Jump to content
JThorson

FCC Revokes Net Neutrality [WAS: FCC Approves Net Neutrality]

Recommended Posts

The only thing about all of this that worries me is the alarming number of "Does this mean Verizon can't throttle my grandfathered unlimited plan anymore?" comments.

 

Wireless is totally different from wired from a network management and usage standpoint, yet it seems that the vast, vast majority of people don't understand that and want no-throttle (of any kind) policies enacted for mobile.

 

I wish one of the big-name tech sites would look at this issue and maybe do some writing on it.

 

Besides that, this is great news. Consumers will benefit.

Which part specifically will benefit consumers most?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the spirit of total disclosure...I am usually a hardcore republican????

 

BUT...I am a big supporter of the new net neutrality rules for the moat part.

image.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which part specifically will benefit consumers most?

Probably the entire "Open Internet" section. It creates a level playing field for small online businesses and encourages expansion and innovation in this market, plus it keeps ISPs from double-dipping.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably the entire "Open Internet" section. It creates a level playing field for small online businesses and encourages expansion and innovation in this market, plus it keeps ISPs from double-dipping.

 

Peering agreements were left out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the spirit of total disclosure...I am usually a hardcore republican

 

BUT...I am a big supporter of the new net neutrality rules for the moat part.

 

The Republicans were willing to pass net neutrality. It's the title II that is opposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peering agreements were left out.

Yes, but paid prioritization was outlawed, along with outright blocking of content at the consumer level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but paid prioritization was outlawed, along with outright blocking of content at the consumer level.

When did this happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did this happen?

Read the press release that AJ linked. Page 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the press release that AJ linked. Page 2.

I mean when did paid prioritization or blocking ever occur?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have to swallow it before we're told what's in it. 

Huh, didn't know the FCC had so much in common with Fraternities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm OK with the concept of Net Neutrality.  Especially as it relates to ISPs and bringing wireless companies into the fold.  I fear things about unintended consequences (or perhaps intended) that could happen to some aspects of free speech and open content.  I really feel more time to be transparent on the issue would have been a good thing for all of us.  I'm frankly tired of the secrecy of details before passage.

 

Even if all the details turn out to be good, why can't we discuss all of them in advance?  

 

This is about as political as you will ever catch me being on this board.  We will allow this political conversation to continue because it is directly related to wireless policy.  However, please keep to the facts, do not be emotional and try not to make it a partisan issue.  Thanks.

 

:thx:

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean when did paid prioritization or blocking ever occur?

AT&T's sponsored data (not really technically prioritization, but it gave companies willing to pay the "AT&T" tax an advantage over those unwilling or unable).

 

I can't think of any examples of blocking off the top of my head, but why should we wait for it to happen before banning it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AT&T's sponsored data (not really technically prioritization, but it gave companies willing to pay the "AT&T" tax an advantage over those unwilling or unable).

 

I can't think of any examples of blocking off the top of my head, but why should we wait for it to happen before banning it?

Because what was passed wasn't just net neutrality; it added Title II.

This is common: some bad thing that could happen is used to pass a law that way over reaches into something that was never the initial point of the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"As far as net neutrality goes, like any other business the idea of more regulation is never great for us but, to be honest, we don't see, at least from what [FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler] has been discussing, [the rules] as having any real effect on our business. And so therefore we are sort of neutral," said Cablevision chief executive James Dolan on Wednesday.

 

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/comcast-cablevision-charter-execs-have-mixed-reactions-net-neutrality-vote/2015-02-26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is every ones thought on this? You think it is good or bad? It will be interesting to see what happens and how many lawsuits follow this.

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/fcc-approves-net-neutrality-rules-wireless-putting-future-zero-rating-plans/2015-02-26

should of just left it alone lol 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because what was passed wasn't just net neutrality; it added Title II.

This is common: some bad thing that could happen is used to pass a law that way over reaches into something that was never the initial point of the law.

I understand (and to an extent have myself) the fear of unnecessary regulation hidden in the new laws, but I think it's kinda stupid to advocate to completely throw out the new regs because there *might* be problems with them. I want to see the full proposal before I draw conclusions on whether the regulation is overbearing or not. Until then, I think it's pretty safe to assume that they are within their appropriate boundaries.

 

This is, in all likelihood, a huge pro-consumer victory. Until proven otherwise, I don't understand the need to cast doom and gloom all over it.

 

Oh, and what specifically is bad about Title II?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the kind of behavior that has prompted talk of regulating ISPs:

 

So what about the incumbent players like AT&T (NYSE: T) and Charter Communications (NASDAQ: CHTR) in the Chattanooga area with broadband in the nearby towns EPB wants to serve? According to DePriest, the telephone lines that reach these communities are too far away from the nearest central office (CO) and local cable provider Charter is refusing to serve those areas.

 

http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/fcc-ruling-overturns-state-laws-preventing-municipal-broadband-expansion/2015-02-26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand (and to an extent have myself) the fear of unnecessary regulation hidden in the new laws, but I think it's kinda stupid to advocate to completely throw out the new regs because there *might* be problems with them. I want to see the full proposal before I draw conclusions on whether the regulation is overbearing or not. Until then, I think it's pretty safe to assume that they are within their appropriate boundaries.

 

This is, in all likelihood, a huge pro-consumer victory. Until proven otherwise, I don't understand the need to cast doom and gloom all over it.

 

Oh, and what specifically is bad about Title II?

 

I haven't seen the specific regs so I don't know.

But it seems the real issue is competition and instead of focusing on how to encourage competition, it seems - we'll know tomorrow - the FCC, Obama went for regulation i.e. control.

 

Given Obama's background, this was expected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the kind of behavior that has prompted talk of regulating ISPs:

 

So what about the incumbent players like AT&T (NYSE: T) and Charter Communications (NASDAQ: CHTR) in the Chattanooga area with broadband in the nearby towns EPB wants to serve? According to DePriest, the telephone lines that reach these communities are too far away from the nearest central office (CO) and local cable provider Charter is refusing to serve those areas.

 

http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/fcc-ruling-overturns-state-laws-preventing-municipal-broadband-expansion/2015-02-26

 

Yes, it is exactly why small governments should be allowed to bring service to areas where ILEC's and cable companies do not want to.  For state legislatures to prohibit subordinate governments from selling a utility service to its residents, especially underserved or unserved residents was absurd.  And brought about this whole issue.  Tennessee is one of the most egregious examples.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is exactly why small governments should be allowed to bring service to areas where ILEC's and cable companies do not want to. For state legislatures to prohibit subordinate governments from selling a utility service to its residents, especially underserved or unserved residents was absurd. And brought about this whole issue. Tennessee is one of the most egregious examples.

Agree. And comcast feigning concern for the finances of a city should its ISP fail …lol

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen the specific regs so I don't know.

But it seems the real issue is competition and instead of focusing on how to encourage competition, it seems - we'll know tomorrow - the FCC, Obama went for regulation i.e. control.

 

Given Obama's background, this was expected.

As far as I can tell, competition in the last-mile is not really feasible. In any other industry (besides similar utility monopolies), the threat of competition keeps corporations in check. In wired broadband, the barriers of entry (terrible short term ROI, permits/red tape, lots of required capex (more than a small business can muster), fighting the incumbent etc) far outweigh any potential positives of getting into the industry. Thus, whoever gets to a market first and fights through initial rollout will succeed, and they can easily pull the ladder up behind them by creating additional legal hurdles etc. After, the now-established incumbent can do more or less whatever it wants to with little threat of competition to keep in in check and prevent abuse.

 

Thus, while competition is the ideal solution, it doesn't look very feasible (at least to me anyway). Regulation (preferably transparent and publicly managed) is the next best thing.

 

I should add that the encouragement and further expansion of municipal networks might make a dent in the issue, but I fear it won't be enough. Not every municipality will be interested in running a network, no matter how much it benefits them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't understand how anyone, especially the most ardent supporters here, can support something that only 5 people had any idea what was actually in it. If you can blindly support something like this, it's sad. At least know what's in it before you throw your support behind it.

 

Most people point to the banning of throttling as to why this is so great. What about the other 300+ pages? It didn't take 322 pages to ban throttling. What if it turns out the regulations include massive fees that will ultimately be passed on to the consumer? What if, as Mark Cuban predicts, regular television starts to buffer because TV stations' Internet streams can no longer be prioritized? What about surgeons who perform robotic surgery on another continent? These are things that need priority.

 

Bottom line, this is an unconstitutional overreach of the federal government. If it's that important, how about at least Congressional approval or better yet, a Constitutional Amendment that each State gets to vote on?

 

Sent from my Note 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't understand how anyone, especially the most ardent supporters here, can support something that only 5 people had any idea what was actually in it. If you can blindly support something like this, it's sad. At least know what's in it before you throw your support behind it.

 

Most people point to the banning of throttling as to why this is so great. What about the other 300+ pages? It didn't take 322 pages to ban throttling. What if it turns out the regulations include massive fees that will ultimately be passed on to the consumer? What if, as Mark Cuban predicts, regular television starts to buffer because TV stations' Internet streams can no longer be prioritized? What about surgeons who perform robotic surgery on another continent? These are things that need priority.

 

Bottom line, this is an unconstitutional overreach of the federal government. If it's that important, how about at least Congressional approval or better yet, a Constitutional Amendment that each State gets to vote on?

 

Sent from my Note 4.

None of these rules have been enacted yet. Once the dissenting opinions are finalized the full document will be released for public comment.

 

There's still a few steps to go before this is enacted.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think Big Content has duped the public into buying their argument that you, as an ISP customer, should pay for their traffic, rather than you or advertisers paying Big Content to cover the carriage costs for the traffic they generate. So while this is awesome for ESPN and the NFL, who can continue to make deals that make you pay for their content as part of your wired ISP or wireless service - because that won't violate this supposed "Net Neutrality" and the FCC won't make them offer their content to all ISPs on an equal basis - it's potentially not so awesome for consumers.

 

The biggest boosters of "Net Neutrality" are Netflix (who want you to think that your monthly subscription covers all their expenses, when you're paying your ISP to deliver their traffic, regardless of whether you're a Netflix sub or not - they don't want their sticker price to be $20+ a month to cover the huge amounts of data they're dumping on ISPs) and ad-supported, VC-money-hemorrhaging media like Ars Technica, Huffington Post, and Vox Media's properties, who regardless of ideology won't be able to sustain their "free content with spammy ads" business models if they have to pay to deliver their traffic to your front door like non-electronic media have to do (you don't pay the postal service to deliver magazines; you don't pay the newspaper delivery guy to deliver the morning paper).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

×