Net Neutrality passes. FCC approval is done.

[pimpinbig]

Here come internet taxes and regulations to **** over the average american using the internet.

Net Neutrality was in place 2010-Jan 2014. Its just being reinstated.

[dfwt70gt]

What are the competing companies and your location?

Its fairly rare to have two ISP's with their own peering networks. Usually one is buying transit from the other or both are buying transit from a Tier I/II network. My company learned this the hard way 5 or 6yrs ago. We had a centurylink 20mbit MetroE with a SLA, with comcast business asymmetric as a backup. MetreE went down and so did comcast. Further up the pipe comcast was leasing transit from CL.

Im still SMH at how little the average person understands the connectivity of internet.

Comcast and Centurylink. Also have broad coverage by Skybeam which is an antenna based wireless ISP.

Centurylink has been going ham with their fiber networks while Comcast continues to provide garbage.

[dfwt70gt]

A 'me' problem. Didn't know I owned Comcast or a competing ISP.

What I'm saying is that your excuse (don't know if you support NN or not), is that you have no competition in your area therefore government should come in and regulate. I, along with several others, have expressed that this NN plan stinks to high heaven mainly due to its secretive nature and the fact this administration has proven itself primed to trample over any and all rights of its citizens. I will never support something that allows the federal government to have its hands on the 'parental advisory' button when it comes to content I want to access.

My opinion is that the freedoms of the many outweigh the freedoms of the few. Verizon screws you on Netflix?! Waaaaaa! Change providers and if that's not an option a local solution or penalties should follow. Do you honestly believe the federal government, this administration especially, can be trusted with this much power to wield?

[pimpinbig]

Comcast and Centurylink. Also have broad coverage by Skybeam which is an antenna based wireless ISP.

Centurylink has been going ham with their fiber networks while Comcast continues to provide garbage.

you have less choice than you think.
1) Skybeam only purchases transit, they do not own any significant peering network. IE: They are beholden to Tier I/II peering network providers.

Assuming you live in the Denver metro area its somewhat mixed depending on the server you access. A couple of examples:
If you are on century link and you access a server in Texas, it will peer over comcast, not Century link.
if you are on comcast and access a server in Seattle, it will mostly like peer over Century Link.
If you are on comcast and access a server in Missouri it will definitely peer over CL or Verizon.

This is why we have net neutrality. Everyone is interdependent. We had it jan 2010-jan2014 and everything worked fine. It wasnt until it was overturned Jan 2014 that we see examples of companies not conforming to NN and the negative consequences on consumers.

[Tuksonrider]

What I'm saying is that your excuse (don't know if you support NN or not), is that you have no competition in your area therefore government should come in and regulate. I, along with several others, have expressed that this NN plan stinks to high heaven mainly due to its secretive nature and the fact this administration has proven itself primed to trample over any and all rights of its citizens. I will never support something that allows the federal government to have its hands on the 'parental advisory' button when it comes to content I want to access.

My opinion is that the freedoms of the many outweigh the freedoms of the few. Verizon screws you on Netflix?! Waaaaaa! Change providers and if that's not an option a local solution or penalties should follow. Do you honestly believe the federal government, this administration especially, can be trusted with this much power to wield?

Rather trust the gov't than corporations who put profit over their customers because they know they have them by the short hairs. Freedoms of the many outweigh the freedoms of the few? Really? How anti-American.

[dfwt70gt]

Rather trust the gov't than corporations who put profit over their customers because they know they have them by the short hairs. Freedoms of the many outweigh the freedoms of the few? Really? How anti-American.

In this circumstance how is this anti American? Because I don't trust this or any administration to keep my access to media neutral? Ok Dexter

[pimpinbig]

My opinion is that the freedoms of the many outweigh the freedoms of the few. Verizon screws you on Netflix?! Waaaaaa! Change providers and if that's not an option a local solution or penalties should follow. Do you honestly believe the federal government, this administration especially, can be trusted with this much power to wield?

The FCC enforced net neutrality from 2010-Jan 2014. Can you be specific with the abuses of the FCC during that time period?

[ClownToucher]

It did happen.

The FCC enforced net neutrality beginning in 2010. Verizon had it overturned in Jan 2014. They promptly throttled Netflix traffic after the law was overturned. Netflix paid a fee to remove the throttle, Verizon temporarily removed it, then put it back in place (this is well documented from a technical standpoint).

FCC revisited the issue and ruled ISPs will be classified as Public Utilities, which is the same as the telephone companies. ISPs will no longer be able to arbitrarily throttle content providers.

Keep in mind, you as a customer, you pay for a specified amount of bandwidth and data caps. Content providers cannot stream more than what you as a customer pay for. Period.

SMDH. You guys are so misinformed on this subject.

Wow dude. You completely misinterpreted the part you quoted and then wrote an unrelated essay. Gotta hate when that happens.

"It didn't happen since" was clearly referring to the internet turning into cable tv.

Do you realize how this is different than the last time around? Well first of all, we don't even know what these 300ish pages of regulations are.

Second, the Supreme Court found the FCC does not have this authority. The FCC under Obama is taking that authority anyways.

On top of all that, the whole thing just gets stupid the more you think about it. I found a decent article that pretty much sums it up here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhend...et-neutrality/

You really need to get yourself more informed. Not only on net neutrality, but capitalism, basic economics and America.

Here's another good read if you'd like to get a better grasp on net neutrality:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/02/27/...iver-an-idiot/

Last but not least, do you seriously believe this massive new control will be used only for good? Surely you realize this will just give politicians one more big carrot to dangle in front of lobbyists.

[7rmr]

Second, the Supreme Court found the FCC does not have this authority. The FCC under Obama is taking that authority anyways.

That's not at all what the Supreme Court said. The Court said that the FCC could not take the actions it was taking at the time because the internet had not been designated a utility under Title II. All 9 justices agreed that the FCC could designate the internet under Title II if they wished, but they had not taken that step. Well, the FCC just designated the internet under Title II.

This thread is pointless. Anyone who knows anything about the internet knows this is a good thing. The only people opposed to it are Telecom companies, people with a financial stake in telecom companies, politicians who receive bribes/donations from Telecom companies, and people who are morons.

[pimpinbig]

Wow dude. You completely misinterpreted the part you quoted and then wrote an unrelated essay. Gotta hate when that happens.

"It didn't happen since" was clearly referring to the internet turning into cable tv.

Do you realize how this is different than the last time around? Well first of all, we don't even know what these 300ish pages of regulations are.

Second, the Supreme Court found the FCC does not have this authority. The FCC under Obama is taking that authority anyways.

On top of all that, the whole thing just gets stupid the more you think about it. I found a decent article that pretty much sums it up here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhend...et-neutrality/

You really need to get yourself more informed. Not only on net neutrality, but capitalism, basic economics and America.

Here's another good read if you'd like to get a better grasp on net neutrality:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/02/27/...iver-an-idiot/

Last but not least, do you seriously believe this massive new control will be used only for good? Surely you realize this will just give politicians one more big carrot to dangle in front of lobbyists.

The FCC enforced net neutrality from 2010-Jan 2014. Can you be specific with the abuses of the FCC during that time period? Can you be specific which technologies were stymied during the enforcement of net neutrality?

[pimpinbig]

That's not at all what the Supreme Court said. The Court said that the FCC could not take the actions it was taking at the time because the internet had not been designated a utility under Title II. All 9 justices agreed that the FCC could designate the internet under Title II if they wished, but they had not taken that step. Well, the FCC just designated the internet under Title II.

This was more or less predicted. http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/...ality-20141003

[sknot1454]

Jesus, half you ****ing retards would be pissed off about the 1st amendment protecting free speech.

[jafomofo]

I will never support something that allows the federal government to have its hands on the 'parental advisory' button when it comes to content I want to access.

What would possess you to think that they don't have that access currently? Was comcast a bastion of personal privacy who had squared off against government overreach repeatedly in an effort to defend the rights and privacy of their subscribers? Or were they complicit in the opposite? Obviously the latter. You have no more or less protection from government overreach than you did a week ago but you do have protection against comcast using their monopoly position to limit what you can do with the bandwidth that you already pay for.

The idea that anyone, especially people that are obviously ignorant of the technical implications of the issue, still argues against net neutrality is ****ing perplexing. This is one issue that really elucidates who is directly programmed by the right wing propaganda machine because no rational human being would draw these conclusions without being spoon fed them.

[TeBag]

http://www.engadget.com/2015/02/26/fcc-net-neutrality/



inb4 people who have absolutely zero understanding of the issue knee jerk to their classic "but teh gubmint!"

in b4 CISPA, RISPA, BISPA, Son of CISPA and all those other free speech and domain lockout issues will be moved over to the FCC, where they don't give an eff and can cater to special interest groups without the fear of being voted out by their constituents.

[HELIX35]

Sounds like a YOU problem. Where I live we have competing companies. So can I be exempt from this massive government overreach?

So if it doesn't directly affect YOU it's a non-issue? Strong everything.

And as has been repeated ad naseum, it gives the government absolutely zero control over the internet

[tpittma2]

Second, the Supreme Court found the FCC does not have this authority. The FCC under Obama is taking that authority anyways.

Because ISPs were not designated under Title II anymore, and all 9 judges agreed that it could be designated under Title II since.. you know... ISPs used to be designated under Title II up until 2002 whformer FCC Chairman Michael Powell, who is now the head lobbyist at the top cable lobbying association, decided to disclaim the FCCs Title II authority over ISPs
http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/4/797...t-as-a-utility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael...#Post-FCC_work

On top of all that, the whole thing just gets stupid the more you think about it. I found a decent article that pretty much sums it up here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhend...et-neutrality/

You really need to get yourself more informed. Not only on net neutrality, but capitalism, basic economics and America.

[leafs43]

In 10 tears we will all look back on this and weep.


War on drugs sounded like a good idea in the 1970s, but once that pandoras box is open it's damn near impossible to close it.

[HELIX35]

Yet another fear mongering post that's completey devoid of any facts or rational argument, just something you'd expect to hear form a forward from your grandma

The anti-NN crowd in a nutshell



^

[The_Albatross]

For those that are losing their chit over not being able to read the 300 page report, 95% of it is nonessential information. It details the history of the telecom acts and has all the public comments that were heard by the committee. It is NOT 300 pages of regulations, rules, and tax implementation.

What the FCC mandated in yesterday's report is here:

http://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman...-open-internet

If you can read through that 3 or so pages of text and find something to complain about, I'm all ears. That is the entirety of what the FCC is proposing in very plain English with a few technical terms thrown in.

Here come internet taxes and regulations to **** over the average american using the internet.

Internet taxes have been outlawed at the local and state level since 1998: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Tax_Freedom_Act

That law has been renewed 4 times since its inception, most recently in December of last year: http://www.pcworld.com/article/28598...g-package.html

It is currently in the process of a becoming a permanent law: http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/...rever-20150109


Meanwhile, in the report issued yesterday the FCC has already ruled that they will not be instituting any new taxes, or fees (basically disguised taxes):

" The Order will not impose, suggest or authorize any new taxes or fees – there will be
no automatic Universal Service fees applied and the congressional moratorium on
Internet taxation applies to broadband. "

also:

"Universal Service Contributions: the Order DOES NOT require broadband providers to contribute to the Universal Service Fund under Section 254"

The Universal Service Fund is currently supported through fees attached to your phone bill. The fund is spent on subsidies that ensure remote areas have telephone access, telemedicine programs (a remote doctor's visit essentially), and ensures public schools have access to the internet. The FCC has already ruled that broadband companies will not be required to help fund the USF, which means there are no costs to be passed on to the end users either.

Furthermore, for those who think the FCC's ruling means that the federal government is stepping in and assuming control of the cable/wireless/broadband, you are wrong:

"Rate regulation: the Order makes clear that broadband providers shall not be subject to
tariffs or other form of rate approval, unbundling, or other forms of utility regulation"

Again the service providers are not at the mercy of the government. They do not have to meet rate approval nor are they subjected to unbundling. They are not being regulated. Period.



Those who are not in favor of this ruling are either:

A) Financially invested, tied to, or otherwise financially supported by ISPs/Telecoms
B) Don't understand the issue
C) Blindly hate anything and everything regarding government involvement and incorrectly assume the FCC's ruling is akin to government regulation of the internet or even a meaningful step in that direction


As hard as it may be to believe this is actually an instance where the US government got it right. It doesn't matter which way you lean politically, its a win regardless.

[TeBag]

Yet another fear mongering post that's completey devoid of any facts or rational argument, just something you'd expect to hear form a forward from your grandma

The anti-NN crowd in a nutshell



^

LOL i know what a *******. It reminds me of those retards 70 years ago that said social security was a terrible idea that would end up an unfunded ponzi scheme and result in people not planning for their own retirements.

For those that are losing their chit over not being able to read the 300 page report, 95% of it is nonessential information. It details the history of the telecom acts and has all the public comments that were heard by the committee. It is NOT 300 pages of regulations, rules, and tax implementation.

What the FCC mandated in yesterday's report is here:

http://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman...-open-internet

If you can read through that 3 or so pages of text and find something to complain about, I'm all ears. That is the entirety of what the FCC is proposing in very plain English with a few technical terms thrown in.





Internet taxes have been outlawed at the local and state level since 1998: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Tax_Freedom_Act

That law has been renewed 4 times since its inception, most recently in December of last year: http://www.pcworld.com/article/28598...g-package.html

It is currently in the process of a becoming a permanent law: http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/...rever-20150109


Meanwhile, in the report issued yesterday the FCC has already ruled that they will not be instituting any new taxes, or fees (basically disguised taxes):

" The Order will not impose, suggest or authorize any new taxes or fees – there will be
no automatic Universal Service fees applied and the congressional moratorium on
Internet taxation applies to broadband. "

also:

"Universal Service Contributions: the Order DOES NOT require broadband providers to contribute to the Universal Service Fund under Section 254"

The Universal Service Fund is currently supported through fees attached to your phone bill. The fund is spent on subsidies that ensure remote areas have telephone access, telemedicine programs (a remote doctor's visit essentially), and ensures public schools have access to the internet. The FCC has already ruled that broadband companies will not be required to help fund the USF, which means there are no costs to be passed on to the end users either.

Furthermore, for those who think the FCC's ruling means that the federal government is stepping in and assuming control of the cable/wireless/broadband, you are wrong:

"Rate regulation: the Order makes clear that broadband providers shall not be subject to
tariffs or other form of rate approval, unbundling, or other forms of utility regulation"

Again the service providers are not at the mercy of the government. They do not have to meet rate approval nor are they subjected to unbundling. They are not being regulated. Period.



Those who are not in favor of this ruling are either:

A) Financially invested, tied to, or otherwise financially supported by ISPs/Telecoms
B) Don't understand the issue
C) Blindly hate anything and everything regarding government involvement and incorrectly assume the FCC's ruling is akin to government regulation of the internet or even a meaningful step in that direction


As hard as it may be to believe this is actually an instance where the US government got it right. It doesn't matter which way you lean politically, its a win regardless.

So the government didn't go in dry right away? Is that surprising? Do you think NN would ever pass if they just rammed our anguses? The point is that the gov now has the power to regulate our internet. The tip is in. They will slowly keep pushing it in until it is so deep inside of our anguses that we can't get it out. Then it will start raping the chit out of us.

Honestly, wake up. Do you not think that giving control to the internet to a branch of the executive government that is completely immune from from the electoral process won't result in lobbyists taking over? Comcast, google, microsoft, you name it, they will use their lobbyists to stifle competition and innovation. The entertainment industry will use its lobbyists to get the government to crack down on pirating. Before you know it, everything you do on the internet will be subject to scrutiny by the government.

[HELIX35]

LOL i know what a *******. It reminds me of those retards 70 years ago that said social security was a terrible idea that would end up an unfunded ponzi scheme and result in people not planning for their own retirements.

You comparing net neutrality to SS and that guy comparing it to the drug war perfectly illustrates the standpoint of people who are against it... you don't even know what it is

The point is that the gov now has the power to regulate our internet.

False

Do you not think that giving control to the internet to a branch of the executive government

False

everything you do on the internet will be subject to scrutiny by the government.

False





To quote albatross:

Those who are not in favor of this ruling are either:

A) Financially invested, tied to, or otherwise financially supported by ISPs/Telecoms
B) Don't understand the issue
C) Blindly hate anything and everything regarding government involvement and incorrectly assume the FCC's ruling is akin to government regulation of the internet or even a meaningful step in that direction

You are an absolute perfect example of B because of C. You've stated multiple falsehoods because you don't even understand the issue you're trying to talk about it.

[sawoobley]

Rather trust the gov't than corporations who put profit over their customers because they know they have them by the short hairs. Freedoms of the many outweigh the freedoms of the few? Really? How anti-American.

The two are intertwined. To trust the government is to trust large corporations in many instances. They lobby and fund a lot of these politicians so they have a lot of sway. Then they can use the government through regulations to make it more difficult for their competition, especially the small up and comers.

It's always better to trust corporations because they come and go. Once the government gets involved in something you can't ever get rid of it.

[TeBag]

You comparing net neutrality to SS and that guy comparing it to the drug war perfectly illustrates the standpoint of people who are against it... you don't even know what it is




False



False



False





To quote albatross:

Those who are not in favor of this ruling are either:


You are an absolute perfect example of B because of C. You've stated multiple falsehoods because you don't even understand the issue you're trying to talk about it.

So you are saying that the FCC has not classified the internet as a utility so that it is under their jurisdiction?

[Equinox117]

People brainwashed by the Ted Crud morons in the new Republican party are in full swing.

[sawoobley]

People brainwashed by the Ted Crud morons in the new Republican party are in full swing.

[TeBag]

People brainwashed by the Ted Crud morons in the new Republican party are in full swing.

There are brainwashed RINOs in here for sure. But you are pretty much advocating for CISPA, son of CISPA, and all other atrocities w/out fully realizing it, so you are no better.

[SwollNMember]

Can anyone give me an example or examples of the fed gov gaining more control in the recent past and it's been a good thing, improved anything?

[TeBag]

Can anyone give me an example or examples of the fed gov gaining more control in the recent past and it's been a good thing, improved anything?

The affordable care act.





































It has improved the profits of insurance companies (aka, the biggest corporations in the world).

[sawoobley]

Can anyone give me an example or examples of the fed gov gaining more control in the recent past and it's been a good thing, improved anything?

I got nothing.

[SwollNMember]

I got nothing.

I moved my bowels.