Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Net neutrality wins: the FCC will propose strong Title II regulation
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
NIU05 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,683
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 40
I Root For: TRUTH
Location: Eternity
Post: #21
RE: Net neutrality wins: the FCC will propose strong Title II regulation
Who is the victim here? The government using their police powers where there is no crime. Hiring more bureaucrats to tell the innovative people the wrongs they are doing or should not be doing.

The utter faith of individuals on this board in government bureaucrats is incredible. Do you really believe we have spend OUR tax dollars on an industry as innovative and DYNAMIC as the internet? There are people in this country starving and homeless, but YOU feel that resources should be squandered on the most vibrant part of American industry? That is mind boggling.
02-27-2015 12:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Enaiu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,357
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 26
I Root For: NIU Huskies
Location: Lawrence, Kansas
Post: #22
RE: Net neutrality wins: the FCC will propose strong Title II regulation
(02-27-2015 12:31 AM)NIU05 Wrote:  Who is the victim here? The government using their police powers where there is no crime. Hiring more bureaucrats to tell the innovative people the wrongs they are doing or should not be doing.

The utter faith of individuals on this board in government bureaucrats is incredible. Do you really believe we have spend OUR tax dollars on an industry as innovative and DYNAMIC as the internet? There are people in this country starving and homeless, but YOU feel that resources should be squandered on the most vibrant part of American industry? That is mind boggling.

Victim? Police Powers? What the hell are you talking about? Sorry, but do you WANT Comcast/Verizon/etc. throttling your internet speeds to specific websites - that's what you get without net neutrality - ALL DATA IS TREATED EQUALLY. The term 'Net Neutrality' refers to the internet as it has been for the last couple of decades. The fact that it is being upheld means that the internet is not going to change. If you want your ISP throttling the loading speeds of CSNBBS.com (which they probably would because this is not a popular website), then sure... the Government did you a wrong. But I honestly doubt that is what you wanted.

EDIT:
If a website (like Netflix or Amazon) wanted their website to load at a decent speed (or be available at all) they would potentially have to pay the ISP's to let their websites work through that ISP's services. Because of this vote, that is illegal now.

"The regulations will help prevent unfair practices from stifling competition. It prohibits telecommunications companies from creating paid prioritization for companies that can afford it and pushing companies that can't into a 'slow lane' connection. This is beneficial to you as the consumer because it ensures that when you go to ANY (legal) website, your path to the site will not be blocked, rate limited, or impeded in any way. This also removes the restrictions enacted on a state level that has restricted competition. There are state laws that block municipal broadband because bigger telcos have the money to fill the coffers of local officials enough to vote in their favor. So the next Google Fiber site or local community can now vote for municipal broadband without worrying about a state law that prevents them from building their own."
(This post was last modified: 02-27-2015 01:36 AM by Enaiu.)
02-27-2015 01:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
niuguy Offline
The first in, last out!
*

Posts: 7,212
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 52
I Root For: NIU Huskies
Location: Chicago, IL
Post: #23
RE: Net neutrality wins: the FCC will propose strong Title II regulation
(02-27-2015 12:31 AM)NIU05 Wrote:  Who is the victim here? The government using their police powers where there is no crime. Hiring more bureaucrats to tell the innovative people the wrongs they are doing or should not be doing.

The utter faith of individuals on this board in government bureaucrats is incredible. Do you really believe we have spend OUR tax dollars on an industry as innovative and DYNAMIC as the internet? There are people in this country starving and homeless, but YOU feel that resources should be squandered on the most vibrant part of American industry? That is mind boggling.

Again, I don't think you really understand what is going on here.

The victim here is that there isn't a free open market on the internet when ISPs are allowed to act as gatekeepers to the internet who can slow down or tax websites and other businesses to receive preferred access.

I thought you people were all about low barriers to entry. You are arguing right now that ISPs should be allowed complete and unfettered ability to control who sees what on the internet.
(This post was last modified: 02-27-2015 10:59 AM by niuguy.)
02-27-2015 10:58 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Policiious Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,870
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 21
I Root For: NU, NIU
Location:
Post: #24
RE: Net neutrality wins: the FCC will propose strong Title II regulation
(02-27-2015 12:31 AM)NIU05 Wrote:  Who is the victim here? The government using their police powers where there is no crime. Hiring more bureaucrats to tell the innovative people the wrongs they are doing or should not be doing.

The utter faith of individuals on this board in government bureaucrats is incredible. Do you really believe we have spend OUR tax dollars on an industry as innovative and DYNAMIC as the internet? There are people in this country starving and homeless, but YOU feel that resources should be squandered on the most vibrant part of American industry? That is mind boggling.

It's not the utter faith in the Fed Gov't; it's the complete faith in the fact that Monopolistic Oligarch's will Screw over consumers every chance they get and these rules will make it much harder for them to do that.

For profit businesses live by the code of enhancing shareholder wealth at all costs and those costs are almost always put off on the consumer.
02-27-2015 02:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Policiious Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,870
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 21
I Root For: NU, NIU
Location:
Post: #25
RE: Net neutrality wins: the FCC will propose strong Title II regulation
(02-27-2015 10:58 AM)niuguy Wrote:  
(02-27-2015 12:31 AM)NIU05 Wrote:  Who is the victim here? The government using their police powers where there is no crime. Hiring more bureaucrats to tell the innovative people the wrongs they are doing or should not be doing.

The utter faith of individuals on this board in government bureaucrats is incredible. Do you really believe we have spend OUR tax dollars on an industry as innovative and DYNAMIC as the internet? There are people in this country starving and homeless, but YOU feel that resources should be squandered on the most vibrant part of American industry? That is mind boggling.

Again, I don't think you really understand what is going on here.

The victim here is that there isn't a free open market on the internet when ISPs are allowed to act as gatekeepers to the internet who can slow down or tax websites and other businesses to receive preferred access.

I thought you people were all about low barriers to entry. You are arguing right now that ISPs should be allowed complete and unfettered ability to control who sees what on the internet.


Yep that so called "invisible hand of the Free Market" has been jerking off consumers for years and without regulation has the potential to do it even more often and with tragic results
02-27-2015 02:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DoubleHuskie84 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,737
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 4
I Root For: N I U
Location: Top of Sec D
Post: #26
RE: Net neutrality wins: the FCC will propose strong Title II regulation
It's absolutely amazing how the Republicans spin this so now they're the victims.
People need to pay attention.
02-28-2015 05:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU05 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,683
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 40
I Root For: TRUTH
Location: Eternity
Post: #27
RE: Net neutrality wins: the FCC will propose strong Title II regulation
(02-27-2015 10:58 AM)niuguy Wrote:  
(02-27-2015 12:31 AM)NIU05 Wrote:  Who is the victim here? The government using their police powers where there is no crime. Hiring more bureaucrats to tell the innovative people the wrongs they are doing or should not be doing.

The utter faith of individuals on this board in government bureaucrats is incredible. Do you really believe we have spend OUR tax dollars on an industry as innovative and DYNAMIC as the internet? There are people in this country starving and homeless, but YOU feel that resources should be squandered on the most vibrant part of American industry? That is mind boggling.

Again, I don't think you really understand what is going on here.

The victim here is that there isn't a free open market on the internet when ISPs are allowed to act as gatekeepers to the internet who can slow down or tax websites and other businesses to receive preferred access.

I thought you people were all about low barriers to entry. You are arguing right now that ISPs should be allowed complete and unfettered ability to control who sees what on the internet.

"You people"....interesting you still use that term.

Regarding your condescending remark,"I don't think you understand". Nothing says welcome to the 21st century like, Im from the government and Im here to help you" ....just because he says he loves you in the back seat of a car at two in morning does not means its true.

The history of regulated network industries works more like this, whether transportation or communication or energy, is threefold: first, regulators reorganized the industry into a protectionist cartel; second, this arrangement suits consumers poorly—exactly the opposite if what is the professed intention; third, investment and innovation atrophy.

The decision in 1996 ruling that the ISP were not common carriers was a good one and we have benefited. What's at stake here is investment and innovation. We need better, we are better off today because of that ruling in 1996 an we are better off because of the de-regulation of Ma Bell in the 1980's.

To the snarly guy talking about monolithic corporations and their profit, I will side with them rather than the unabated powers of government. Look around the globe, its is GOVERNMENTS who restrict access to the net and what can be and not be seen. It why our bill of rights restricts the powers of government, since the natural force of governments is more accumalate power.
02-28-2015 09:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Enaiu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,357
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 26
I Root For: NIU Huskies
Location: Lawrence, Kansas
Post: #28
RE: Net neutrality wins: the FCC will propose strong Title II regulation
(02-28-2015 09:14 AM)NIU05 Wrote:  
(02-27-2015 10:58 AM)niuguy Wrote:  
(02-27-2015 12:31 AM)NIU05 Wrote:  Who is the victim here? The government using their police powers where there is no crime. Hiring more bureaucrats to tell the innovative people the wrongs they are doing or should not be doing.

The utter faith of individuals on this board in government bureaucrats is incredible. Do you really believe we have spend OUR tax dollars on an industry as innovative and DYNAMIC as the internet? There are people in this country starving and homeless, but YOU feel that resources should be squandered on the most vibrant part of American industry? That is mind boggling.

Again, I don't think you really understand what is going on here.

The victim here is that there isn't a free open market on the internet when ISPs are allowed to act as gatekeepers to the internet who can slow down or tax websites and other businesses to receive preferred access.

I thought you people were all about low barriers to entry. You are arguing right now that ISPs should be allowed complete and unfettered ability to control who sees what on the internet.

"You people"....interesting you still use that term.

Regarding your condescending remark,"I don't think you understand". Nothing says welcome to the 21st century like, Im from the government and Im here to help you" ....just because he says he loves you in the back seat of a car at two in morning does not means its true.

The history of regulated network industries works more like this, whether transportation or communication or energy, is threefold: first, regulators reorganized the industry into a protectionist cartel; second, this arrangement suits consumers poorly—exactly the opposite if what is the professed intention; third, investment and innovation atrophy.

The decision in 1996 ruling that the ISP were not common carriers was a good one and we have benefited. What's at stake here is investment and innovation. We need better, we are better off today because of that ruling in 1996 an we are better off because of the de-regulation of Ma Bell in the 1980's.

To the snarly guy talking about monolithic corporations and their profit, I will side with them rather than the unabated powers of government. Look around the globe, its is GOVERNMENTS who restrict access to the net and what can be and not be seen. It why our bill of rights restricts the powers of government, since the natural force of governments is more accumalate power.

The government is trying to protect us from ISPs from being too selfish with the service they provide. Without this law, ISPs could have potentially (and they would have!) charged users more, for lower quality service. Why are you against this?
02-28-2015 01:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
niuguy Offline
The first in, last out!
*

Posts: 7,212
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 52
I Root For: NIU Huskies
Location: Chicago, IL
Post: #29
RE: Net neutrality wins: the FCC will propose strong Title II regulation
(02-28-2015 01:20 PM)Enaiu Wrote:  The government is trying to protect us from ISPs from being too selfish with the service they provide. Without this law, ISPs could have potentially (and they would have!) charged users more, for lower quality service. Why are you against this?

He believes the free market is always good and the government is always bad.
02-28-2015 05:25 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MaddDawgz02 Offline
Banned

Posts: 40,735
Joined: Jan 2004
I Root For: any UT opponent
Location:
Post: #30
RE: Net neutrality wins: the FCC will propose strong Title II regulation
Noone really knows what net neutrality means, it means government intruding and controlling our lives though. Obama finishing his vision of a mix of a socialist and communist country. 2016...PLEASE GET HERE...PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
03-01-2015 06:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU17 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,093
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 10
I Root For: NIU Huskies
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Net neutrality wins: the FCC will propose strong Title II regulation
(03-01-2015 06:49 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  Noone really knows what net neutrality means, it means government intruding and controlling our lives though. Obama finishing his vision of a mix of a socialist and communist country. 2016...PLEASE GET HERE...PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

You don't know what you are talking about. So please just keep starting the bball prediction threads, how sad it is that PJ and WMU football is taking all the NIU fans away, and how the MAC is so underrated in football and basketball and gets no respect. On yeah, and all the anti-NIU conspiracy threads. Btw, I do like the basketball prediction threads.
03-01-2015 10:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU05 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,683
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 40
I Root For: TRUTH
Location: Eternity
Post: #32
RE: Net neutrality wins: the FCC will propose strong Title II regulation
(02-28-2015 01:20 PM)Enaiu Wrote:  
(02-28-2015 09:14 AM)NIU05 Wrote:  
(02-27-2015 10:58 AM)niuguy Wrote:  
(02-27-2015 12:31 AM)NIU05 Wrote:  Who is the victim here? The government using their police powers where there is no crime. Hiring more bureaucrats to tell the innovative people the wrongs they are doing or should not be doing.

The utter faith of individuals on this board in government bureaucrats is incredible. Do you really believe we have spend OUR tax dollars on an industry as innovative and DYNAMIC as the internet? There are people in this country starving and homeless, but YOU feel that resources should be squandered on the most vibrant part of American industry? That is mind boggling.

Again, I don't think you really understand what is going on here.

The victim here is that there isn't a free open market on the internet when ISPs are allowed to act as gatekeepers to the internet who can slow down or tax websites and other businesses to receive preferred access.

I thought you people were all about low barriers to entry. You are arguing right now that ISPs should be allowed complete and unfettered ability to control who sees what on the internet.

"You people"....interesting you still use that term.

Regarding your condescending remark,"I don't think you understand". Nothing says welcome to the 21st century like, Im from the government and Im here to help you" ....just because he says he loves you in the back seat of a car at two in morning does not means its true.

The history of regulated network industries works more like this, whether transportation or communication or energy, is threefold: first, regulators reorganized the industry into a protectionist cartel; second, this arrangement suits consumers poorly—exactly the opposite if what is the professed intention; third, investment and innovation atrophy.

The decision in 1996 ruling that the ISP were not common carriers was a good one and we have benefited. What's at stake here is investment and innovation. We need better, we are better off today because of that ruling in 1996 an we are better off because of the de-regulation of Ma Bell in the 1980's.

To the snarly guy talking about monolithic corporations and their profit, I will side with them rather than the unabated powers of government. Look around the globe, its is GOVERNMENTS who restrict access to the net and what can be and not be seen. It why our bill of rights restricts the powers of government, since the natural force of governments is more accumalate power.

The government is trying to protect us from ISPs from being too selfish with the service they provide. Without this law, ISPs could have potentially (and they would have!) charged users more, for lower quality service. Why are you against this?

The very scenario you described is how a REGULATED industry operates. There becomes no incentive to invest and innovate. We will need more investment to transform what we have already into a better net. I really don;t give a hoot about Verizon,NetFlix,Comcast or Google. I do not care how the big girls work out their problems. Netflix did enter into an agreement with Verizon earlier for faster pipes. As a result I assumed NetFlix would charge THEIR customers more as a result of costs. Now under net neutrality / "equality" the ISP's to earn more will have to charge EVERYONE more. btw, for the uniformed, profits are needed to fund future investments.

What I can not understand is how people forget history. President Clinton in a nonpartisan manner led and was an advocate for no regulations in the 1990's. We have benefited from that decision and leadership. Now in a highly partisan 3-2 vote the FCC votes to regulate the net. The most innovative and transforming communications system on our lifetime and they decide lawyers are needed to run the system. Its only been 20+ years and we have BENEFITED, there is no pressing need to change the current system. What is also staggering is the regulations they have in mind have not been presented before the people, before congress for approval. They have not any public hearings as of yet.
***********************
"Everything the government does is bad" ??? NO.... But the burden of proof is and should be on the TRILLION DOLLAR MONSTER that wants more power on a daily basis. The fifth estate has abdicated it's cynical eye toward this monster that feels comfortable with billionaires. It is the right and the duty of every citizen to keep an open eye when it wants more.
03-01-2015 11:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Enaiu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,357
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 26
I Root For: NIU Huskies
Location: Lawrence, Kansas
Post: #33
RE: Net neutrality wins: the FCC will propose strong Title II regulation
(03-01-2015 06:49 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  Noone really knows what net neutrality means, it means government intruding and controlling our lives though. Obama finishing his vision of a mix of a socialist and communist country. 2016...PLEASE GET HERE...PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

Just because you don't know what it means, it doesn't mean I don't know what it means.
03-01-2015 11:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Enaiu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,357
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 26
I Root For: NIU Huskies
Location: Lawrence, Kansas
Post: #34
Re: RE: Net neutrality wins: the FCC will propose strong Title II regulation
(03-01-2015 11:46 PM)NIU05 Wrote:  
(02-28-2015 01:20 PM)Enaiu Wrote:  
(02-28-2015 09:14 AM)NIU05 Wrote:  
(02-27-2015 10:58 AM)niuguy Wrote:  
(02-27-2015 12:31 AM)NIU05 Wrote:  Who is the victim here? The government using their police powers where there is no crime. Hiring more bureaucrats to tell the innovative people the wrongs they are doing or should not be doing.

The utter faith of individuals on this board in government bureaucrats is incredible. Do you really believe we have spend OUR tax dollars on an industry as innovative and DYNAMIC as the internet? There are people in this country starving and homeless, but YOU feel that resources should be squandered on the most vibrant part of American industry? That is mind boggling.

Again, I don't think you really understand what is going on here.

The victim here is that there isn't a free open market on the internet when ISPs are allowed to act as gatekeepers to the internet who can slow down or tax websites and other businesses to receive preferred access.

I thought you people were all about low barriers to entry. You are arguing right now that ISPs should be allowed complete and unfettered ability to control who sees what on the internet.

"You people"....interesting you still use that term.

Regarding your condescending remark,"I don't think you understand". Nothing says welcome to the 21st century like, Im from the government and Im here to help you" ....just because he says he loves you in the back seat of a car at two in morning does not means its true.

The history of regulated network industries works more like this, whether transportation or communication or energy, is threefold: first, regulators reorganized the industry into a protectionist cartel; second, this arrangement suits consumers poorly—exactly the opposite if what is the professed intention; third, investment and innovation atrophy.

The decision in 1996 ruling that the ISP were not common carriers was a good one and we have benefited. What's at stake here is investment and innovation. We need better, we are better off today because of that ruling in 1996 an we are better off because of the de-regulation of Ma Bell in the 1980's.

To the snarly guy talking about monolithic corporations and their profit, I will side with them rather than the unabated powers of government. Look around the globe, its is GOVERNMENTS who restrict access to the net and what can be and not be seen. It why our bill of rights restricts the powers of government, since the natural force of governments is more accumalate power.

The government is trying to protect us from ISPs from being too selfish with the service they provide. Without this law, ISPs could have potentially (and they would have!) charged users more, for lower quality service. Why are you against this?

The very scenario you described is how a REGULATED industry operates. There becomes no incentive to invest and innovate. We will need more investment to transform what we have already into a better net. I really don;t give a hoot about Verizon,NetFlix,Comcast or Google. I do not care how the big girls work out their problems. Netflix did enter into an agreement with Verizon earlier for faster pipes. As a result I assumed NetFlix would charge THEIR customers more as a result of costs. Now under net neutrality / "equality" the ISP's to earn more will have to charge EVERYONE more. btw, for the uniformed, profits are needed to fund future investments.

What I can not understand is how people forget history. President Clinton in a nonpartisan manner led and was an advocate for no regulations in the 1990's. We have benefited from that decision and leadership. Now in a highly partisan 3-2 vote the FCC votes to regulate the net. The most innovative and transforming communications system on our lifetime and they decide lawyers are needed to run the system. Its only been 20+ years and we have BENEFITED, there is no pressing need to change the current system. What is also staggering is the regulations they have in mind have not been presented before the people, before congress for approval. They have not any public hearings as of yet.
***********************
"Everything the government does is bad" ??? NO.... But the burden of proof is and should be on the TRILLION DOLLAR MONSTER that wants more power on a daily basis. The fifth estate has abdicated it's cynical eye toward this monster that feels comfortable with billionaires. It is the right and the duty of every citizen to keep an open eye when it wants more.

Again, I do not believe that MY CONNECTION should be throttled because ATT decided to contract seperate hosts and domains for higher speeds than others. That is complete and utter bull****. I am WILLING to pay a higher price for THAT freedom - if that's what it takes. If they decide to charge me more for the same service that I've been getting for 2 years, then that is also bologna (but that's a different topic), but I'd be willing to pay it.. Fortunately for us, the law passed also allows for competitors to more easily step into the territory of others (see google fiber), so that they can lay their own pipes down. ISPs have a monopoly over the land, and can charge whatever the hell they want... Be honest with me, how many ISPs are in your area (excluding satellite internet)? I'd be surprised if you said more than 2. Do you NOT find something wrong in that number???
(This post was last modified: 03-02-2015 02:29 AM by Enaiu.)
03-02-2015 02:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
niuguy Offline
The first in, last out!
*

Posts: 7,212
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 52
I Root For: NIU Huskies
Location: Chicago, IL
Post: #35
RE: Net neutrality wins: the FCC will propose strong Title II regulation
These are the FCC's full rules for protecting net neutrality

http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/12/811623...r-released

One of the big questions this document answers is which Title II regulations the commission won't be applying to internet service. It turns out to be quite a lot: more than 700 rules aren't going to be applied. "This includes no unbundling of last-mile facilities, no tariffing, no rate regulation, and no cost accounting rules, which results in a carefully tailored application of only those Title II provisions found to directly further the public interest in an open internet and more, better, and open broadband," the order says. The idea that this proposal is a so-called "light touch" approach to regulation has been touted again and again, basically as a way to quell concerns from those who oppose regulation. Of course, it hasn't exactly done that, and we're still seeing plenty of complaints from the internet providers that are now having their services classified under Title II.

The order focuses on three specific rules for internet service: no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. "A person engaged in the provision of broadband internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management," the order states, while outlining its rules against throttling

View full rules here: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases...5-24A1.pdf
(This post was last modified: 03-12-2015 05:59 PM by niuguy.)
03-12-2015 05:58 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MaddDawgz02 Offline
Banned

Posts: 40,735
Joined: Jan 2004
I Root For: any UT opponent
Location:
Post: #36
RE: Net neutrality wins: the FCC will propose strong Title II regulation
(03-12-2015 05:58 PM)niuguy Wrote:  These are the FCC's full rules for protecting net neutrality

http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/12/811623...r-released

One of the big questions this document answers is which Title II regulations the commission won't be applying to internet service. It turns out to be quite a lot: more than 700 rules aren't going to be applied. "This includes no unbundling of last-mile facilities, no tariffing, no rate regulation, and no cost accounting rules, which results in a carefully tailored application of only those Title II provisions found to directly further the public interest in an open internet and more, better, and open broadband," the order says. The idea that this proposal is a so-called "light touch" approach to regulation has been touted again and again, basically as a way to quell concerns from those who oppose regulation. Of course, it hasn't exactly done that, and we're still seeing plenty of complaints from the internet providers that are now having their services classified under Title II.

The order focuses on three specific rules for internet service: no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. "A person engaged in the provision of broadband internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management," the order states, while outlining its rules against throttling

View full rules here: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases...5-24A1.pdf

Competition goes way down and service goes way down, not a good scenario
03-12-2015 07:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BleedsHuskieRed Offline
All American
*

Posts: 10,067
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 78
I Root For: NIU
Location: Colorado Springs

Donators
Post: #37
RE: Net neutrality wins: the FCC will propose strong Title II regulation
(03-12-2015 07:02 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  
(03-12-2015 05:58 PM)niuguy Wrote:  These are the FCC's full rules for protecting net neutrality

http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/12/811623...r-released

One of the big questions this document answers is which Title II regulations the commission won't be applying to internet service. It turns out to be quite a lot: more than 700 rules aren't going to be applied. "This includes no unbundling of last-mile facilities, no tariffing, no rate regulation, and no cost accounting rules, which results in a carefully tailored application of only those Title II provisions found to directly further the public interest in an open internet and more, better, and open broadband," the order says. The idea that this proposal is a so-called "light touch" approach to regulation has been touted again and again, basically as a way to quell concerns from those who oppose regulation. Of course, it hasn't exactly done that, and we're still seeing plenty of complaints from the internet providers that are now having their services classified under Title II.

The order focuses on three specific rules for internet service: no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. "A person engaged in the provision of broadband internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management," the order states, while outlining its rules against throttling

View full rules here: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases...5-24A1.pdf

Competition goes way down and service goes way down, not a good scenario
Explain please.
03-12-2015 07:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MaddDawgz02 Offline
Banned

Posts: 40,735
Joined: Jan 2004
I Root For: any UT opponent
Location:
Post: #38
RE: Net neutrality wins: the FCC will propose strong Title II regulation
(03-12-2015 07:14 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  
(03-12-2015 07:02 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  
(03-12-2015 05:58 PM)niuguy Wrote:  These are the FCC's full rules for protecting net neutrality

http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/12/811623...r-released

One of the big questions this document answers is which Title II regulations the commission won't be applying to internet service. It turns out to be quite a lot: more than 700 rules aren't going to be applied. "This includes no unbundling of last-mile facilities, no tariffing, no rate regulation, and no cost accounting rules, which results in a carefully tailored application of only those Title II provisions found to directly further the public interest in an open internet and more, better, and open broadband," the order says. The idea that this proposal is a so-called "light touch" approach to regulation has been touted again and again, basically as a way to quell concerns from those who oppose regulation. Of course, it hasn't exactly done that, and we're still seeing plenty of complaints from the internet providers that are now having their services classified under Title II.

The order focuses on three specific rules for internet service: no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. "A person engaged in the provision of broadband internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management," the order states, while outlining its rules against throttling

View full rules here: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases...5-24A1.pdf

Competition goes way down and service goes way down, not a good scenario
Explain please.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/...mpetition/


Its just like universal health care and the liberal idea of driving down competition. In this case, favoring the dominant ISPs and getting rid of the smaller ones will only drive prices up as the competition goes down. The government is just overreaching far too much the past decade, it really has turned into a communist/socialist state.
03-12-2015 07:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BleedsHuskieRed Offline
All American
*

Posts: 10,067
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 78
I Root For: NIU
Location: Colorado Springs

Donators
Post: #39
RE: Net neutrality wins: the FCC will propose strong Title II regulation
(03-12-2015 07:41 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  
(03-12-2015 07:14 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  
(03-12-2015 07:02 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  
(03-12-2015 05:58 PM)niuguy Wrote:  These are the FCC's full rules for protecting net neutrality

http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/12/811623...r-released

One of the big questions this document answers is which Title II regulations the commission won't be applying to internet service. It turns out to be quite a lot: more than 700 rules aren't going to be applied. "This includes no unbundling of last-mile facilities, no tariffing, no rate regulation, and no cost accounting rules, which results in a carefully tailored application of only those Title II provisions found to directly further the public interest in an open internet and more, better, and open broadband," the order says. The idea that this proposal is a so-called "light touch" approach to regulation has been touted again and again, basically as a way to quell concerns from those who oppose regulation. Of course, it hasn't exactly done that, and we're still seeing plenty of complaints from the internet providers that are now having their services classified under Title II.

The order focuses on three specific rules for internet service: no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. "A person engaged in the provision of broadband internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management," the order states, while outlining its rules against throttling

View full rules here: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases...5-24A1.pdf

Competition goes way down and service goes way down, not a good scenario
Explain please.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/...mpetition/


Its just like universal health care and the liberal idea of driving down competition. In this case, favoring the dominant ISPs and getting rid of the smaller ones will only drive prices up as the competition goes down. The government is just overreaching far too much the past decade, it really has turned into a communist/socialist state.
Previous to this ruling, with the "open market" we have reached what we have today. How do you figure the previous status quo would have changed anything?
03-12-2015 09:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
niuguy Offline
The first in, last out!
*

Posts: 7,212
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 52
I Root For: NIU Huskies
Location: Chicago, IL
Post: #40
RE: Net neutrality wins: the FCC will propose strong Title II regulation
(03-12-2015 09:05 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  
(03-12-2015 07:41 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  
(03-12-2015 07:14 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  
(03-12-2015 07:02 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  
(03-12-2015 05:58 PM)niuguy Wrote:  These are the FCC's full rules for protecting net neutrality

http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/12/811623...r-released

One of the big questions this document answers is which Title II regulations the commission won't be applying to internet service. It turns out to be quite a lot: more than 700 rules aren't going to be applied. "This includes no unbundling of last-mile facilities, no tariffing, no rate regulation, and no cost accounting rules, which results in a carefully tailored application of only those Title II provisions found to directly further the public interest in an open internet and more, better, and open broadband," the order says. The idea that this proposal is a so-called "light touch" approach to regulation has been touted again and again, basically as a way to quell concerns from those who oppose regulation. Of course, it hasn't exactly done that, and we're still seeing plenty of complaints from the internet providers that are now having their services classified under Title II.

The order focuses on three specific rules for internet service: no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. "A person engaged in the provision of broadband internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management," the order states, while outlining its rules against throttling

View full rules here: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases...5-24A1.pdf

Competition goes way down and service goes way down, not a good scenario
Explain please.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/...mpetition/


Its just like universal health care and the liberal idea of driving down competition. In this case, favoring the dominant ISPs and getting rid of the smaller ones will only drive prices up as the competition goes down. The government is just overreaching far too much the past decade, it really has turned into a communist/socialist state.
Previous to this ruling, with the "open market" we have reached what we have today. How do you figure the previous status quo would have changed anything?

I'm specifically interested in his economic theory as to why these rules will hurt smaller ISPs in favor of large ones. Like, specifics. Play it out hypothetically and describe why.
03-12-2015 10:45 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.