up listening to music or reading. Netflix isn't attractive enough for me to pay money for it now, and if they raise the price it will still not be attractive. I can rent movies at Redbox. I get a lot of entertainment for free or pay at Amazon. Currently that's just Amazon Unlimited Music.

    I get all the entertainment I need and most of it is free. Please, somebody tell me, how will this affect me?

    Whatever happened to sex as entertainment? ;) And as far as the Internet is concerned, I thought about 40% of the traffic was pornographic. I've been calling it the "Pornoverse" but in fact I have no idea at all how much is porn. Anyway they say the best things in life are always free. As long as you use protection you can be damned sure sex is free! :) Have a side of music with that? ;)

    In all truth I can do without TV. Books are better anyway. Sex is better too. Please, how will the decision affect me? #TooTiredToRead
  18. SixofNine

    SixofNine Jedi Sage Staff Member

    Net neutrality is the principle that all traffic on the internet should be treated equally.

    The internet is for porn. :) The youtubes from the source, the musical Avenue Q, are poor quality because they were recorded with potatoes from the audience, so here is the World of Warcraft version:

  19. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Unregistered User

    Thank you Mark. You have to understand that I was on the Internet so much yesterday that the monitor was beginning to blur. I had no likelihood that I could last the effort to read the source articles.

    So it appears that net neutrality is fiat accompli? I mean, unless the assured court challenges succeed which appears unlikely.

    I understand that my streaming services will not be tampered with by my ISP and that should I decide to subscribe to Netflix that ISP interference will not affect its price or useability. I understand that Redbox has also gone streaming so it appears that Redbox rental rates too will be unaffected by greedy ISPs.

    If my understanding is correct, then net neutrality is assured at least until the ugly beast rears its head again we are protected from ISPs tipping the scales to enhance their greedy pockets.

    Now all we need is to have is the government not interfering in how online sales taxes are collected, in that some transactions are left for the purchasers to voluntarily send in the money to states when you aren't charged taxes for an out-of-state purchase. (Yeah like that is going to happen.)

    You know of course that Suzy is a shopping kind of grrl, although Suzy prefers to do her shopping on Wall Street, not on 5th Avenue! :) At least they don't charge sales taxes on Wall Street. :)

    As far as net neutrality, I do see the similarity between freedom of speech and freedom to a fair and level handed access to the Internet. With today's technology net neutrality is tantamount to freedom of speech. Or if not that then at least net neutrality protects innocent citizens from the greed of ISPs tampering with our Internet service and at our cost lining their pockets by using their special position to adversely affect us. To me that is bullying and the government should protect us from that.

    Back to sex as entertainment, although I did discuss pornography, I meant just pure and simple sex, not looking at pictures. You know, I mean having sexual intercourse for entertainment. Maybe put on a little music and light a few candles? How is that not better than watching TV? I guess of course you could turn on the TV instead of turning on the music. Myself, like most grrls, I am not much interested in pornography, although when I am I find that my romantic novels are quite satisfying when I want something pornographic. I mean, you know, bodice rippers! ;) Woo hoo! :)
  20. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    Net neutrality is gone. Kaput. ISPs are now free to do what they may with user connections. If they feel Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc. are eating too far into their own streaming offerings, they can now throttle those feeds in favor of their own and there's not a thing you as a user can do about it. Oh sure, you can threaten to leave and go to another service, but chances are you don't have too much of a choice as far as ISP offerings.

    They can now charge Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc. higher fees to piggy back on their backbones. Which will raise prices for the consumer in order to pay for those higher backbone fees.

    Oh darn! That hypothetical Netflix "documentary" that puts the major ISPs in a bad light? Now those ISPs can block Netflix and again, there's nothing you can do about it. And before you trot out VPN as a solution, the streaming services have been killing VPN connections left and right in order to preserve geo fencing.

    So no, there is no guarantee that your ISP will leave your connection alone. Especially if they feel they can squeeze more money out of you as a consumer. Want Netflix, Hulu, Amazon unblocked? I'm sure they'll have a higher tier service that will cost you oodles more per month for the "privilege" of accessing it.

    Data is the cash cow for ISPs. There's no reason for them to expand infrastructure for the time being, and they're free to charge exorbitant prices for outrageously draconian data caps.
    Susan Addams and Allene like this.

Share This Page