Net Neutrality
Any thoughts? Hard to know what to think since they won't release what is exactly they are trying to enforce. Which makes me think it's not good. Another" pass the bill to find out what's in it" deal.
Ollie 
Gardenfish All it is is more control. More control over information. So you will only think what they want you to think. It's a bad idea. This one ain't rocket science.
JeffersonRepub Interesting to me that you are in opposition to something that benefits you directly:
★ The foremost advantage of net neutrality is that it is helpful in adding competitiveness to the market, with the users getting more options to choose from. The competition between service providers makes each of them come up with their best; which directly benefits the end user who doesn't just get options to choose from, but also gets quality service. Incidentally, a section of those in support of such regulation also believe that government control of the Internet may help eliminate monopoly, and ensure that the big websites do not dominate the market.
★ As of now there are no restrictions on Internet access unless specifically imposed by the government (and unwarranted government interference is a rare occurrence in democracies.) One can surf websites, send messages, resort to services like blogging and video conferencing or share data without any restriction, net neutrality will ensure that the same continues in the future. In short, a concrete net neutrality legislation will prohibit service providers from blocking content or regulating the speed at which data is transferred.
★ By prohibiting Internet service providers from blocking lawful websites, services, apps, etc., this legislation will help to keep the Internet an open marketplace and promote innovation. It will also make sure that the service providers do not get into shady deals with 'big players' and favor them (or block their competitors). It will also ensure that the content providers and users are not taxed for access to quality service. It isn't surprising that most of the websites support net neutrality; after all they know that it will make them immune to exploitation by service providers.
Read more at Buzzle: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/net-neutrality-pros-and-cons.html
yankeefan Addressing the first two posts: So are you proposing that the government should NOT enforce net neutrality? Let's put that on a personal level - should Comcast be able to slow down or charge more for you to watch a movie on Netflix (on your Comcast internet connection) rather than on a Comcast cable channel? That's what can happen now. Net neutrality removes much of the ability of the big service providers to control what you see. Why wouldn't you want that? Do you want to be at the mercy of Comcast, Time-Warner, Verizon FIOS, etc. when it comes to what you get over your broadband connection and at what speed? Net neutrality = freedom for users (that's us!).
Net neutrality in a nutshell:
Net neutrality (also network neutrality, Internet neutrality, or net equality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode .
RAD "Net neutrality in a nutshell:
Net neutrality (also network neutrality, Internet neutrality, or net equality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode ."
Ha. That's the smokescreen alright. If you guys are drinking that kool-aid, I've got a bridge to sell you....
JR is correct, IMO. The "broad rulemaking" proposed by the FCC to facilitate the enforcement of "net neutrality" seems to be reason enough not to allow the government to get its foot in the door.
The government currently spies and lies on a massive scale. They have already violated their citizens right to privacy, as well as the public trust. And you trust them to fix the internet??
Fool you once, shame on them. Fool you twice, shame on you.
jjmonth4 Here's a 10min video, watch the whole thing, they examine both opinions ("for" and "against") net neutrality... the commentator obviously is against it, but he talks with people who explain why they are for it. collect some information other than the propaganda put out by the govt and MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION. For a change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cLWgTIsMLM
but jj has it right: too broad/foot in the door. The govt can't do much right. If history has shown us anything, it's that. A LITTLE govt regulation is a good thing... but a little ALWAYS turns into ALOT, and ALOT of govt regulation is ALWAYS a BAD thing.
This pretty much sums up my opinion on the whole "more/big govt" vs "less/small govt" matter...
It's hard to argue the vagueness of generalities of relative terms; the devil's in the details.
Big government bad, govt can't do right, it's all a smokescreen for something else....none can be specified.
"who is John Galt?"
mistergoogle I'll believe anything the government does is good for us when they eventually let me keep my ins plan and get the $2500.00 decrease in premium I'm suppose to get. We're all just stupid people who need more government intervention to tell us what to do and when and how we can do it.
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/233626-fcc-dem-wants-last-minute-changes-to-net-neutrality-rules
I think this may have spurned the discussion
skippy Thank you for that Youtube J R. I have been reading everything and still don't understand whats going on. Now I do and think, so far we should just leave the government out of it and let free enterprise deal with it. In free enterprise there are winners and looser. So be it. If some one see's making the investment in hardware to build towers and etc , and make money, they will do it.
Old Gent The video to watch on this topic - and laugh your ass off at the same time - is John Oliver - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU
All I need to know on this topic is who is pushing hardest for it and that is the ISPs themselves. This is not a grass roots, for the people movement. It's something being pushed by large corporations to make more money, period.
brown bearIf you’ve cut the cable and switched to streaming services like Netflix or Hulu to fill your Sons of Anarchy viewing needs, you might be in for a nasty shock before long: higher prices. No, Netflix isn’t raising its rates again. It’s your Internet connection itself that your wallet should be worried about! Reports say that major U.S. ISPs, including Time Warner Cable, Charter, Cox and AT&T, are experimenting with usage-based Internet fees – not just to quell streaming users’ massive broadband needs, but also to make Netflix less attractive (and traditional cable more attractive) to TV watchers. Most of the largest ISPs sell digital TV services as well, remember?
According to Bloomberg, companies like Time Warner are losing cable customers on quarterly basis, partly because of dish-based alternatives, but mostly due to streaming services. Since streaming services require large amounts of bandwidth, the cable companies (who just so happen to also control your Internet tubes) figure they’ll make the money back by charging heavy users higher Internet usage fees. And if users balk at the higher Internet costs, what do you know? They can always switch back to cable. Win-win for the ISP! According to the article, “Cable companies see usage-based billing as a way to limit the appeal of online services like Netflix and Hulu, and reduce the threat from new entrants like Amazon and Google.” In addition, usage fees are considered by industry insiders as a great way to squeeze out some extra revenue for ISPs, as traditional cable services are losing growth momentum and incurring rising costs. (Maximum PC)
Sounds great for consumers. Incredible that the less government group always winds up supporting the corporations that are out to screw them.
whatever comcast, twc and verizon push for is what I am against on this and probably most issues.
Net Neutrality is not a problem for the US Government but for the world. Your internet connection is not limited to your country and many times your data is not hosted in the country your in.
That being said, all bits are created equal and the fundamental rights of free speech need to be protected along with all methods that facilitate them, including the internet, the great equalizer that gives power to even the most ignored of people.
You have a few things at play: who pays for the lines, and who is allowed to use them and at what cost, censorship and throttling by non controlled businesses, and immoral and privacy invading business practices.
There are other bills and movements that will help ensure net neutrality works.
1) Net Neutrality will not cause a breakdown in laying new wire or upgrading existing infrastructure. There are bills (One by our own Cory Booker) that intend to help remove barriers and allow municipality to create their own ISPs, and to allow for more local competition by removing monopolies. This is both essential to net neutrality working - otherwise comcast and others could let the infrastructure degrade but competition and the demand to match the rest of the world in internet speeds will push our bills and our internet speeds in the right direction. Just like the US mail everyone should have to play fair and not deny another's ability to reach you, and like your electric service, you should have the choice of who provides the services too you.
2) Currently, your ISP can do whatever they want basically, they can limit bandwidth up or down, they can limit your monthly bandwidth to a few gigs a month, they don't have to price things fairly due to the lack of competition and lack of control over the industry. They can throttle content, any content, for any reason they want. You're netflix is running slow? Might be a slow connection, might be congestion on netflix's end, or your ISP could be purposely slowing them down. They could slow them down to keep their networks clear, or to try to put netflix out of business, or at least out of reach of their customers, while promoting their own video on demand service. Currently censorship by an ISP in the form of blocking, or throttling is unlimited and uncontrolled. What happens when it becomes political or personal and your ISP blocks sites that go against their Religous or political beliefs? What happens when your favorite site, game or service costs you an additional fee for a bundle packaged to access it? You end up with a consumer-raping system like cable tv where you pay for things you don't want or need and can be denied access to fair and unbiased (Okay, like any news these days is unbiased...) news and information. Would you stand for it if you could not watch CNN or ABC news but only Fox news? (I suspect most of you right wing nut jobs would be fine with that!)
3) To do things such as slowing your internet of preventing you from accessing materials, you ISP employees many tactics which are immoral and compromise the security of you and your accounts. Packet Sniffing (1), Deep Pack Inspection (2), and similar tools violate your privacy while your ISP abuses their power to control your life and influence your views by controlling the content you are allowed to see and post.
I got told me message is too long to Part 2/2 coming soon.
alpha1beta The Comcast vs Netflix issue is most definitely a smokescreen here, after all, who doesn't hate Comcast. What the government (read Obama and his ilk) really want is control, control and more control of the net and eventually all media that oppose their viewpoints under the guise of "neutrality". This is really scary stuff folks. They have a 300 plus page set of regulations that they refuse to release until there is a vote. Just like obamacare, they say you have pass it to find out what's in it. Then watch out. Think of it this way, about 15 million people watch and listen to Bill O'Reilly on TV and the Inet and about 6 or 7 to msnbc. And this is just a very simple example here. What they want under the guise of "neutrality" is to control the content of everything. And guess what, they (the government) would define and regulate whatever they determine that to be. Again, really scary stuff here. Everyone needs to blast their reps and senators asap. I have.
"One final note for all your republicans (Or dems even). Without net neutrality, just think, someday all (of one party's) candidate’s websites, social media pages, interviews and messages may be on a high tier of internet access that only the richest 1% can afford to access, making it impossible for them to get their message to most of the voting population and keeping certain people in power by wiping out other options."
And in the end, it won't matter. Lobbies and payoffs insure corrupt politics forever. Nothing the govt does is about "fairness"- it's about MONEY and POWER, period. This ALLEGED "neutrality" won't affect anyone who has the money & friends to insure it doesn't affect them.... meaning, in the end, it'll only affect THE REST OF US.
"All I need to know on this topic is who is pushing hardest for it and that is the ISPs themselves."
This is literally the most opposite thing from the truth. Here's a good summary of why PEOPLE want it. https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality and http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now
JR does make some good points, the suspected rules are broad, but we'll see what happens tomorrow. Broad is good, but enforcement of ISPs is key for initial success. Real success means international cooperation and power being taken away from the governments and into the hands of groups like IANA and and ICANN.
I too am worried that the rules meant to protect us, distorted enough, could be used to oppress us.
yeah i got it backwards. sign me RonPaulFan2014 i am on whatever side the ISPs are not.
"They have a 300 plus page set of regulations that they refuse to release until there is a vote. Just like obamacare, they say you have pass it to find out what's in it."
"What they want under the guise of "neutrality" is to control the content of everything. And guess what, they (the government) would define and regulate whatever they determine that to be. Again, really scary stuff here."
These really are the 2 main points here. And all of you who WANT this- regardless if you are republican, democrat, or independent, should realize it DOESN'T MATTER WHO IS IN POWER.... the POINT is giving the govt MORE of it. Rarely a good idea.
And anyone who thinks passing a bill that hasn't been disclosed to the people yet, especially one with the possibility of limiting information/speech....simply because "they think it 'sounds good' " or because some politician they "like" said it's a "good thing"... is a moron. This affects ALL people, except those in govt and those who can pay govt to be exempted (just like Obamacare)
Net Neutrality has nothing to do with content...it is all about the PIPES that deliver the content.
We shall see. I have a feeling though it's going to end up costing us more money and less freedom. That has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it?
""They have a 300 plus page set of regulations that they refuse to release until there is a vote. "
I haven't followed this particular issue, but if this is true, you generally hide things from the people who would be most negatively impacted by something (or those able to identify all of the shortcomings)... the public can't see this proposal/bill? What does that tell you?
This coming from the "most transparent administration" in the country's history, eh?
Mark Mc. "Net Neutrality has nothing to do with content...it is all about the PIPES that deliver the content."
And he who controls the pipes, can control the content if they desire. This ain't rocket science.
Remember this gem "if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan" LOL You guys really need to gain some wisdom with regards to believing at face value what the govt tells you.
I hope more people become aware of this proposal before it's too late or it's another freedom taken.
I was going to try to educate you people but clear you are beyond hope.
I hope you call opt for castration and don't breed. This forum was always a festering ground of ignorance and stupidity but this thread takes the cake. You're all against this but there's how many threads about being able to pick you electric company? Same F%^$ing idea! Maybe the government should run everything, because its citizen's sure don't know a good thing when it jumps up and smacks them in the face.
Long Live Net Neutrality!
Net Neutrality is a good idea. Having the government implement it is a bad one.
Having the government dictate that providers must not infringe on the neutrality of data or risk the right to stay in business is a fair compromise that benefits anyone who values free speech and high speed internet.
Monopolies are almost never good for customers, net neutrality is a way to weaken the hold that various monopolies hold on us.
Agust "Maybe the government should run everything,"
What do you think they've been working on all these years?
Alpha1beta, does this legislation encourage competition or does it simply dictate a solution?
Justintime JeffersonRepub
why are you so anti-government I bet you are one of those people who think we should get rid of most government departments like the CDC the food and drug administration environmental protection just to name a few net neutrality is a good thing it gives everybody an equal footing on the Internet some mom-and-pop company has the same speed on the Internet as some global company and your little Obama care remark you're right some had to give up for the greater good of the many
there are potential problems (they don't exist now, but nothing is stopping them from existing) that are fixed by what everybody wants to call "net neutrality". The real problem is that the fcc is doing a power grab under the guise of fixing those potential problems. Most ISPs have (reluctantly) agreed that there should be protections against certain practices, but what is going to happen will allow the fcc full regulatory control over the ISPs, and somehow we are supposed to take the fccs word that they will only use it to do x y and s (even though the ISPs already agree to that).
Huge power grab based around enforcing things the market has already come to terms with on its own, plain and simple...
Brendan Net neutrality means the FCC is going to classify broadband service - both wired and wireless - as a utility. Your electric utility service is similar. You can by both the electricity and the delivery (the wires) from JCPL. Or you can purchase electricity from another company and have it delivered by JCPL. Either way JCPL runs the delivery network, but they can discriminate against any of the electricity suppliers. So, for instance, JCPL can't decide to cap delivery to your residence at a certain level just because you are not buying from them. And they can't block delivery because you buy from a company they don't like. This is where the internet is going and overall it's a good deal for content suppliers and us.
oldred still waiting for you to explain to us why you like objectifying women at the oscars in the other thread have a good night
Alpha, how do you plan on educating us when we have no idea what in the regulations? The FCC chairman wouldn't even come in front of congress today to testify. Must be nice to be such an authority. We'll see who gets smacked in the face if this goes thru. Save your breath, I don't feel the need or want to be educated by you.
How about Cable Neutrality? I can only get cable service from one provider in my town as most around here are in the same boat. Yes I can get satellite TV but there are people that don't have that option.
kb2755 5 bucks says that "net neutrality" will be redefined in this bill as: the government will remain a neutral enforcer of whatever the service providers decide is best. P.S. On a completely unrelated note, thanks for the seven-digit campaign contribution and C.E.O. position, Comcast.
Either that or this is just SOPA/PIPA with a revised title.
Common Sense RAD has it right guys, that's exactly what's going to happen. This isn't a move to control, its a move to act as a watchdog and force fair play. Everything else is just a side effect of enforcing the freedom of choice.
You guys are literally the only people I have ever encountered, online or in real life, who have don't support net neutrality. Most of you I bet don't make your living on it, as long as you can play candy crush, creep on facebook, and watch fox news 24/7 online you don't know or care how the internet works.
We'll see in a little bit just how good this turns out to be, and I promise to read every word of it.
I'm sure it won't be everything I wanted to see but there are other bills that will help that (Such as the Community Broadband Act - which allows for competition by a local government, something not that useful on its own, but combine that with net neutrality and it's a huge win. Link https://www.scribd.com/doc/253425281/Community-Broadband-Act
alpha-- all they need to do is reinstate the rules that verizon had a court throw out... they don't need title 2 in order to enforce what everybody thinks is a good idea... giving them the option to regulate further in the future while relying on their discretion to not do so now is a recipe for disaster...
remember, the fcc chair will change with a new administration, and so will their discretion
I'll keep an open mind, I need to, I've taught college classes in Mass Media and need to keep up with issues regarding privacy, intellectual property, etc. I'm not one of those Fox News 24/7 guys or any other network that is more opinion than empirical journalistic content.
Andy Loigu Net Neutrality. Yeah, I could see how one would be agianst that ---- neutrality sounds nasty........Let's try the basic definition: "the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites."
Yup, that's bad...... I mean big government is bad, government can never do it right, the fcc in control will muck it up, net neutrality will end our net freedom, remember ObamaCare!!!!!
How about: "That vote will force Internet service providers to treat all Internet traffic the same, barring them from charging higher rates for faster delivery of data such as streaming video."
Oh yeah, that's bad. You know who says so: Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, Verizon, etc. etc. etc. It would stymie their investment in figuring out how to charge you per byte, by type of service, and per type of information you would want to pull. Haters gotta hate but when you belly up to the anti-net-neutrality bar, perhaps you should see who is there with you as big corporate ISP American is buying the free drinks to join you in stopping neutrality. http://www.cnbc.com/id/102453796
Of course, not everyone agrees with Sununu and the cable operators: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102457856
I mean why should the net be open and free; these cable guys invented it, built it, and deserve to gauge you anyway they can before you take advantage of the free flow of information. Before you judge, perhaps some info: http://www.cnet.com/news/net-fix-8-burning-questions-about-net-neutrality/
So if you're against net neutrality, you are basically for the business models of Comcast and Verizon to charge you uplifts for better services; not by the byte, but by the "type of byte" and your willingness to pay higher margins for faster service and for different types of information. Sure, these guys will invest; they will invest more in technology aimed at squeezing bucks out of you depending on what info you pull from the web. Want HL ---- 50-cents a byte. Want free movies ---- $2 a byte.....
I say let the net be open and free; these guys can make enough money selling open pipes; we don't need to allow them to sell based on how much we use, what we use it for, and other constraints. Let the net be the free and open exchange of information it was envisioned to be.
"the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites." "
That's so simple... just one concise sentence. Let's assume that's on a page all by itself...
So then what did the FCC bury in the remaining 331 confidential pages of their plan that they refuse to make public before it's voted on (in fact specifically issuing a gag order on the other commissioners that have seen the plan)?
Keep in mind, the FCC brass is appointed, not elected, so they don't answer to the people. Where do you think their allegiances lie?
Who knows... maybe it's a great plan, maybe it's not. Is it too much to ask that the Federal government gives the public a chance to review something that affects everyone so they can guide their elected representatives response?
"Obamanet" will be as efficient as "Obamacare"...
They're even starting to send out new advertisements touting the awesome capabilities...
"does this legislation encourage competition or does it simply dictate a solution?"
Looks like the latter is true then?
How do we encourage the former without the use of government force to achieve the result people want (to pay a "fair" price, an inherently individual view)? If govt intervention is required because of monopoly issues, why not focus on breaking the monopoly instead of just controlling the monopoly?
Tom Wheeler just said this is no more a plan to regulate the internet than the first amendment is to regulate free speech. This is what is all about.
Its not taxes, traffics and price fixing, its not regulation or censorship, but protection. Its protecting your right to be idiots online, and speak your voice online, as well as your right to educate yourself with lawful content.
Enjoy your fast and free internet you curmudgeons!
JIT, you say "why not focus on breaking the monopoly?" Where I live, I have one choice for internet connectivity....Cablevision. Not Verizon (FIOS), not AT&T (UServe). I suspect the majority of the country that doesn't live in an NFL city is in the same boat. So...how would you suggest the FCC "break" the monopoly? Force Verizon and AT&T to build? Really? Not going to happen. So, this legislation ensures that my ISP (Cablevision) can't throttle my bandwidth giving preference to certain content providers. Simple, really.
Alpha... again I ask. How do you know? Have you been privy to the over 300 page regulation? If so please post for all of us to see. And stop with the name calling. It's juvenile.
Well, some of you got your wish. High-speed internet is now classified as a "telecommunications service."
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fcc-adopts-net-neutrality-rules-to-ban-internet-discrimination-163703235.html
Nice end-run around previous court decisions FCC! (and lookit the power-crazed bureaucrats joining hands and doing a victory jig.)
First the internet was public, open and free. Then business made it better by putting in bigger pipes although riding on top of their embedded infrastuctures. Along with that came a myriad of marketing plans, pricing plans, packaging, and other restrictions. Soon, the free and open internet was oligopoly on the natural business path to monopoly. Now depending on what you wanted to see and how fast you wanted it, you paid a different price. Not only not open or free, the info you could get was based on how much would you pay.
Perhaps that's the way it should be, but that's not the original intent.
"Keep in mind, the FCC brass is appointed, not elected, so they don't answer to the people. Where do you think their allegiances lie?"
So tell us Mark, what do you think?
"So then what did the FCC bury in the remaining 331 confidential pages of their plan that they refuse to make public before it's voted on (in fact specifically issuing a gag order on the other commissioners that have seen the plan)?"
It's funny that this comes mostly from Brietbart News that says we can't see it but somehow knows:
"the details of the proposed net neutrality regulations that will regulate the Internet under the same rules as the old AT&T monopoly" Pretty sound conclusion for someone who hasn't seen the details.
" The public was also incensed that the free-for-all Internet was about to be subject to up to $16 billion a year in FCC user taxes and fees." Really, you have a number for taxes that may or may not be in the bill?
"The Breitbart article generated over 4,600 comments and set off a firestorm on the Drudge Report as the public realized that the FCC process seemed fundamentally biased due to a lack of transparency and full disclosure prior to such an important regulatory vote" First, 4,600 comments is not a firestorm hardly. Second, how can it be deemed biased when you haven't seen it?
Point is, yes, the document should be made public. But that's the issue and making up scarey stories about something you admit you haven't seen is not news; it's fabrication and lies.
"Who knows... maybe it's a great plan, maybe it's not. Is it too much to ask that the Federal government gives the public a chance to review something that affects everyone so they can guide their elected representatives response?"
You got that right, that's the issue.
Exactly the opposite Justintime, they stated very clearly, it will not touch on pricing at all, its still a free market and always will be.
Ollie, I watched the entire FCC session on this and have been following it for years, since before net neutrality was a household term. Title II classification has been touted as the answer for a while and I have made sure to educate myself on what that could mean.
The arguments and statements made today were not in legalize but plain English as to what can and will happen and what they strictly do not have the authority to do. Plus, your telephone service obeys the same rules as do your electric lines, and everything is fine there.
I'm also card carrying member of the EFF, and a web professional who's livelihood depends on a open and fair internet, and have spent many months considering the effects of title II to everyone's point of view, by reading the title II documents, arguments from both sides, including statements and blogs from big cable. I also know how the internet works on a technical level from the protocols to the servers to the sites. Yes, I have a vested interest in this from a professional and a personal level and firmly believe that openness is the way to success, especially for consumers.
Right to be idiots? Got a problem with that? Its true, you, and I have that right. Many members of this forum take pride in expressing their right to be stupid on a daily basis. I can't speak for you personally, I haven't seen your name around that much, but many people in this thread have shown their ignorance repeatedly in this thread and others.
yankeefan: There are other ways to help that situation, including a ruling made right before the net neutrality ruling. I am not as familiar with municipal broadband but the FCC and congress are working to remove barriers to letting municipalities build and run their own ISPs when other options have failed. Here's an article about today's ruling on that (While it does only cover 2 instances) http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/fcc-overturns-state-laws-that-protect-isps-from-local-competition/. Stay tuned, it will get better.
The name is perfect Net Neutrality will pan out to be about as neutral as the Affordable Care Act turned out to be affordable.
The administration knows that for most of the dullards in American just give it a positive non-threatening name and people will go right along with it no questions asked.
Mark Regarding this 300 page document - the FCC’s procedure has always been to not release the full text of a proposal until it has been voted on. I can understand if some people think this precedent should be changed, but it's been this way through both Democrat and Republican administrations.
But even if it had been released early what would you do with it? Bet you wouldn't read it. If you didn't like the concept of net neutrality then the time to complain was when the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was released middle of last year. If you didn't respond with your comments at that time then it's too late now. Complaining here doesn't do anything.
Besides, nothing is going to happen anytime soon - the court cases are probably being filed right now.
I hope you are right Mark because so far the Affordable Care Act has been the most affordable improvement in medical costs in over a decade. While costs continue to rise, for the first time in a long time medical inflation is less than US inflation. That means, in many places rates are out n out dropping.
NJ is not one of them because of the decisions Christ Chrise took to skip working on behalf on NJians and default to the big gubberment insurance exchange. Most states that did that suffered, NJ more than most. Conversely, the states that rolled up their sleeves, went to work on behalf of their taxpayers, and set up their own state-focused, customer-tailored, competitive insurance exchanges did not suffer and saw some nice price improvements. At worst case, a smaller inflationary increase, in others, lower prices.
But on average, a nice success for the first year.
Way to nail in Mark.
http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/analysis-of-2015-premium-changes-in-the-affordable-care-acts-health-insurance-marketplaces/
The administration knows that for most of the dullards in American just give it a positive non-threatening name and people will go right along with it no questions asked Mark like Torture oh excuse me Enhanced interrogation or do You mean like the patriot act that actually took some of your constitutional rights away
"Keep in mind, the FCC brass is appointed, not elected, so they don't answer to the people. Where do you think their allegiances lie?"
"So tell us Mark, what do you think?"
That's easy... they kiss the asses of the administration that have the power to appoint them.
This is similar to why police chiefs (appointed) many times have drastically different political viewpoints than sheriffs (elected). They are both law enforcement officers, but sheriffs tend to work with and/or listen to the will of the people more closely. If they don't, they won't have a job for the next term. It's probably a bit harder to oust a police chief once he/she is in position even if you drastically disagree with their policies.
You really cannot take people like Mark and a few others on here seriously . They see the bogeyman conspiracies and false flag operations all the time they like to think of most Americans as stupid and only they see what's Really!!!!!!!! Going on they lived in a bubble with their tinfoil hats on
"But on average, a nice success for the first year."
They couldn't even get the enrollment website designed correctly (even to this day... some states are extending the deadlines to compensate for the problems this year).
Must not be very internet savvy. Who better, then, to roll out an entirely new internet regulation, right?
That's like putting driver's ed students in charge of the DOT.
Obamacare (as a law - not necessarily implementation) is 5 years old and has climbed to a whopping 40% "approval" rating (as published by Gallup and Pew).
If that's the success we can expect from this piece of non-legislated regulation, over half of the country is going to be ticked off at their internet.
the net neutrality part is a good thing , we need it as the cable co's and ISP's are out of control.
but , there are inklings leaked out about content evaluations that will be done by the FCC to ensure the public is not 'harmed'
that could be a sticky wicket to wade through and in the wrong hands could potentially be used to edit/supress communications that dont 'fit' some third parties sensibilities.
that's not good and only time will tell how it plays out.
i have been talking about this subject with people for many years now, the cable companies are out of control. the old style POTS lines still carry a lot of internet traffic, and the cable , fiber guys should have to play by the same rules, as the traditional telephone carriers do but somehow got a free pass, now all the secret deals being made by netflix and others with the different ISPs to 'prioritize' their streaming service for a price is chilling, the dangers are multiple, one being how is a small underfunded start up streaming service supposed to compete in the 'free' market place if big time netflix and comcast are already in bed with each other? (hint: they will have a very tough time succeeding, tougher than netflix had when it started, it's just not fair, and that's why 'net neutrality' is a good idea)
i do not agree with or support the idea that city governments would be able to start their own broadband services, i mean we all pay to watch the cable now right? so if NYC or Philly wants to put in cables they would raise the property taxes to fund their government 'infrastructure' project, so residents there would be paying twice, (at least at the start) and honestly that's not fair to private enterprise, how could any company compete with the power of a city or state government who could always tap the public for more taxes? and talk about content control, how long do think it will be before a city wide cable system will stop brodcasting any channels or programs that criticize the current sitting city/state governments? (can you hold your breath for 10 secs, that's about how long it will take)
but to me while the neutrality concept is good and sorely needed, there looks to be some items in this 300 pages that would give the FCC authority over content that may be 'harmful' to the public.
wow! that's kinda scary, correct?
BrotherDog "So then what did the FCC bury in the remaining 331 confidential pages of their plan that they refuse to make public before it's voted on (in fact specifically issuing a gag order on the other commissioners that have seen the plan)?
Keep in mind, the FCC brass is appointed, not elected, so they don't answer to the people. Where do you think their allegiances lie?"
That's all you need to know right there. To be "for" something under these terms makes you a FOOL. Because you don't know what you're talking about, despite how loudly you pronounce that you do. I'm against it BECAUSE there is all this confidential information we the people are apparently too "high risk" to let know. No thanks, I've had enough govt obfuscation, deception, and propaganda to last me a lifetime.
The devil will be in the details.... 331 pages of them.
Good summary BrotherDog...
Nobody argues the merits of "neutrality" but the devil is in the details, and ceding significant control/authority of anything to a government that has proven time and time again that they don't always have OUR best interests in mind (be it privacy, or whatever) is dangerous, at best - and accomplishing that control scheme in a clandestine manner should raise everyone's eyebrows..
They stated very clearly it will not effect pricing? I heard that before the ACA was passed to. Pardon me for being one of the idiots. I no longer have my same plan and it's certainly not cheaper. Scary is right!
Buried within the 330 pages that JR would likely never read, as he would wait for some tea party website to summarize it for him, are some interesting new rules, including amnesty for all illegals, the elimination of presidential term limits, invalidation of the second amendment, and free ice cream for all.
I knew eventually someone would go the tea party route. You people are so predictable. I'm actually surprised it took this long. Oh, and the sarcasm wasn't lost on me. Just seems rather silly when discussing an important issue.
I love this thread. I really do. You guys are wonderful people, the type that keep the history channel on the air and write books about the government killing Kennedy.
\
I don't trust them either, but as Wheeler (Former NCTA and CTIA - AKA Big Cable, you know, a citizen's worst enemmy) said himself, things changed because 4 million Americans voiced their opinions and asked for this after the government tried to screw us with the last few "net neutrality bills". Title II was not Obama's idea, groups like the EFF were touting that for years. This is not a government decision, this is the people demanding it.
Go look at Mozilla, EFF, Google, or any other company, for profit, non profit, government watchdog, etc, that wanted net neutrality, and see what they're saying. Everyone's in favor of it, except Verizon and Comcast and Big Cable. See how pissed off Verizon is here! http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet
Ollie, your comment: "Net Neutrality and the Affordable Care Act. Neither neutral nor affordable". You were the one that tied the two together, right? Now, tell the truth... have you ever read anything longer than a comic book?
The vote was approved 3-2. Just heard on NPR that the FCC Commissioner believes pricing for internet services will rise. Lets wait and see.
Jeez! The government has, de-facto, turned the American internet into a regulated utility.
In my years as a public health official, I've seen a lot of "true believers" and was briefly one myself, in the edicts of the larger government bureaucracies...until I started thinking critically.
CDC, FCC or (insert your bureaucracy name here) have substantial bullshit quotients for the amount of "good" that they do.
I'll bet the federal government is now just much closer to the "internet off switch" that they've been jonesin' for for years.
"I'll bet the federal government is now just much closer to the "internet off switch" that they've been jonesin' for for years."
Yup. The internet is the new "free press" since the govt has the mainstream media on their side.... how many scandals have been discovered thru things like iphone videos on FB, twitter, etc..... the internet is free speech, INSTANT speech, and once it's out there, it never disappears.... a NIGHTMARE for govt. Of course they want to control it.... this is just the first step.
More govt regulation. Trust me the off switch is all ready there. We had the ability to turn China off when Sony was hacked. No need for their involvement here.
CraftBeerBob https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2x98ad/eli5_what_the_recently_fcc_approved_net/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/24/net-neutrality-what-is-it-guide/23237737/
Well, for years and years the FCC has been making sure AM radio signals don't interfere with each other and that broadcasters keep their language clean.
To my somewhat limited knowledge they have been pretty much non-political and bi-partisan.
I don't see where they have any history of being despicable "bad guys," who need to be feared.
We need our watchdogs, of course, but I'm not losing any sleep over the FCC.
I'm just glad we can get back to important things, like what color is this dress?
http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/26/8118825/white-gold-dress-blue-black-what-color
christography Oh, it's been tried Andy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
Long story short, it was passed, upheld by the supreme court as legal, then later revoked by the FCC themselves (a different administration). My point here is, whether you agree or disagree with it's alleged goals or it's alleged damage, the rule shouldn't exist at all- the FCC shouldn't have that kind of power.
There's also the "Fair Time Rule", which applies to political campaigns.
So there are definitely "content police" working. Again- I'm more on the side of "I don't want the govt to have the power- EITHER "side"- it doesn't matter who's in power. Just like the discussions we've had on free speech and on the militarization of the police... BOTH "sides" in DC can abuse these powers, and I don't want EITHER side to have them.
At best, the NN is just going to be circumvented for the big boys anyway- just like Obamacare was... "need an exemption? No problem, just bring in your checkbook. We'll work it out." In which case you have a toothless legislation that is only further lining the pockets of officials- and also legislation who's "teeth" can be brought out whenever they want.
Now, since I guess we're going to get to "see what's in it", it'll be interesting to get a look at those teeth....
Thank you Yankeefan for proving my point. Go to the usual and predictable personal attacks. If you notice I started this thread asking what people thought because the information about this regulations was thin. And yes I tied it together. The information that was in ACA was also thin. And I'm sorry but I got screwed by that bill. It's till a nightmare. IRS sent the wrong forms and people who incorrect refunds now get to keep them. Really? So mark me skeptical that anything run by government is possibly a road to disaster. And if you think the FCC is a independent group I suggest you think again
Alphabeta, apparently you know a few things about the mechanics of the i'net - wonderful. However, net "neutrality" is not about the "pipes" and you obviously don't get this, it's far deeper and more insidious. It's about control, control and more control, period.... Under the guise of "neutrality" - sounds good doesn't it, the fcc, read obama, will define and dictate what is "neutral", This is a backdoor into complete content control of any and all media they don't like. Again, scary stuff here, goodbye 1st Amendment??
Amazingly, the 3-2 vote included two no votes from Republican FCC members appointed by Obama. Kinda shoots that "does whatever the administration wants" down.
Document still not released but basically will treat internet as carriers under Title II of the Telecomunications Act as regulated utilities. Hallmark will be ISPs as neutral gateways not allowed to charge differently or handle differently the wide variety of types of traffic crossing the net. The can't charge by type of message being transmitted. Things like blocking, throttling, and pay-to-play fast lanes reserved for big spenders only are banished for all broadband including mobile units.
What this means is that, for example, netflix can't bogart part of the web for netflix by paying more and must share fairly with everyone. Nor can Verizon charge one bit rate for email and a higher bit rate for movies.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/26/389259382/net-neutrality-up-for-vote-today-by-fcc-board
Big business said: "Broadband for America, a group whose members include major Internet service providers, is calling for Congress to intervene. Its honorary co-chairs John Sununu and Harold Ford Jr. say: "The FCC's decision to impose obsolete telephone-era regulations on the high-speed Internet is one giant step backwards for America's broadband networks and everyone who depends upon them. These 'Title II' rules go far beyond protecting the Open Internet, launching a costly and destructive era of government micromanagement that will discourage private investment in new networks and slow down the breakneck innovation that is the soul of the Internet today."
Liberals said: "Welcoming Thursday's news, the ACLU's legislative counsel Gabe Rottman says: "This is a victory for free speech, plain and simple. Americans use the Internet not just to work and play, but to discuss politics and learn about the world around them. The FCC has a critical role to play in protecting citizens' ability to see what they want and say what they want online, without interference. Title II provides the firmest possible foundation for such protections. We are still sifting through the full details of the new rules, but the main point is that the Internet, the primary place where Americans exercise their right to free expression, remains open to all voices and points of view."
Since the FCC is cherry-picking Title II, using some parts and discarding others, the devil will be in the details. However, here is a good tutorial: http://www.dailydot.com/politics/what-is-title-ii-net-neutrality-fcc/
Basically, internet advocates and free speech advocates are for it; ISPs and hands-off business lovers are against.
Meanwhile, in related Obamacare news, Mark in losing the pricing agrument turned the failure of Obamacare to web site problems, public approval ratings and driver-ed students. First Mark, many web sites have problems. Second, public approval includes those using and those not using ObamaCare; it's a policy statement, not an operational statement. Today, more Americans have health insurance than ever before in American history; by percentage of insured and total number. Same can be said for our kids under age 26.
The number of uninsured Americans is at a historic low, around 11%. So sure, website problems. Get over it.
" It's till a nightmare. IRS sent the wrong forms and people who incorrect refunds now get to keep them."
Yes, there was an error. Whenever an error is made, does Ollie recommend scrapping the system? Ain't gonna leave you with much O-man.
But, in summary, including mistakes, ObamaCare looks pretty good except for haters gonna hate: "The tax mistake, affecting taxpayers in 37 states, is the first major problem to surface in an otherwise smooth second enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act. The online insurance marketplaces have exceeded enrollment targets, and insurance premiums have generally come in lower than expected. Nonetheless, the mistake could cause some hardship for thousands of lower-income Americans who qualified for subsidized insurance, had hoped for tax refunds and now must wait for weeks to file their taxes."
Some more detail on the mistakes and the fixes: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/21/us/incorrect-tax-information-health-insurance.html
Same crap was thrown at Social Security in the beginning and, today, I bet you folks will be the first at the trough when you meet the age requirements.
The medium is the message. Control the medium and you control the message. I see gold and white.
auntiel Good article:
http://tucker.liberty.me/2015/02/26/net-neutrality-triumph-of-the-ruling-class/
Here are some excerpts:
>>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. <<
or
>>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. <<
Makes sense to me.
This is the government "fixing" the internet. We can trust them because they did such a great job "fixing" healthcare, right?
Compare furniture to the internet? Really? Great analogy.
And net neutrality doesn't mean higher costs to the incumbent ISPs. It simply forbids them from throttling transmission speeds to the detriment of less favored content providers. In other words, ALL content is treated equally. Your problem with that is?
Finally, there are many metrics that indicate there are significant positives coming out of AHCA. Yes, it is a work in progress, and an undertaking that immense will certainly have it's problems, but in the end, health care in the US needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, only one side seems to be working towards a solution. Unless your guys have an alternative solution I've missed?
McLuhan tried to say the message didn't even matter. He was a bad writer who guessed and didn't get it right. It did however lead to great demonstration of research into the effects of left vs right side brain activity. Visual vs aural media shifts have made big impacts on society as newspaper shifted to radio to TV. Today it's multi-media and one isn't slower than the other because it's all instantaneous on the internet. That isn't *the* message any more than the others. It may well be *a* message however about how things shift towards more equality of media.
That said the internet is the land of liars who sit on their hands and think they'll never get caught at it. It's the land of volumes of misinformation all selling something. For every truth there is some fraud being committed by two year old school yard bullies shouting down what ever doesn't fit.
Unfortunately not enough people understand how it's all put together and how the huge ISP's are under little obligation to do anything. A full scale outage of just two large ISP's or even just Verizon or TWC/Comcast would cripple business and all the other services that stop because they somehow get funneled through that. And the only thing you can do is apply for one day's credit on your next bill. You'll be lucky to get $1.75 back out of all that. That's crazy kind of power. Take Google, Go Daddy, and Yahoo off line and what you thought lived for ever is gone for ever. Ever had your domain sold out from under you? Tell me what kind of freedom that is?
Everyone is yelling and screaming about governments and yet all I have to do is go 2-3 hops upstream, let my router run some background tasks, and if I'm lucky I have control of the router. That means I've got the entire traffic of 5 towns with all the email messages and surfing histories and Payton Place's secrets. Government? No, beware Matthew Broderick who only wants to break into a game console.
We need to treat the internet like the open place it's supposed to be. Not the constant rats maze with some mad scientist constantly opening and closing the doors. There is so much misuse of technology out there today that it warrants cleaning up.
GC 2014 Gross Profit Numbers for the big ISPs:
ATT--$78B
Verizon--$76B
Time Warner--$16B
Cablevision--$3B
Comcast--$50B
As for 'cooling their heels"...they've been doing that for quite some time. FIOS isn't being built out, AT&T just bought DirecTV. They fought this legislation because it would have allowed them to do more "cooling their heels" while they jacked up rates on content providers who would be forced to absorb higher costs or more likely pass them on to us. Net net, ISPs win, consumers lose, and the ISPs wouldn't have had to spend an extra dime to get that extra revenue.
Nothing is perfect...but one party seems to be making an effort to get things improved. One can't even get it's own membership to agree on an approach.
>>Compare furniture to the internet? Really? Great analogy.<<
yf- The payload and the resources/infrastructure required for delivery are different, but the fundamental concept is the same. I think it IS a good analogy.
>>In other words, ALL content is treated equally. Your problem with that is?<<
Bandwidth is a limited resource. Government enforced "equality" usually sounds like a great idea, but has never worked out in practice. There are winners and losers....and the losers usually outnumber the winners by a large margin.
Also, there are "positives" (usually benefitting some at the expense of others) to most government programs along with some genuine public benefit...sometimes. There are also the negatives that go along with allowing an entity, which produces nothing and relies on the forced extraction of capital from its citizens, to control things.
>>yet all I have to do is go 2-3 hops upstream, let my router run some background tasks, and if I'm lucky I have control of the router. That means I've got the entire traffic of 5 towns with all the email messages and surfing histories and Payton Place's secrets<<
Jeez, GC! How much can you see when you do that?
In this case the winners were already identified...see list above. The barriers to entry are too high for any real competition...all you see in the industry today is churn- the big guys taking customers from each other.
Yeah, the ISPs will START cooling their heels...except they've obviously been doing that for a long time, and raking in the cash. You say this ruling will slow innovation? Sorry, that happened years ago. This just might FORCE them to innovate and build in order to grow.
From the Daily Dot:
The U.S. has its fare share of issues when it comes to the Internet, between the National Security Agency’s mass surveillance and the ongoing battle over net neutrality. With so many entities threatening the fundamental nature of the Internet, improving the quality of America’s Internet has, for the most part, fallen off the radar.
If you were to tell someone in Hong Kong or Singapore how much you pay for your broadband Internet service in the U.S. and the speeds you receive in return, they would be shocked. America may have invented the Internet, but we have seriously fallen behind with the speed of our broadband networks and how much we pay to access a utility that has become essential across the world.
The U.S. is ranked 30th in the world in broadband speeds, behind the likes of Iceland, Romania, Bulgaria, France, Russia, and the U.K. To put that ranking in perspective, the U.S. Mens Soccer Team—a sport that 99.1 percent of Americans quit before their 10 birthday—is ranked 13th in the world, and we definitely didn’t invent soccer.
We also pay more for much less, shelling out an average of $55 a month for broadband service, while countries with faster connections like France, Russia and the U.K. all come in at under $45 a month. Even the citizens of Hong Kong—which averages the fastest Internet speeds in the world—pay over 40 percent less than American customers, with an average cost of $31 a month for broadband service.
The breakdown of the cost per megabit for broadband continues the disheartening trend for Americans. At $3.50 per megabit, we are lagging behind countries like Russia ($0.98) and Ukraine ($0.90). This infographic shows how far—in every aspect of the Internet—we have fallen behind.
When it comes to the Internet, the U.S. isn’t leading by any means, and it’s only getting worse. Companies like Comcast, who control vast swaths of America’s Internet access—a number that could grow to 120 million Americans if the merger with Time Warner Cable goes through—has no incentive to bring America back to the forefront of Internet connectivity.
We have reached a vital point in the short history of the Internet, with a plethora of issues that will define how we utilize one of our greatest achievements for years to come. Our goal shouldn’t be to keep the Internet as it is, but to make it better, and change it into what it should be.
Like I said, the internet was designed based on freedom of information and freedom of access; there was no business in the beginning except perhaps for a few pipes. The vision was free and open as in an open pipe shared equally amongst user's and content providers alike.
Americans have always believed in freedom of information; freedom of the airwaves, freedom to easily print whatever you like, etc. etc. Sure, today it can cost money to have these businesses and it is a capitalist game, and yes the government has always been involved in listening activites even before radio, telephone and tv, but we try to keep our audio and visual communications as free and open as we can muster.
Do we really see the government stifling access and content on telephone, radio, and tv?
Why would we allow our free and open internet to be sold to the highest bidder; whether in infrastructure, access, or exchange of information? It was supposed to be an open pipe.
Why would we allow Verizon to put a different value on the types of information or sites we might want to access? Why would we allow Netflix, via it's huge cash war chest, to have unequal access to our internet just because they have more money than you?
This law may not be perfect; we'll have to wait for the release to see. But stopping big business from parsing out bandwidth based on ability to pay, stopping big business from limiting access to information based on willingness to pay, is NOT freedom of information.
Someone equated the internet to a furniture store, but the cash models are very different to begin with. Imagine instead that you went to the Verizon-owned library, but had to wait an hour to get in because Netflix gave them a chunk of money to reserve 90% of the library traffic availabilty and residents could only use 10% of the traffic now whether or not Netflix was actually in the library at the time. And if you wanted a biography, well, that might cost you twice as much as getting a work of fiction. Oh, and by the by, Verizon blocked access to any magazines owned by the Comcast media comglomerate.
Sure, that's a nice capitalist library model, but is that freedom of information and equal access? In America, we treat information different than we do commodity goods like furniture.
uh, the internet was designed as a means of sending information back-and-forth between a few top-level schools and offices as part of the u.s. d.o.d. commercial isp's didn't start until 20+ years later.
as for net-neutrality and government control - the government has no choice but to control it. the question is how do they control it? in one way, it's left to businesses to decide how to maximize their profits by buying and selling the fastest broadband. in the other way, it's left for a user to be able to use everything, equally.
Here's Mark Cuban's take on the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX0Ituesovg
I'm no big fan of Glenn Beck. I do have some respect for Mark Cuban. His reasoning seems sound.
Not being able to "watch the evening news" is probably a good consequence, since it minimizes public exposure to the mind-numbing indoctrination and stupidity delivered by all of the coiffed and primped talking heads. Possible silver lining there ;-)
My knowledge of all of the workings of the internet probably fall far short of other posters here, but in what ways might his reasoning be faulty?
The internet was designed primarily as a way for nerds to share topless photos of Christina Applegate, as I recall...
ianimal 1. It's complete conjecture on his part. And delusional.
2. Read the Internet Tax Act
3. His math is incorrect.
4. He does commercials for AT&T
Kinda right, kinda not. ARPANET, the first internet, used DOD funding to allow it's university projects, and others, to share info. In 1969, four nodes. By 1981, over 200 adding more than 1 per month. In 1983, military was split off, think that left about 50 civilian nodes.....which grew.
The inventers and designers, while funded by DOD, most certainly had other ideas about usage, thus the civilian nodes as early as DOD nodes.
Or did the military just say: "sure, let everybody have it....."
And yes, commercial ISPs were a ways down the road, but when they came, they invested, built up and out the pipes and here we are today, thank you Al Gore.
Unreal. Now people with a difference of opinion are delusional. Bottom line I believe this isn't constitutional. Since when does the FCC write the laws. I thought that was the job of congress. Although I must admit they've done a pretty poor job of stopping it for the last 6 years.
Let the name calling begin!!
"but in what ways might his reasoning be faulty?"
jjmonth4 - It's faulty because he doesn't understand how it works. All anyone hears in his dialog is the punchline at the end that TV over the internet is dead. Everything he says before that is actually one of the best arguments *for* net neutrality.
Fault #1 - What he's attempting to say badly is he wants providers to be able to segment off a whole "lane" of bandwidth dedicated to one particular set of data. That's like saying you've got a highway and you're prohibited from a certain lane. Even though that lane is 100% free of traffic, you can't temporarily use that lane, pass a car, and come back to your own lane. So long as that "lane" is temporarily free there is no reason why it couldn't be used just like you use a passing lane to get ahead. Cuban is basically saying slow traffic is never allowed to pass even though there's a whole passing lane available.
Fault #2 - The FCC's guidelines (and let's not forget there are no laws, and no Congress involved in all of this), don't even govern the splitting of bandwidth. This was really only about the "lanes" if you will already set aside only for internet, not the bandwidth between audio, video, and data.
Fault #3 - Current technology can't even do what he says he wants to make sure doesn't happen. Cable companies aren't allocating different parts of their bandwidth for different purposes and then on the fly moving data bits from one part of the spectrum to another. (ie "switching lanes") But he's talking about it because the cable companies know this is coming. More and more of it is all going via data. VoIP and Video over IP is making the whole spectrum go IP. It's why the cable companies and LEC's etc. are all up in arms. They won't have an advantage anymore.
Fault #4 - When he says "bits are bits", it only means data. But he's talking voice and video as well.
Fault #5 - He mentioned needing some other device "the government" would force you to get. It's actually only if the spectrum is segmented that you would need multiple devices. In other words, it's the ISP's that would force you into that, not the government.
Fault #6 - So long as a bit gets to the other end, no one cares how it got there. There is why it's all going IP. And why his "bits are bits" is actually an argument for neutrality, not against it.
PS - the furniture analogy is also all wrong too, it's talking about one customer vs another and yet the real question is whether it costs the same to ship a 100 lb dresser vs a 100 lb bed vs a 100 lb computer. It's like FedEx is owned by a furniture manufacturer and says furniture costs $2/lb to ship but everything else costs $300/lb. Worse yet, anyone else's furniture costs $20,000/lb because they're competition. If you understand that, it's a violation of Sherman Anti-Trust. I'm Verizon and I let my Fios TV run through before anything else, but your email is slow, and Hulu gets blocked all together.
Thanks. GC.
I'll readily acknowledge that I am ignorant enough to get myself in trouble when it comes to specifics about the mechanics of the internet. That being said, why couldn't some of the big issues in the net neutrality debate be addressed by current anti-trust laws?
The cure seems to have the potential to be far worse than the disease. Government has proved, at least to me, that it cannot be trusted.
jjmonth4 - Current law? Do you understand what the FCC does and is responsible for? This is *policy* not *law*. This is simply a policy that reflects the current law. When violations happen their "policy" is now set to actually enforce the law. It's all this vote really was. If they see the ISP's breaking the law they're now set to turn them over to the Justice Dept for prosecution. The government control misinformation is the product of people who want to be in control instead. The real issue here is the vote was for independence, not government control and not ISP control. The ISP is duping you into thinking the government is doing it for themselves when the reality is the government just decided to force the ISP to play fair for everyone, not for the government. Just because the government may not be able to or won't make the ISP play fair doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do. Fair enough to hold the FCC's feet to the fire to make them not over regulate. But a decision not to let others regulate is still a regulation. The right regulation to keep it open.
GC - The Sherman (antitrust) Act, to my understanding, is a law.
I am aware that the FCC is authorized, by a law, to issue regulations that have the force of law. Their ability to regulate a specific enterprise (the "internet') has now become a reality.
Whatever "good" these new regulations facilitate (and we haven't been allowed to see what they are... or what "backdoors" they contain to enable all sorts of government controls) does not justify the increased scope of authority that the feds have seen fit to grab.
Much of what these regulations propose to fix could very likely be fixed via existing law and market forces.
Net Neutrality supporters may have opened a Pandora's box with a host of unintended consequences just waiting to visit us in the future.
"the increased scope of authority" - But what scope of authority? There is none. No new laws have passed, and Congress is not involved despite what others here hae said. That's a big part of the point. This is policy reinforcing existing law, not new law. You've got this wrong.
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0204/DOC-331869A1.pdf
Input! Need more input!
Any links to FCC information?
GC - I've worked as a public health official for years and have some familiarity with "regulations vs. laws.
Having any enterprise come under governmental regulatory authority opens up the door for a host of headaches that never existed before. Regulations, BTW, need no legislative approval.
While some of these regulations might enhance the public good, many just increase costs for little or no benefit...or benefit large organizations with the infrastructure to comply. This squeezes out the little guy in some cases. In other cases it squelches innovation. In other cases...well, unintended consequences are also unforeseen.
Unless I'm just plain stupid (which I'm not) or ignorant (and I'll concede some "internets" ignorance), I'm not convinced.
Mankind has built, figuratively, complex and effective structures on fundamentally flawed...or corrupt...foundations. Just because something looks good and seems to be right in the minds of some, doesn't make it so.
While laws and regulations have the same effect; regulations are rules within existing legislation that provide details on how the legislation is implemented. Subtle difference to the guy paying for a permit but that's the difference.
I just love jj's anectdotally-based explanation without any supported facts re the good, bad and ugly of regualtions. Of course "some regulations are good, many are bad," or are they? Is it many are bad or just some? How many are bad? Are most good or bad? Just how bad is bad? I mean really, are regualtions, on average, good or bad. Do most regulations help or do they just steal our money for no good reason? Or do you just have bad luck in your experiences with regulations?
As a public health professional with years of experience, do you know or are you just blowing smoke based on your personal anectdotes having no basis on what the real world or the world beyond public health sees?
And what enterprise isn't under regulatory obligation? Probably are some, but I though everyone ran into regulation in one way or another.
I just loved the "Much of what these regulations propose to fix could very likely be fixed via existing law and market forces." Well yeah, sure, but it's been like well over 20 years and it was getting worse, not better........ And that's a fact.
jjmonth, you just gave JR a chubby...and you never mentioned guns or conspiracies. Don't go breaking his heart...you crazy kids.
Here's the full text of the ruling. http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf
I'll get back to you guys in a week once I've read the whole thing.
here comes your "neutrality"... mm-hmm.....
http://naturalsociety.com/googles-new-algorithm-will-only-show-you-what-they-say-is-true/
So use a different search engine. That relates to content, not net neutrality. Sorry the concept is so hard for you to grasp.
JR, read the article. Has nothing to do with NN. Hopefully you were just being funny.
Author is wrong about one thing. I think google searches are already prioritized. I think you can "buy" your way to the top either outright or by paying to link yourself to certain search words.
Not that this makes new algorithm better, but don't believe it's a simple popularity contest today. Not quite.
Mr G - Yes and no about buying in. You can't just pay and have your site go to the top, that's what all of the scams taking people's money want you to believe. What you can pay to get is on the top right in addition to the pages found, you get related ads based on keywords you choose. You then put in a $ bid against others that may want to have their ad based on the same or similar keywords.
In addition there are also premier sites that are listed *before* the results. That's not quite the same thing, and it's also not cheap. Even the smaller ads on the right can become expensive really quickly.
As for the algorithm, how bad can it be if you Google "net neutrality" and get a garbage blog like that. The comments about Google's methodology are just all confused. It's two no-name twenty somethings who themselves say don't trust us. They're just afraid their site will get knocked because their knowledge of bio-genetics isn't what they say it is.
To a degree we are both right: advertisements can be located above and to the right of a search but are marked as such and pretty much stand out.
But I was wrong on this aspect. You can't buy a search word from google, but you can optimize through careful web planning: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theyec/2013/01/14/can-you-buy-your-way-to-the-top-of-organic-search-results/2/
While some of this is domain design, site design, some word searching, the bottom line is to detect recogoogleable patterns and optimize to it. There are SEO (search engine orangutans or optimization, not sure) specialists out there to help:
http://www.shorthillsdesign.com/seo/you-can%E2%80%99t-buy-your-way-to-the-top-2-free-ways-to-improve-your-search-engine-rankings-right-now/
http://www.shorthillsdesign.com/seo/organic-search-vs-paid-search-and-healthcare-websites/
Ask for GC :>)
36 days until vote to allow Comcast to regulate what you can see or do on the internet, and how much extra it will cost you.
Anyone else noticing a difference when they search? Even when my search terms are very precise there is usually a bunch of stuff offered at the top that is not what I was looking for. I have to page a bit to find the site I really wanted.
More time paging = more time looking at ads I suppose. But this is not a good thing for the little guy who can't afford to pay to be at the top of the list.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/11/technology/net-neutrality-repeal.html
hktownie 
Billyjoe jimbob 
Dodgebaal Commenting is no longer available.