FCC to propose 'Net neutrality' rules

[Solaris17]

Bittersweet bill. ISPs would no longer be able to monitor net traffic, but the government is stepping in the (supposedly) free market. But they're doing good...



Yeah well, Obama is a crook, and there's no valid reason for anyone to not know it. There's been shit staked against him in the past, but nothing brings it out in broad daylight like Joe Wilson at Obama's healthcare speech. Obama claims that the proposed healthcare system would not benefit illegal citizens, yet it says right in the bill that healthcare would not be limited to permanent or temporary residents, or legal or illegal citizens.

This has absolutely nothing to do with this topic and should be brought else ware. If you want to troll go start your own thread about why the president is crap yadayada so that can start a huge argument and get shut down..until then...lets discuss this bill and not our personal opinions.

thank you.


I support this bill. I mean its hit or miss. Sure this might effect things in the long run such as slower speeds or maybe even game prices going up because all of a sudden the ISP's cant scare 15 year old kids with an e-mail saying stop...but im sure it will all work itself out..i mean if everyones internet starts getting slow then people will leave because they wont get what their paying for...at which point the ISP's will be forced to upgrade their networks in the regions this would be happening in and as such we the customers will in essance be forcing the advancment of technology

 

[Deleted member 67555]

Um? Fiber optics/cables are being installed/maintained by ISPs/telecoms.


I hate myself for saying this but I really think that a federal reserve-like system needs to be established for telecommunications (including internet) and electricity networks. That is, there are multiple private corporations that are overseen and controlled by a public board. You have multiple corporations in order to insite competition for price-effectiveness and research. It also means there is only one network covering the entire nation.

I feel it necessary for two reasons:
1) National security. The industrial backbone of the nation is dependent upon electricity. Many government agencies as well as the power system relies on the internet to transfer vital information.
2) Cost effectiveness. You don't have to look far to find two or three cellphone towers built right next each other because competing wireless providers refuse to share towers. This is wasteful in terms of materials and land. It also doens't make sense to have electrcial/telecommunications cables criss cross each other just to reach the area they cover when there should be only one set providing coverage for all.

Ultimately, the current system is full of waste; hence, the high prices and limited expansion of service. Just like the highway system, these services are essential to the economy and very costly to maintain.

They maintain with there own money yes, but then it's a tax write off...Steel mills don't get to write off raw materials they use to make steel, why should the media companies get to write off the cost of there networks...It's not right
I live in a community that has it's own Power Company...My electric bill is 1/3 that of Ohio edison's price's, and ya wanna know why, cause the city can't collect a profit, as the city charter reads the city can collect up to 35% extra, and they do, for repairs and fuel price hikes and it's better service at 1/3 the price...I just don't know why every community does not want public utilities, including internet

 

[FordGT90Concept]

You don't make money from the infrastructure itself--you only make money by data/power passing through the infrastructure. As such, you're going to lose a lot of money to make any money at all. The write off is an incentive to get people wired so the data/power can flow.

Just like roads--they don't make money unless vehicles are traveling on them carrying people to and from work, vacationers to places to spend money, or moving goods from A to B.

The alternative to the write off is as I said: socialize *cringes* it.


Edit: To the second part: there's a coop power line (RCA) running 900 ft away from me but, because I am not in their territory, they can't run it down here. Instead, I have a corporation (Mid-American) which charges probably two to three times more for the same amount of electricity.

Again, the only way to really fix it is to socialize *cringes again* it. That is, public ownership of the networks.

People do want it but because of existing laws, it is not possible.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

You don't make money from the infrastructure itself--you only make money by data/power passing through the infrastructure. As such, you're going to lose a lot of money to make any money at all. The write off is an incentive to get people wired so the data/power can flow.

Just like roads--they don't make money unless vehicles are traveling on them carrying people to and from work, vacationers to places to spend money, or moving goods from A to B.

The alternative to the write off is as I said: socialize *cringes* it.


Edit: To the second part: there's a coop power line (RCA) running 900 ft away from me but, because I am not in their territory, they can't run it down here. Instead, I have a corporation (Mid-American) which charges probably two to three times more for the same amount of electricity.

Again, the only way to really fix it is to socialize *cringes again* it. That is, public ownership of the networks.

People do want it but because of existing laws, it is not possible.

Honestly I *cringe* to when I think of socializing stuff but it's the lesser of two evil's at the moment...
I agree with the write offs in principal, but these companies abuse em horribly horribly bad, so little money goes where it's supposed to, most is going to undeserved bonus's, I think there is enough public interest to change a few laws but i can't help but think about that dumb ass saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" It just seems like no matter which way we go it's corrupt...I just hope this bill leads us the right way

 

[FordGT90Concept]

It's a shame such a bill is even needed. Not interfering with a customer's service should be "common sense" but, as we all know, common sense isn't all that common.

 

[Nick89]

Aw muffin. Your 50mbps connections are so bad Canada just got to 10. The main reason Europe has more is because of population density. Fiber is insanely expensive to lay down and run to the home.

50mbps? thats a joke. Only business's get that for 200$ a month.

I have to pay 45$ a month for a 3MB down 1MB up connection.

 

[KainXS]

if this dosen't get passed the situation will only get worst and worst and worst

we will be heading towards a situation where,

oh you have xbox live, gimme some money
oh you have netflixx, gimme some more money
or the good ol (your isp), dude microsoft payed us to block psn from you, hahahhahahahah, gimme some money to unblock it.

and its already started, some isp's are like this now.

god bless obama for doing this, I don't like him for always popping up on camera like kanye west but this is a step in the right direction.

now all those thousands of blowjobs Tania Derveaux gave out in the name of Net Neutrality can mean something

 

[[Ion]]

It's a shame such a bill is even needed. Not interfering with a customer's service should be "common sense" but, as we all know, common sense isn't all that common.

Very true. Sigged the last part

 

[Easy Rhino]

it is all in the terms of service agreement. the ISPs arent cheating you out of bandwidth, if anything they are making all website MORE accessible for everyone by allocating more bandwidth to sites that require it and less to those that dont. yes, ISPs could limit traffic to political sites and businesses that are competing but you dont have to pay for that service then. and if you dont have any other options for internet in your area look at your local govt by-laws. notice how your local government has created a monopoly for that business and is most likely receiving kick-backs from it. do you really want to open up the net to political corruption like opening up any industry becomes corrupt when the govt gets involved? and remember, you dont have a right to the internet. you cant demand that somebody give you a service that they provide.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

it is all in the terms of service agreement. the ISPs arent cheating you out of bandwidth, if anything they are making all website MORE accessible for everyone by allocating more bandwidth to sites that require it and less to those that dont. yes, ISPs could limit traffic to political sites and businesses that are competing but you dont have to pay for that service then. and if you dont have any other options for internet in your area look at your local govt by-laws. notice how your local government has created a monopoly for that business and is most likely receiving kick-backs from it. do you really want to open up the net to political corruption like opening up any industry becomes corrupt when the govt gets involved? and remember, you dont have a right to the internet. you cant demand that somebody give you a service that they provide.

well actually it is a right...Since public Library Funds are being diverted from text to web as a basis of media, thus actually making it a right ( I know that's not what you meant)...Now to your home that's something else...But the internet not being a right is not correct, as for everything else some yay some nay but basically right...But these companies are given massive tax write offs to repair maintain and upgrade these networks...Maybe we should just close that tax loop hole and give that money to somebody that will do with it, what they are supposed to..It just bothers me that someone would defend these turds...really..They are ripping us off..LITERALLY..And because it's so far out of control we may have the GOV come to the rescue..ARRR.. WHO THE EFF wants THAT, but the greed is so far spread most of us can't even tell...If these companies did what they were supposed to with those write offs then the GOV would have no reason to step in, but instead "these companies are taking actions to prevent competition in a free market" with federal tax breaks AND WE CANNOT HAVE THAT, If they don't want THE GOV to interfere then they should not except those TAX INCENTIVES but since they do THE GOV does have a right to interfere TO PRESERVE A FREE MARKET

 

[Wile E]

it is all in the terms of service agreement. the ISPs arent cheating you out of bandwidth, if anything they are making all website MORE accessible for everyone by allocating more bandwidth to sites that require it and less to those that dont. yes, ISPs could limit traffic to political sites and businesses that are competing but you dont have to pay for that service then. and if you dont have any other options for internet in your area look at your local govt by-laws. notice how your local government has created a monopoly for that business and is most likely receiving kick-backs from it. do you really want to open up the net to political corruption like opening up any industry becomes corrupt when the govt gets involved? and remember, you dont have a right to the internet. you cant demand that somebody give you a service that they provide.

Political corruption is already involved. At this point, the corruption does not benefit the consumer at all. This bill shifts the balance of that corruption more into the customer's favor.

And no, 9 out of 10 times, limits are not listed in the ToS. ISPs have been using silent limits for ages now.

No, there's just no defense for the behavior of the ISPs. I don't like govt intervention, but when entire industries are cheating people out of money with blatant lies and shadow games, it's like I said in my previous post, Somebody has to pull the reigns on them. They are out of control.

As far as rights, I absolutely have a right to receive what I legally paid for.

 

[DaedalusHelios]

I hope it passes. ISPs in most areas are a monopoly as it already stands. they already limit how much content I can download in a month, despite me having signed up for "unlimited", I definitely do not want them limiting the speed of that content as well. Somebody has to pull the reigns on them.

They were going to try that via Time Warner in my area. We organized week long protests and then they backed off and said they were rethinking the concept to our local media.

I think the service is bad enough. We get 1.1mb down(when accurately recorded) with "extreme", which is the fastest speed available to us at $65USD a month. I am speaking megabyte and not megabit.

 

[pantherx12]

They were going to try that via Time Warner in my area. We organized week long protests and then they backed off and said they were rethinking the concept to our local media.

I think the service is bad enough. We get 1.1mb down(when accurately recorded) with "extreme", which is the fastest speed available to us at $65USD a month. I am speaking megabyte and not megabit.

Yeah that deserves protest man, that's the minimum broadband speed from my isp.

 

[DaedalusHelios]

Yeah that deserves protest man, that's the minimum broadband speed from my isp.

The reason why is that they cap our speeds. Latency is not that bad though.

I know somebody that receives 8-10mb because he removed his cap. But thats because he has the authority.

 

[pantherx12]

Aye they all have ways of holding people back, my isp is notorious for bandwidth throttling, most of the time I do download at a full 10megabits a second, but sometimes I get only about 2megabits.

 

[Easy Rhino]

can somebody prove to me that the internet is a right? of course not, because it does not fall within the concept of life, liberty and property. ISPs are owners of their products and services. You are not an owner, you simply buy it from them. you do not have to buy it from them, you can go without. simple as that. and another point, internet service in this country has been improving at incredible speeds. companies are upgrading their services at record rates and are offering more tiers of service and more technologies like VoIP. WHY O WHY! would we want that to change? it comes down to whiney people who are mad that these companies make billions of dollars even tho they are not forcing anyone to buy their product. stop crying and grow up.

 

[mrhuggles]

my thoughts are like this, if they are going to call themselves an "internet service provider" they should be providing internet not providing an in any way haxed internet. they should call it something else, that way us people who want normal internet will know the difference clearly.

 

[Easy Rhino]

my thoughts are like this, if they are going to call themselves an "internet service provider" they should be providing internet not providing an in any way haxed internet. they should call it something else, that way us people who want normal internet will know the difference clearly.

what is "normal" internet? a pure connection with no throtteling or limits? then you would have to pay $1000 per month like businesses with T1/T3 connection do here in the US.

 

[mrhuggles]

im ok with reasonable limits, thats all tho

 

[Deleted member 67555]

can somebody prove to me that the internet is a right? of course not, because it does not fall within the concept of life, liberty and property. ISPs are owners of their products and services. You are not an owner, you simply buy it from them. you do not have to buy it from them, you can go without. simple as that. and another point, internet service in this country has been improving at incredible speeds. companies are upgrading their services at record rates and are offering more tiers of service and more technologies like VoIP. WHY O WHY! would we want that to change? it comes down to whiney people who are mad that these companies make billions of dollars even tho they are not forcing anyone to buy their product. stop crying and grow up.

Call your state Library OFFICE, cause every citizen has a right to internet access, since public records are now kept digitally, this of course does not "give the right to home access" of course, but yes every US citizen has a right to internet access as every citizen has a right to public documents..But that is not what this discussion is about...This discussion basically comes down to antitrust issues, and has less to do with speed of delivery..ISP's are to provide a neutral Bandwidth to it's consumers, they should not have the right to limit your bandwidth for select types of media...AND it's not so much against the ISP's as this bill would limit say SONY records from suing an ISP for the end user downloading illegal media..This bill would ensure that ISP's are simply providing the BANDWIDTH they advertise and ensure public funds (tax right offs) are being used correctly and should increase INTERNET speeds...So you think it's wrong for people who are contributing to a network (through tax write offs) to whine about poor coverage or no coverage REALLY....I would agree if it was privately funded, but since it's not, I say the PUBLIC has JUST CAUSE to be PISSED OFF, bro..Don't go thinking I don't understand what you are saying, cause i do and i also mostly agree with every point you have made, I just don't think you are seeing the other side of this issue, it's not just a "Lets go mess with the ISP's thing" this bill would also give the ISP's much needed protection from ridiculous litigation, How much money do ISP's waste year in and year out to protect themselves from Copyright litigation.That's got to stop, Why should an ISP have to worry about what it's consumers are downloading/uploading..If anything you should be more concerned with your privacy

 

[Easy Rhino]

im ok with reasonable limits, thats all tho

what do you consider reasonable?

 

[Easy Rhino]

Call your state Library OFFICE, cause every citizen has a right to internet access, since public records are now kept digitally, this of course does not "give the right to home access" of course, but yes every US citizen has a right to internet access as every citizen has a right to public documents..But that is not what this discussion is about...

just because there is internet in our libraries doesnt make internet access a right. if anything it makes it a privelege because it is provided through tax payer funding...

This discussion basically comes down to antitrust issues, and has less to do with speed of delivery..ISP's are to provide a neutral Bandwidth to it's consumers, they should not have the right to limit your bandwidth for select types of media...AND it's not so much against the ISP's as this bill would limit say SONY records from suing an ISP for the end user downloading illegal media..This bill would ensure that ISP's are simply providing the BANDWIDTH they advertise

if ISPs were to provide a "neutral" bandwidth the cost would sky rocket and LESS people would be able to afford the service. bandwidth is metered and spread across the entire network or regions of the network to reduce bottlenecks and allocate packets to high demand sites when necessary. if you take that away you will see prices increase massively as ISPs are forced to readjust their entire physical operation. that means more cable and pipe, more expensive switches and routers, more labor to do all the work and less people actually able to afford the service.

and ensure public funds (tax right offs) are being used correctly and should increase INTERNET speeds...So you think it's wrong for people who are contributing to a network (through tax write offs) to whine about poor coverage or no coverage REALLY....I would agree if it was privately funded, but since it's not, I say the PUBLIC has JUST CAUSE to be PISSED OFF, bro..

im not sure what tax-rightoffs you are talking about, but all businesses right off some business expenses. that doesnt mean that public funds are going toward helping that business.

Don't go thinking I don't understand what you are saying, cause i do and i also mostly agree with every point you have made, I just don't think you are seeing the other side of this issue, it's not just a "Lets go mess with the ISP's thing" this bill would also give the ISP's much needed protection from ridiculous litigation, How much money do ISP's waste year in and year out to protect themselves from Copyright litigation.That's got to stop, Why should an ISP have to worry about what it's consumers are downloading/uploading..If anything you should be more concerned with your privacy

then fix the laws revolving around piracy. it is that simple! you dont have to institute a system wide redistribution of bandwidth if you want to fix the piracy/copyright laws in this country.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

just because there is internet in our libraries doesnt make internet access a right. if anything it makes it a privelege because it is provided through tax payer funding...



if ISPs were to provide a "neutral" bandwidth the cost would sky rocket and LESS people would be able to afford the service. bandwidth is metered and spread across the entire network or regions of the network to reduce bottlenecks and allocate packets to high demand sites when necessary. if you take that away you will see prices increase massively as ISPs are forced to readjust their entire physical operation. that means more cable and pipe, more expensive switches and routers, more labor to do all the work and less people actually able to afford the service.



im not sure what tax-rightoffs you are talking about, but all businesses right off some business expenses. that doesnt mean that public funds are going toward helping that business.



then fix the laws revolving around piracy. it is that simple! you dont have to institute a system wide redistribution of bandwidth if you want to fix the piracy/copyright laws in this country.

here are the laws that give us Internet http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/254.html and yes Those are specific TO NETWORK REPAIR MAINTAIN AND UPGRADE write offs. I do not think this will raise cost's at all, Been there done that it's a scare tactic that's always proven to be false in the end
AND here are the laws for upgrading/downgrading service and WHY ISP's GET WRITE OFFS..http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000214----000-.html
Here is my favorite part....
(3) Designation of eligible telecommunications carriers for unserved areas
If no common carrier will provide the services that are supported by Federal universal service support mechanisms under section 254 (c) of this title to an unserved community or any portion thereof that requests such service, the Commission, with respect to interstate services or an area served by a common carrier to which paragraph (6) applies, or a State commission, with respect to intrastate services, shall determine which common carrier or carriers are best able to provide such service to the requesting unserved community or portion thereof and shall order such carrier or carriers to provide such service for that unserved community or portion thereof. Any carrier or carriers ordered to provide such service under this paragraph shall meet the requirements of paragraph (1) and shall be designated as an eligible telecommunications carrier for that community or portion thereof.

And as described must be done within reasonable affordable rates
Pay service yes...Right to access YES

 

[Steevo]

I just posted the news. I don't agree with the FCC. Would you like the government telling you how to run your business?

Would you like to see the FCC support elemination of all torrents, downloads, streamed and public content that doesn't mee the ISP's approval.

So lets say tonight I want to watch House, but I have decided that I don't like the idea of spending hundreds of dollars a year to support reruns and issues a cable and or sat company will provide, but it is available OTA, and across the internet, but Qwest decides to block all houses that don't use a partner corp to get their cable from being able to access or use the internet content freely available. Now I pay for internet with the idea that everything that I can access is considered available, and all Qwest does is provide the access to the internet.


However Qwest has overstepped their bounds by disallowing access to items and content they feel competes with their market.



So how about shopping, what if you were looking to purchase computer hardware, and your ISP blocked newegg as they aren't gettign a kickback, and instead forces you to use Tigerdirect?

Are you OK with that?

They are taking your freedom, and ability to choose your supplier, and forcing you to choose one that plays ball with them, thus costing you more.


Are you OK with that?


Why don't they just start getting copies of your TV, grocery, Liquor, and all other products that you buy, and adding a surcharge to your bill for everything.

same thing.

 

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

If theyre going to filter anything filter virii and botnets