|
02-26-2015, 12:37 PM | |
For The Glory Of The City
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Kansas City
Casino cash: $5206768
|
FCC Approves New Net Neutrality Rules
FCC approves new net neutrality rules
The Federal Communications Commission voted Thursday to implement new net neutrality rules designed to make sure Internet service providers treat all legal content equally. The historic vote on the proposal by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler elicited hearty cheers from a wide array of technology companies and consumer groups while setting the table for further legal challenges from Internet service providers. The controversial proceedings that led up to the vote generated heated lobbying in Washington and public clamor on social media, all in efforts to steer the future direction of the rules that guide Internet traffic. "No one ... should control free and open access to the Internet," Wheeler said to applause from the standing room-only crowd gathered before the FCC panel. "It's the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet. The Internet is too important to allow broadband providers to make the rules." Net neutrality, also called open Internet, is a principle that Internet networks are equally available to all types of legal content generators. Internet service providers (ISPs), mostly large cable or telephone companies, would be prohibited from discriminating against content by slowing transmission speeds or seeking payments in exchange for faster lanes of their Internet networks, a practice called "paid prioritization." Implementing the principle at a time when Internet streaming technology is changing so rapidly proved challenging to Wheeler as he sought to balance the varying interests of influential content streamers, like Netflix, and large ISPs that have spent millions to fight the effort. The FCC was besieged with passionate comments from both sides of the debate, receiving about 4 million comments, a record. In the end, Wheeler, with a nudge from President Obama, delivered on his proposals, though not without a fight from his colleagues and Republican lawmakers who wanted to delay the vote. Wheeler's proposal reclassifies ISPs as public utilities, like phone companies, that are subject to a set of regulations that ensure all consumers get fair access to their services. ISPs would be banned from paid prioritization deals, though they can set aside fast lanes for some exceptions, including public services, like remote heart monitoring. The authority for the new rules comes from Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. The new rules also call for the regulators to "forbear" — or refrain — from some provisions of Title II, including pricing regulation and other parts that are less relevant to broadband services. The regulations will be published in the Federal Register in a few weeks. They become effective 30 days after publication. Pro-business advocates and ISPs, including wireless carriers, have denounced Wheeler's approach. The proposal's insistence on laying out the do's and don'ts of operating Internet networks would inhibit ISPs from introducing new services — say, connected refrigerators and smartphone-controlled windows and doors — and limit innovations in improving their networks, they say. "What doesn't make sense, and has never made sense, is to take a regulatory framework developed for Ma Bell in the 1930s and make her great grandchildren, with technologies and options undreamed of eighty years ago, live under it," said Jim Cicconi, AT&T's senior executive vice president-external and legislative affairs, in a statement. The five-member commission voted 3 to 2 to approve the proposal, as expected. Joining Wheeler in voting for his plan were Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel. Commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly, the two Republicans on the commission, voted against it. "We cannot have a two-tiered Internet with fast lanes that speed the traffic of the privileged and leave the rest of us lagging behind," Rosenworcel said. "We cannot have gatekeepers who tell us what we can and cannot do and where we can and cannot go online." The outcome is hardly surprising as all five commissioners had telegraphed their stances since Wheeler revealed the summary of his proposal earlier this month. President Obama came out strongly in support of the Title II option late last year. Opponents sought to delay the vote until, citing a lack of transparency. On Monday, Pai and O'Rielly issued a joint statement criticizing Wheeler's refusal to reveal the entire 332-page plan and called for "the FCC leadership … to allow the American people a reasonable period of not less than 30 days to carefully study it" before the vote. The chairman made public only a summary before the vote. O'Rielly reiterated his concern that Obama had inserted himself into the process. "I am just sick about what Chairman Wheeler was forced to go through during this process," O'Rielly said in a statement. "It was disgraceful to have the Administration overtake the Commission's rulemaking process and dictate an outcome for pure political purposes." Several Republicans — Reps. Greg Walden, R-Ore. and Fred Upton, R-Mich., and Sen. John Thune, R-S.D. — helped create draft legislation in an effort to overrule the FCC's plans. Their legislation would ban paid prioritization, but falls short of reclassifying the Net as a utility. "We will continue to seek a consensus solution, and hopefully bipartisan legislation, Cicconi said. The FCC approved net neutrality rules since 2008. But Wheeler, a former tech industry executive and industry lobbyist, was forced to come up with a new proposal when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in early 2013 tossed out the earlier rules. Anticipating Wheeler's proposals, ISPs have started to threaten lawsuits. "Instead of a clear set of rules moving forward, with a broad set of agreement behind them, we once again face the uncertainty of litigation," Cicconi said. Some the key details of the proposal are still unclear. The FCC would have authority to enforce any "interconnection" agreements — deals struck between ISPs and content providers to transmit data more efficiently in the "back-end" of the Internet networks — that are "not just and reasonable." But whether Netflix can continue to pay some ISPs to locate its servers closer to their networks' key distribution points to stream its movies without too much lag — as it does now — remains unclear. In a lengthy speech before the crowd, Pai also questioned the FCC's ability to continue to refrain from the "forbearance" promises it made. The FCC also has agreed to not impose further tariffs or require ISPs to unbundle some services or file a burdensome amount of documents. But "the plan repeatedly states that it is only forbearing 'at this time,'" Pai said. "For other rules, the FCC will refrain 'for now.'" http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...ules/24053057/ |
Posts: 53,468
|
02-26-2015, 11:07 PM | #241 | |
In Search of a Life
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Jefferson City
Casino cash: $1392570
|
Quote:
See, we got a deal done without the government!
__________________
"Most of us can, as we choose, make of this world either a palace or a prison." –John Lubbock |
|
Posts: 30,336
|
02-26-2015, 11:24 PM | #242 | |||
In Search of a Life
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Jefferson City
Casino cash: $1392570
|
I can't take this 332 pages of regulation B.S. This talking point is a perfect example of how B.S. gets tossed around like fact.
From the mouth of the original idiot who said it: Quote:
And before you go, der, what else was in the document: Quote:
http://media.npr.org/documents/2015/...eninternet.pdf Quote:
__________________
"Most of us can, as we choose, make of this world either a palace or a prison." –John Lubbock |
|||
Posts: 30,336
|
02-26-2015, 11:26 PM | #243 | |
Space Cadet and Aczabel
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Kanab, UT, USA
Casino cash: $9333275
VARSITY
|
Quote:
__________________
Thanks, Trump for the civics lesson. We are learning so much about RICO, espionage, sedition, impeachment, the 25th Amendment, order of succession, nepotism, separation of powers, 1st Amendment, obstruction of justice, the emoluments clause, conflicts of interest, collusion, sanctions, oligarchs, money laundering and so much more. |
|
Posts: 40,584
|
02-26-2015, 11:30 PM | #244 |
Space Cadet and Aczabel
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Kanab, UT, USA
Casino cash: $9333275
VARSITY
|
I've got Excede satellite and Verizon hot spot at my very remote observatory. Running them from in town tonight. It's not google fiber but it's internet without a pots line.
__________________
Thanks, Trump for the civics lesson. We are learning so much about RICO, espionage, sedition, impeachment, the 25th Amendment, order of succession, nepotism, separation of powers, 1st Amendment, obstruction of justice, the emoluments clause, conflicts of interest, collusion, sanctions, oligarchs, money laundering and so much more. |
Posts: 40,584
|
02-26-2015, 11:45 PM | #245 | ||
Debunking your bullshit
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: KC area
Casino cash: $4990315
|
Quote:
You're having a really bad day, pete. Stop the lies and stop the insanity.
__________________
Quote:
|
||
Posts: 52,592
|
02-27-2015, 12:29 AM | #246 |
WhatUneed2Hear
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: AllSoulsMatter
Casino cash: $2393181
|
I'm only worried about what happens down the road, 300 pages for what? has anyone read all 300+? What can/can't be regulated in the future?
Bright Line Rules: The first three rules would ban practices that are known to harm the Open Internet: • No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices. • No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices. • No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration – in other words, no “fast lanes.” This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates. Who decides what harms the open internet?
__________________
"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour" Peter 5:8 "Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay" Isaiah 29:16 "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." Revelation 3:20 |
Posts: 44,391
|
02-27-2015, 12:38 AM | #247 | |
BAMF
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Your Face
Casino cash: $9998710
|
Quote:
__________________
Courage is not the absence of fear but rather the judgment that something is more important than fear. The brave may not live forever but the cautious do not live at all. |
|
Posts: 27,207
|
02-27-2015, 08:51 AM | #248 |
Supporter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Jan Quadrant Vincent 16
Casino cash: $2040692
|
Net Neutrality: Triumph of the Ruling Class
By Jeffrey Tucker from Beautiful Anarchy link Feb 26, 2015
A triumph of “free expression and democratic principles”? How stupid do they think we are? It’s been painful to watch the gradual tightening of government control in the name of net neutrality. The Federal Communications Commission’s decision to rewrite the rules and declare the Internet as a public utility seals the deal. It cartelizes the industry and turns a “Wild West” into a planned system of public management — or at least intends to. All the rest is a veneer to cover what is actually a power grab. This whole plot has had all the usual elements. It has a good name and its supporters say it is about stopping private and public control. It’s had the backing of all the top names in content delivery, from Yahoo to Netflix to Amazon. It’s had the quiet support of the leading Internet service providers. The decision to impose the rule has been declared by a tiny group of unaccountable bureaucrats operating with the support of the executive lame duck. The opposition, in contrast, has been represented by small players in the industry, hardware providers like Cisco, free-market think tanks and disinterested professors, and a small group of writers and pundits who know something about freedom and free-market economics. The public at large should have been rising up in opposition but people are largely ignorant of what’s going on. Here’s what’s really going on. The incumbent rulers of the world’s most exciting technology have decided to lock down the prevailing market conditions to protect themselves against rising upstarts in a fast-changing market. To impose a new rule against throttling content or using the market price system to allocate bandwidth resources protects against innovations that would disrupt the status quo. What’s being sold as economic fairness and a wonderful favor to consumers is actually a sop to industrial giants who are seeking untrammeled access to your wallet and an end to competitive threats to market power. One person I know compared the move to the creation of the Federal Reserve itself: the creation of an industrial cartel in the name of improving the macroeconomic environment. That’s a good comparison. Let’s back up and grasp the position of the large content providers. Here we see the obvious special interests at work. Netflix, Amazon, and the rest don’t want ISPs to charge either them or their consumers for their high-bandwidth content. They would rather the ISPs themselves absorb the higher costs of such provision. It’s very clear how getting the government to make price discrimination illegal is in their interest. It means no threats to their business model. By analogy, let’s imagine that a retailer furniture company were in a position to offload all their shipping costs to the trucking industry. By government decree, the truckers were not permitted to charge any more or less whether they were shipping one chair or a whole houseful of furniture. Would the furniture sellers favor such a deal? Absolutely. They could call this “furniture neutrality” and fob it off on the public as preventing control of furniture by the shipping industry. But that leaves the question about why the opposition from the ISPs themselves (the truckers by analogy) would either be silent or quietly in favor of such a rule change. Here is where matters get complicated. After many years of experimentation in the provision of Internet services — times when we went from telephone dial-up to landlines to T1 connections to experimenting with 4G data coverage — the winner in the market (for now) has been the cable companies. Consumers prefer the speed and bandwidth over all existing options. But what about the future? What kind of services are going to replace the cable services, which are by-and-large monopolies due to special privileges from states and localities? It’s hard to know for sure but there are some impressive ideas out there. Costs are falling for all kinds of wireless and even distributed systems. If you are a dominant player in the market — an incumbent firm like Comcast and Verizon — you really face two threats to your business model. You have to keep your existing consumer base onboard and you have to protect against upstarts seeking to poach consumers from you. A rule like net neutrality can raise the costs of doing business but there is a wonderful upside to this: your future potential competitors face the same costs. As an established player in the market, you are in a much better position to absorb higher costs than those barking at your heels. This means that you can slow down development, cool it on your investments in fiber optics, and generally rest on your laurels more. But how can you sell such a nefarious plan? You get in good with the regulators. You support the idea in general, with some reservations, while tweaking the legislation in your favor. You know full well that this raises the costs to new competitors. When it passes, call it a vote for the “open internet” that will “preserve the right to communicate freely online.” But when you look closely at the effects, the reality is exactly the opposite. It closes down market competition by generally putting government and its corporate backers in charge of deciding who can and cannot play in the market. It erects massive new barriers to entry for upstart firms while hugely subsidizing the largest and most well-heeled content providers. So what are the costs to the rest of us? It means absolutely no price reductions in internet service. It could mean the opposite. Watch your bills. I predict that it is not going to be pretty. It also means a slowing down in the pace of technological development due to the reduction in competition that will immediately follow the imposition of this rule. In other words, it will be like all government regulation: most of the costs will be unseen but the benefits will be concentrated in the hands of the ruling class. There is an additional threat to how to the FCC has reclassified the internet as a public utility. It means a blank check for government control across the board. Think of the medical marketplace, which is now entirely owned by a non competitive cartel of industry insiders. This is the future of the internet under net neutrality. If you look at how all this shakes out, this is really no different from how most every other sector in life has come to be regulated by the state, from food to money to medicine to education. It always shakes out this way, with a sleepy public believing the propaganda, an elite group of insiders manipulating the regulations for their own benefits, a left-wing intelligentsia that is naive enough to believe platitudes about fairness, and a right wing that is mostly ignorant and for sale to the highest bidder. No, I don’t believe that this ruling means the end of times for the internet. But it does mean that progress going forward in the digital age will be slowed compared with what it would otherwise be. Future generations will laugh in bemusement: it was the dawn of a new age and yet they believed it could be controlled the same as all that came before. Fools. http://tucker.liberty.me/2015/02/26/...7ca5-139723837
__________________
If at first you don't succeed ...skydiving is not for you. |
Posts: 41,431
|
02-27-2015, 09:08 AM | #249 | |
Supporter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Olathe, Ks
Casino cash: $2514127
|
Quote:
|
|
Posts: 128,258
|
02-27-2015, 09:14 AM | #250 |
Would an idiot do that?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Arizona
Casino cash: $2534931
|
The analogies in that article and saying the content providers want someone else to pay for "high costs" don't really hold up when the new ISP in town is offering the current basic service for free and a product that's 100 times faster for the same price as a standard cable/internet package. "forcing" the current ISPs to take their foot off the hose.
__________________
|
Posts: 55,640
|
02-27-2015, 09:19 AM | #251 |
Replaced by a future HOFer !!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: donkey land
Casino cash: $6807901
|
The Fed Govt has been licking it's chops now for almost 20 years to figure out how to get it's greedy tentacles to tax and regulate(squelch free speech)the Net and will be creatively innocent(wolves in sheep clothing) as possible to do it.
|
Posts: 27,007
|
02-27-2015, 09:20 AM | #252 |
No Keys, No Problem
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Denver
Casino cash: $5033136
|
"The opposition, in contrast, has been represented by small players in the industry, hardware providers like Cisco, free-market think tanks and disinterested professors, and a small group of writers and pundits who know something about freedom and free-market economics. The public at large should have been rising up in opposition but people are largely ignorant of what’s going on"
WTF? Cisco is not a "Small player" in the industry. Not even a little bit. They're a dogshit company, but not a small one. |
Posts: 30,960
|
02-27-2015, 09:28 AM | #253 |
In Search of a Life
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: L.A.
Casino cash: $2684284
|
Maybe because all the talk from the right about supporting entrepreneurs and small-business is is just complete bullshit?
|
Posts: 27,305
|
02-27-2015, 09:30 AM | #254 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2013
Casino cash: $10019798
|
What a load of a turd pretzel knot.
Quote:
That is what a reeruned ideologue came up with. Content is king now online. The highway to my internet glory hole in the wall where I sell erotic Alex Smith fan fiction is the same quality as Amazon.com's. I sink or swim based on the merit of what I offer online. The top dogs are not allowed any unfair advantage on the cyber highway. |
|
Posts: 1,532
|
02-27-2015, 09:31 AM | #255 |
In Search of a Life
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: L.A.
Casino cash: $2684284
|
Gloucester Chief thinks crack should be legal. He's an extremist libertarian if not anarcho-capitalist. He doesn't think the govt should have a role in anything except protecting his property.
|
Posts: 27,305
|
|
|