FCC to propose 'Net neutrality' rules

[Deleted member 67555]

I couldn't even pay my bills without the internet lol

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Yep. I couldn't imagine life totally without internet. Every time I lose internet for some reason, my train of thought goes like this... "I want to... crap, I don't have internet. Well what about... crap, need internet for that too. How about thi... crap, no internet."

I have that same problem.

I couldn't even pay my bills without the internet lol

Me too. Greater than 80% of my transactions are online.

 

[Binge]

I've been reading a lot of posts in this thread that argue the right of the business to dictate the content which may flow through their lines of service. It should be clear that I understand, and agree to an extent with the statement above. However the internet is not the USPS. You are not getting physical packages which should be designated as liquid, fragile, or perishable. The physical connection over which signal is carried happens to be the service I'm paying for. I'm not paying for a packet of information be it for a download or streaming content. I am paying for the bridge between two servers. If I were paying for the packet that means that the host of the information would also be owned by the ISP. The ISP owning the host of my ftp/htp/http access is rarely the scenario with any internet use. For an ISP to dictate my access may be a service. If they decide to make where I can access what they sell, and maybe if, in the history of service providers, that sort of groundwork was in place there wouldn't be so much debate.

The FCC is a form of government control over communication regulations. Some government control is usually in place to allow freedoms where bodies would impose regulations to restrict certain freedoms. The lack of net neutrality would mean that while business has more freedoms of their connections they would be removing freedoms from the people who pay to maintain their connections. There is nothing the user is doing to screw the ISP out of the money they want for their bandwidth, so why should the ISP do anything to screw the customer out of access? If anything the internet as a model resembles a privatized road system. This would be extremely interesting model as you (the driver of your browser) would go from place to place as you pleased aware of the dangers and obstructions at or on the way to your destination. The road way was already set up in a way that any driver can leave their home while also remaining at home. The house of the driver can be accessed by other drivers, and likewise for the driver access someone else's house. This is the case unless the house does not want visiters. The home owner has a right to privacy. So far the model of our highway/road system is looking pretty accurate. Accept that the internet is not a monopoly and is regulated by a set of basic traffic rules already agreed upon by some standards which apply to all parties supplying this service for which people pay. The company doesn't own the driver of any vehicle on the road, and they also have no control over the homes connected to the road on frontiers owned by other companies. To restrict the traffic to one avenue of the internet forcefully would be a violation of the structure itself. In a sense it would ideal of which the service is to be given.

Some guy: So what?

The traffic on the road should be able to be controlled by the owner of the road! The people who own the road should be aware that there are areas which can't recieve their service, and being no competition it would render that service to be monopolizing.

Guy: They just want to change standards!

Well then it wouldn't be the world wide web, would it? It would be a different product, and forcing people to pay for something they didn't buy.

Guy: Well other countries restrict the traffic inside their country!

Honestly?? Be glad you live in the United States.

Guy: I still stand by the fact that government control is bad for business!

What about this is changing the way your business operates??? They could always change their business plan to offer something other than the world wide web, but then I hope they paid everyone to which they are connecting for hosting information. It's a sh*tty double standard that a company would restrict a part of the internet in order to make more money somehow, and they then wouldn't be willing to pay the websites they did allow for the content the hosts make available on the internet.

RANT OVER. k-thanx guys

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The vote will come in October.

Here's the four exisiting rules in addition to the two new rules:

1. Accessing content. The first rule states that consumers should not be limited in the content they choose to view online, as long as it's legal.

2. Using applications. Internet users should be able to run any application they want as long as they don't exceed service plan limitations or harm the provider's network.

3. Attaching personal devices. Consumers should be permitted to connect products they buy to their Internet connection, as long as the devices operate within the service plan and do not harm the network or enable theft of service.

4. Obtaining service plan information. Customers should be able to easily review their options when buying Internet service plans and learn about how those plans protect against spyware and other invasions of privacy.

5. New rule: Non-discrimination. Internet providers would be prohibited from selectively blocking or slowing Web content or applications.

6. New rule: Transparency. Providers would be required to make their network management practices clear and available to consumers.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

It unanimously passed but now there are legal hurdles.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

Good!!

It unanimously passed but now there are legal hurdles.

HOPE IT BRINGS PROGRESS

 

[DaedalusHelios]

I am glad to see congress can agree on something and act like its not completely bought out by special interests.

 

[MK4512]

So... When can I get my Fiber Optics in Canada?

You guys don't know how lucky you are... I have a 60GB monthly limit!

Stupid Rogers...

EDIT: Whoa the page went down...

 

[mrhuggles]

hey Ive got an idea, if were going to filter the internet why not filter electricity, lets give priority to the rich people and having rolling blackouts for "lesser" citizens

 

[FordGT90Concept]

hey Ive got an idea, if were going to filter the internet why not filter electricity, lets give priority to the rich people and having rolling blackouts for "lesser" citizens

It could happen. They want to "digitize" the power grid which means they could route electricity, on the fly, to more "deserving" clients.

 

[mrhuggles]

yeah how would you like the government telling you how to run your business?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

They already do.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

You have to Buy a License from the GOVT in order to Run this type of Busness..so before you even begin you are already under control...You simply agree to collect profit to provide a simple service..not so you get to decide how that service will be implemented

 

[DaedalusHelios]

hey Ive got an idea, if were going to filter the internet why not filter electricity, lets give priority to the rich people and having rolling blackouts for "lesser" citizens

Enron did it to whole sections of the power grid to give them an excuse to charge more..... they called it driving up demand. When you become detached from reality because you answer to nobody but yourself, that results in some people starting to take things too far with the power.

Regulation could have busted them before it was taken too far. We wouldn't have even had the recession we have today without our loose regulations on the financial sector.

Regulation as a whole is not good or bad. There is good regulation, and there is bad regulation. Just like any legislation.

 

[Nick89]

It could happen. They want to "digitize" the power grid which means they could route electricity, on the fly, to more "deserving" clients.

I support the smart grid its great innovation, I don't think in any way they would do that.

 

[Easy Rhino]

Regulation as a whole is not good or bad. There is good regulation, and there is bad regulation. Just like any legislation.

agreed, however we are talking about washington politicians making these regulations through legislation. the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[DaedalusHelios]

I support the smart grid its great innovation, I don't think in any way they would do that.

Its is a great idea. I wonder what energy savings a city could see from putting solar panels on its telephone/power poles. They are already there, so couldn't we put them to use???

Although solar cells are ancient tech.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I support the smart grid its great innovation, I don't think in any way they would do that.

That's exactly what the "smart grid" is designed to do. They will short change consumers for businesses and they will short change small businesses for large businesses.

There is more energy cost with the smart grid (all the monitoring equipment), not less. The only way you get "less" is to, you guessed it, short change customers (as Enron put it, "driving up demand" artificially).

Its is a great idea. I wonder what energy savings a city could see from putting solar panels on its telephone/power poles. They are already there, so couldn't we put them to use???

Although solar cells are ancient tech.

Solar panels are low voltage DC current. Your average power pole is carrying over 1000 volts AC. The solar power stations don't even use solar cells to produce electricity. They just direct the heat towards either a center mast or a pipe which generates steam and in turn, generates electricity. Solar cells are only good for local power supply (a single structure) because of their DC nature.



I think regulation is bad. The only reason why it exists is because the legal system makes it virtual impossible for Joe Schmoe to take on Wal-Mart for making it impossible for him to compete. Joe Schmoe goes out of business and Wal-Mart creates another monopoly. If Joe Schmoe could take Wal-Mart to court with a good chance at winning without incuring a huge debt for lawyers and legal fees, the market would self-regulate (people getting stepped on would in turn step on those doing the stepping on).

The only reason why regulations have to exist is because it is fiscally impossible for small businesses to defend their position from big businesses so government has to create more regulations (that don't work) trying to constrain big business. I can't name one company in the last decade that is new to the "big player" scene. In this country, little players don't become big players--only big players die (like Enron and Merrill Lynch) being replaced by little players (e.g. power co-ops) or consumed by even bigger players (e.g. Bank of America).

Fundamentally, this country is backwards in every way and has been for several decades.

 

[Jstn7477]

In a lot of places, like where I live, there is no competition for phone, Internet, electric, and water services. It is anti-competitive as-is so it is important that what services are offered don't amount to extortion. I have no limit and at times, I get very frustrated with my ISP (lots of downtime) but at least I am not being told what I can and cannot do with my Internet. They got their asking price; they ought to be happy.

I agree. Pre-2006, the only cable TV (and cable internet) provider in Sarasota, FL was Comcast and the only phone/DSL company was Verizon. When Verizon FiOS came, it was practically a miracle because Comcast was charging about 60 dollars for BASIC cable, and Verizon FiOS had much better phone, internet and television service. Comcast had to scramble to get their act together, and in 2007, they were losing about 200 customers per week.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Serves them right. Monopolies/big business tactics suck.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

That's exactly what the "smart grid" is designed to do. They will short change consumers for businesses and they will short change small businesses for large businesses.

There is more energy cost with the smart grid (all the monitoring equipment), not less. The only way you get "less" is to, you guessed it, short change customers (as Enron put it, "driving up demand" artificially).



Solar panels are low voltage DC current. Your average power pole is carrying over 1000 volts AC. The solar power stations don't even use solar cells to produce electricity. They just direct the heat towards either a center mast or a pipe which generates steam and in turn, generates electricity. Solar cells are only good for local power supply (a single structure) because of their DC nature.



I think regulation is bad. The only reason why it exists is because the legal system makes it virtual impossible for Joe Schmoe to take on Wal-Mart for making it impossible for him to compete. Joe Schmoe goes out of business and Wal-Mart creates another monopoly. If Joe Schmoe could take Wal-Mart to court with a good chance at winning without incuring a huge debt for lawyers and legal fees, the market would self-regulate (people getting stepped on would in turn step on those doing the stepping on).

The only reason why regulations have to exist is because it is fiscally impossible for small businesses to defend their position from big businesses so government has to create more regulations (that don't work) trying to constrain big business. I can't name one company in the last decade that is new to the "big player" scene. In this country, little players don't become big players--only big players die (like Enron and Merrill Lynch) being replaced by little players (e.g. power co-ops) or consumed by even bigger players (e.g. Bank of America).

Fundamentally, this country is backwards in every way and has been for several decades.

Uhm I dunno,, Actually we didn't have these problems until deregulation started to take Place ( referring To the 1930's Regulations which if stood in place today would require more solar , wind and Hydroelectric Power) It's the Selective Deregulation That's BS..Big business got to choose what to Regulate to bring us to where we are Now...and that's the problem (Corruption) Now what we have to do is Regulate How a Business can operate to ensure it's a positive Entity for the whole community and Not for a spoiled few

 

[Easy Rhino]

Now what we have to do is Regulate How a Business can operate to ensure it's a positive Entity for the whole community and Not for a spoiled few

how do you do that and who gets to decide what is considered positive?

 

[TheMailMan78]

Oh man I don't care what they vote on as long as I can keep my porn.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

how do you do that and who gets to decide what is considered positive?

You look at the needs of the people are, add where there are deficiencies, which will be determined by use and then set up a Contract system for licenses and let business determins how to get it done within the regulations set forth

 

[Easy Rhino]

You look at the needs of the people are, add where there are deficiencies, which will be determined by use and then set up a Contract system for licenses and let business determins how to get it done within the regulations set forth

who looks at the needs of the people? who decides what is a deficiency?