What was he issue one of the FCC commishes tried to warn folks about some time ago?


Anyone else recall that discussion? Was it related to this?

Of course it got immediately derailed over some guy was the chairman or just a member, I recall, but that's pretty standard fare around here. Finding a nit to pick instead of addressing the issue raised.

(05-15-2014 11:13 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 09:50 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  I don't claim to know a whole heck of a lot about this. What I do know is whenever I hear about the government stepping in to "make things fair" it does precisely the opposite and prices go UP for everyone.

Maybe I've got this one wrong. But that'd be a first. I'll believe it when I see it.

This isn't government stepping in.

Welllllll, it's most certainly Government changing the playing field, is it not? Maybe not taking over the industry (give it time), but clearly this ruling right here could have dramatic effects down stream.

(05-15-2014 11:16 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:13 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 09:50 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  I don't claim to know a whole heck of a lot about this. What I do know is whenever I hear about the government stepping in to "make things fair" it does precisely the opposite and prices go UP for everyone.

Maybe I've got this one wrong. But that'd be a first. I'll believe it when I see it.

This isn't government stepping in.

Welllllll, it's most certainly Government changing the playing field, is it not? Maybe not taking over the industry (give it time), but clearly this ruling right here could have dramatic effects down stream.

I'm not entirely clear on your position now.

(05-15-2014 11:19 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:16 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:13 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 09:50 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  I don't claim to know a whole heck of a lot about this. What I do know is whenever I hear about the government stepping in to "make things fair" it does precisely the opposite and prices go UP for everyone.

Maybe I've got this one wrong. But that'd be a first. I'll believe it when I see it.

This isn't government stepping in.

Welllllll, it's most certainly Government changing the playing field, is it not? Maybe not taking over the industry (give it time), but clearly this ruling right here could have dramatic effects down stream.

I'm not entirely clear on your position now.

Yea, Like I said, I'm not entirely sure how much I understand about all this. I guess til now the gov't had been artificially keeping all sites, ISP's, and whatever else you call all this stuff, "equal". Is that correct? So things were supposedly "fair" to everyone, big guy and little guy alike?

Now, with this action (I'm always suspicious of anything claiming something like "neutrality, it's typically exactly the opposite) they are saying the gov't is getting out to some extent and it will be up to the players involved to figure out how they want to operate. Is that about right? The gov't will "remain neutral" and allow the Co's to negotiate who gets what access, access speeds, what the sites pay for all that and etc.?

If what I've (poorly) outlined above is correct, then I am actually inclined to see things move that direction. It may run the risk of the development of some kind of oligopoly, so I guess some regulation will be necessary, but it might also open further doors and models and other stuff we can't even imagine right now.

IOW's, I dunno. haha

(05-15-2014 11:32 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:19 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:16 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:13 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 09:50 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  I don't claim to know a whole heck of a lot about this. What I do know is whenever I hear about the government stepping in to "make things fair" it does precisely the opposite and prices go UP for everyone.

Maybe I've got this one wrong. But that'd be a first. I'll believe it when I see it.

This isn't government stepping in.

Welllllll, it's most certainly Government changing the playing field, is it not? Maybe not taking over the industry (give it time), but clearly this ruling right here could have dramatic effects down stream.

I'm not entirely clear on your position now.

Yea, Like I said, I'm not entirely sure how much I understand about all this. I guess til now the gov't had been artificially keeping all sites, ISP's, and whatever else you call all this stuff, "equal". Is that correct? So things were supposedly "fair" to everyone, big guy and little guy alike?

Now, with this action (I'm always suspicious of anything claiming something like "neutrality, it's typically exactly the opposite) they are saying the gov't is getting out to some extent and it will be up to the players involved to figure out how they want to operate. Is that about right? The gov't will "remain neutral" and allow the Co's to negotiate who gets what access, access speeds, what the sites pay for all that and etc.?

If what I've (poorly) outlined above is correct, then I am actually inclined to see things move that direction. It may run the risk of the development of some kind of oligopoly, so I guess some regulation will be necessary, but it might also open further doors and models and other stuff we can't even imagine right now.

IOW's, I dunno. haha

You kind of have the right idea but seem kind of confused on the details. Net Neutrality is that service providers must be neutral in delivering content to their customers. They can't increase or decrease internet speed for accessing some sites over others.

This ruling would end this requirement. Service providers could require websites to pay a fee in order to allow customers to access the site at normal or high speeds. They could even block sites. They could also limit access to sites they disagree with, such as political sites.

Think of it like a phone carrier. Currently you phone company has to give you the same service no matter who you call. If the phone companies did not have to do this, they could block calls to a store (WalMart for example) if that store did not pay an extra fee to the phone company.

This is an even bigger issue because many people do not have access to multiple high speed internet providers. Most providers have a monopoly in their area. Even in large cities that have multiple providers, there are areas that can't receive service from both. For example, I live in Charlotte and there are two providers here, TWC and AT&T U-Verse. But for some reason, I live in an area of the city that AT&T does not cover.

(05-15-2014 12:11 PM)EpicNiner Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:32 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:19 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:16 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:13 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  This isn't government stepping in.

Welllllll, it's most certainly Government changing the playing field, is it not? Maybe not taking over the industry (give it time), but clearly this ruling right here could have dramatic effects down stream.

I'm not entirely clear on your position now.

Yea, Like I said, I'm not entirely sure how much I understand about all this. I guess til now the gov't had been artificially keeping all sites, ISP's, and whatever else you call all this stuff, "equal". Is that correct? So things were supposedly "fair" to everyone, big guy and little guy alike?

Now, with this action (I'm always suspicious of anything claiming something like "neutrality, it's typically exactly the opposite) they are saying the gov't is getting out to some extent and it will be up to the players involved to figure out how they want to operate. Is that about right? The gov't will "remain neutral" and allow the Co's to negotiate who gets what access, access speeds, what the sites pay for all that and etc.?

If what I've (poorly) outlined above is correct, then I am actually inclined to see things move that direction. It may run the risk of the development of some kind of oligopoly, so I guess some regulation will be necessary, but it might also open further doors and models and other stuff we can't even imagine right now.

IOW's, I dunno. haha

You kind of have the right idea but seem kind of confused on the details. Net Neutrality is that service providers must be neutral in delivering content to their customers. They can't increase or decrease internet speed for accessing some sites over others.

This ruling would end this requirement. Service providers could require websites to pay a fee in order to allow customers to access the site at normal or high speeds. They could even block sites. They could also limit access to sites they disagree with, such as political sites.

Think of it like a phone carrier. Currently you phone company has to give you the same service no matter who you call. If the phone companies did not have to do this, they could block calls to a store (WalMart for example) if that store did not pay an extra fee to the phone company.

This is an even bigger issue because many people do not have access to multiple high speed internet providers. Most providers have a monopoly in their area. Even in large cities that have multiple providers, there are areas that can't receive service from both. For example, I live in Charlotte and there are two providers here, TWC and AT&T U-Verse. But for some reason, I live in an area of the city that AT&T does not cover.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head.

An argument used earlier was to "just switch providers". In a lot of places, including the part of Bowling Green I live in, TWC is the only provider. Especially since they bought out Insight here.

This is an awful ruling and it will affect new innovations online in America. You have now essentially created a huge barrier to entry for new entrants into large, bandwidth intensive sites on the internet. Great job FCC.

The last mile ISPs should be viewed as a utility. There is not enough competition (in most places a duopoly at best) in the marketplace to allow this kind of crap.

I read a week or so ago a piece from the head of a venture capital fund. He said with the expected FCC ruling, they were no longer going to invest in tech start ups.

This ruling favors nobody but the handful of major ISPs that exist in the U.S. It hurts everyone else.

Just did some more reading... this is going to open up a ton of lawsuits.

They basically say that the ISP has to guarantee everyone gets to your house at the advertised speed you subscribe to. I subscribe to 35Mbps down, during peak times my speedtests are around 20Mbps. The ISP would therefore be in violation of this new proposal and I could sue.

Outside of the guaranteed speed that I subscribe to, they then can give above and beyond speed to companies that pay for the extra speed. For example, you could subscribe to a 1Mbps downstream internet connection with your ISP, but that would not be enough for Netflix to send you their HD stream. Netflix could then pay the ISP money to bump their traffic up to 5Mbps so you could see their stream in HD.

This is going to be a huge can of worms... and likely lawsuits galore.

Edit: The quote that really will get scrutiny... an ISP cannot do anything "commercially unreasonable." That is pretty freaking vague.

I am one of the biggest anti-government people on the entire site. And I am decidedly FOR net neutrality. There are a litany of reasons I've discussed here before at length and many already covered on this thread.

If you are against net neutrality you either confuse the current situation we have now with a free market or your tech IQ is approximately "the big blue E is the internet right?". (Or maybe you work for one of the unholy duopoly carriers)

(05-15-2014 01:18 PM)mlb Wrote:  Edit: The quote that really will get scrutiny... an ISP cannot do anything "commercially unreasonable." That is pretty freaking vague.

Hopefully resulting in another legal defeat for the FCC and the whole thing is thrown out.

(05-15-2014 02:27 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 01:18 PM)mlb Wrote:  Edit: The quote that really will get scrutiny... an ISP cannot do anything "commercially unreasonable." That is pretty freaking vague.

Hopefully resulting in another legal defeat for the FCC and the whole thing is thrown out.

This is a huge clusterf--- by both parties.

The democrats are supposed to be in favor of net neutrality but the head of the FCC (appointed by Obama) made the deciding vote. The other 4 votes went 2 for (Republican appointees) and 2 against (Democrat appointees). This is nothing more than greed based regulating... as in the big money came in from the telecoms.

(05-15-2014 02:25 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  or you tech IQ is approximately "the big blue E is the internet right?".

Internet is not a true free market system and cannot be treated as such. Companies have monopolies on cities and regions. Hell, where I live there are 5 different ISPs but only 1 services my apartment complex IN THE CITY LIMITS. So, I still only have 1 option or I have to move somewhere in the same *** **** city just to change ISPs. I'm like GTS where I'm anti gov reg. but this is one I support, simply because there is no true free market and it has to be messed with.

Interesting the Obama appointee,a former cable lobbyist, was the deciding vote. More crony capitalism.

When the government gets involved in ANY marketplace...it fcks it up. When they get involved in this one ....the same thing will happen. That old unintended consequences thing. I don't know that much about this...but...I expect this will end badly.

It's really simple. When you are posting on this board, you are using a base level of bandwidth. For argument sake, let's set this as X.

If you are watching Youtube or another regular definition, you are using 3-4X. An HD video is 5-9X.

Why shouldn't the person that is streaming HD video pay for the higher usage? Charging the same for everyone, ie. net neutrality, is just another example of income redistribution.

(05-16-2014 07:30 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  It's really simple. When you are posting on this board, you are using a base level of bandwidth. For argument sake, let's set this as X.

If you are watching Youtube or another regular definition, you are using 3-4X. An HD video is 5-9X.

Why shouldn't the person that is streaming HD video pay for the higher usage? Charging the same for everyone, ie. net neutrality, is just another example of income redistribution.

Ill take your word that explanation is correct...and...I agree with you. I have no problem paying for things I use. I object to subsidizing others usage.

(05-15-2014 01:18 PM)mlb Wrote:  Just did some more reading... this is going to open up a ton of lawsuits.

They basically say that the ISP has to guarantee everyone gets to your house at the advertised speed you subscribe to. I subscribe to 35Mbps down, during peak times my speedtests are around 20Mbps. The ISP would therefore be in violation of this new proposal and I could sue.

Outside of the guaranteed speed that I subscribe to, they then can give above and beyond speed to companies that pay for the extra speed. For example, you could subscribe to a 1Mbps downstream internet connection with your ISP, but that would not be enough for Netflix to send you their HD stream. Netflix could then pay the ISP money to bump their traffic up to 5Mbps so you could see their stream in HD.

This is going to be a huge can of worms... and likely lawsuits galore.

Edit: The quote that really will get scrutiny... an ISP cannot do anything "commercially unreasonable." That is pretty freaking vague.

I just read this as well and it will be interesting how this is treated. Most ISPs are already suspected of throttling service for high bandwidth users. If this really does only create fast lanes and prohibit ISPs from slowing down service, it could possibly turn out to be a good thing. However, I doubt that will be the end result.

(05-16-2014 07:30 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  It's really simple. When you are posting on this board, you are using a base level of bandwidth. For argument sake, let's set this as X.

If you are watching Youtube or another regular definition, you are using 3-4X. An HD video is 5-9X.

Why shouldn't the person that is streaming HD video pay for the higher usage? Charging the same for everyone, ie. net neutrality, is just another example of income redistribution.

Thank you for demonstrating you don't understand the issue.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(05-16-2014 08:59 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 07:30 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  It's really simple. When you are posting on this board, you are using a base level of bandwidth. For argument sake, let's set this as X.

If you are watching Youtube or another regular definition, you are using 3-4X. An HD video is 5-9X.

Why shouldn't the person that is streaming HD video pay for the higher usage? Charging the same for everyone, ie. net neutrality, is just another example of income redistribution.

Thank you for demonstrating you don't understand the issue.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

So how am I wrong?