Are you talking about what the grammatical definition of "net neutrality" means to you, or what you believe will happen with or without the legislation known as Net Neutrality. They love naming legislation to evoke a positive emotional response. There could be legislation requiring all children over the age of 12 to enroll in military school with a mandatory 4 year military service upon graduation called the "Educate Our Children" act, but being against that wouldn't mean you were against children getting an eduction.
Obama is doing a good thing with Net Neutrality. It will kill them inside to acknowledge that.
Net Neutrality is today what the Bill of Rights was then. We desperately need it to preserve essential freedoms.
If you think Obama is all for your rights and freedoms, you had better check his record on what he's actually done again (and not just go by what he says).
I heard this same kind of talk when Obamacare was proposed. Every Obama nutswinging news outlet was out there claiming it was the greatest thing ever for the American people. How's it working out for 'we the people' today?
Who on here has actually NOT seen their healthcare insurance premiums and deductibles skyrocket? Who on here has actually gotten to keep their doctor and insurance plan they had BEFORE Obamacare?
Understand where the fear from a government takeover of anything comes from. The road of good intentions is paved with wasted tax dollars, and sometimes our freedoms and liberties. No, Fox News and Ted Cruz didn't tell me this. History has taught me this.
Originally posted by theBDub: Cliff, This is internet without Net Neutrality:
What am I missing Brennon ? I take that your image is a visual representative of what to expect without FCC Net Neutrality. However, it occurs to me that we have that now, with cable/satellite TV governed by the FCC.
quote
Originally posted by Hudini: Here is a link to the court ruling on Net Neutrality:
Thanks for that. I was unaware of that case/cause. It seems to be a case where the FCC is trying to win the ability to enact net neutrality, not the specific concept as the FCC sees it. Interesting the FCC is fighting itself, in that they themselves classified the internet beyond their scope of influence, .
quote
Originally posted by Hudini: AT&T requires any smart phone to have a separate data plan. The absolute minimum plan was for 300 megs of data. This is an amount, not a speed. (Speed is whatever you can get in your area and is based on installed equipment, 3G, 4G, LTE, etc.) This charge was about $20 for me. It was about $30 each for the other phones for 2 gigs of data. If you go over it's $10 per gig.
I have three AT&T phones, all on the same data plan, . It is one gig plan with roll over of unused data to the next month (one month maximum, use it or lose it). Even the 300mb plan is a shared data plan. I think you need to review the plan options.
quote
Originally posted by Hudini: Now imagine your ISP charging you for data used on your internet connection at home. Consider that the average movie is 2 gig. If ISPs are allowed to charge based on usage of data then I think you will see costs rise dramatically. There is nothing stopping the ISPs from this behavior other than market forces. Will that be enough? The FCC is moving to regulate the ISPs the same as the government regulates utilities. I cannot tell you if this is good or bad, but IMHO the ISPs asked for it by challenging the FCC's Net Neutrality policy in court.
If the ISP's can't charge for what one user uses, why would they not charge all users for all data used ? I would rather pay for only what I use, including the data I use on my phone. The Net Neutrality that you believe would protect you from your fears would be implemented by the same FCC that allows cell carriers to charge different call minute/data usage plans.
I still am not sure how I feel about the "hidden" 700 pages of FCC Net Neutrality.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 02-20-2015).]
Nowhere in the Constitution is there a provision providing the federal government with power to regulate the free-flow of information. In fact, such an idea flies in the face of the First Amendment.
Originally posted by cliffw: I still am not sure how I feel about the "hidden" 700 pages of FCC Net Neutrality.
I stand corrected. 332 pages of secret rules. Coming soon ! The Department of the Internet.
quote
FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai has emerged as a hero for those opposed to the regulation because Pai has been taking to the airwaves decrying the fact that the public is not allowed to see 332 pages of proposed internet regulation before they are potentially passed.
Ajit Pai has read the 332 pages. He has many interviews where he lists reasons why he opposes the idea.
The data plan I have in China is awesome compared to AT&T.
Why do you think that is? Could it have something to do with the fact labor is so cheap in China? (And by extension, building infrastructure to support the networks you use in China is much cheaper to do than it is here in the US).
I think the 800lb Gorilla in the room that nobody wants to talk about is the cost of doing business in the United States. I know a little about this because I run my own business here. Do any of you, who are bellyaching about the high cost of broadband, have any idea what it costs to build infrastructure - as a private company in this country? I bet you don't. I bet you have no idea what it costs to pull permits, be bonded, pay for insurance, pay for inspections, pay for equipment, pay for wages & insurance on employees, and of course, pay TAXES.
All I hear from some on this forum is how the lowly worker doesn't make enough and he (or she) needs to be paid more (ie: raise the minimum wage). Well keep in mind that increased labor cost has to be passed along to somebody else down the line (ie: the consumer). And every time minimum wage goes up, there is a ripple effect throughout the entire workforce. Many higher labor rates are based on multiples of the minimum wage, so any increase in minimum wage causes the price of labor everywhere else to go up, sometimes exponentially.
You can't have it both ways. You are never going to get cheap anything in this country if you keep having to pay more in labor, goods, taxes, regulations, etc. to provide that service. It's just a fact of life.
I'm not advocating the reduction of minimum wage to $1/hr. There are other things that can be done to lower the cost burden of doing business in this country - namely - get the government out of the way. Reduce taxes and eliminate burdensome regulations. Don't agree? Fine, then quit complaining about the high cost of goods and services.
[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 02-19-2015).]
I think the 800lb Gorilla in the room that nobody wants to talk about is the cost of doing business in the United States. I know a little about this because I run my own business here. Do any of you, who are bellyaching about the high cost of broadband, have any idea what it costs to build infrastructure - as a private company in this country? I bet you don't. I bet you have no idea what it costs to pull permits, be bonded, pay for insurance, pay for inspections, pay for equipment, pay for wages & insurance on employees, and of course, pay TAXES.
All I hear from some on this forum is how the lowly worker doesn't make enough and he (or she) needs to be paid more (ie: raise the minimum wage). Well keep in mind that increased labor cost has to be passed along to somebody else down the line (ie: the consumer). And every time minimum wage goes up, there is a ripple effect throughout the entire workforce. Many higher labor rates are based on multiples of the minimum wage, so any increase in minimum wage causes the price of labor everywhere else to go up, sometimes exponentially.
Hey, I don't think minimum wage should be increased. Actually, I think it should be abolished. I'm all about private sector ruling that stuff. BUT, ISPs have already gotten BILLIONS of dollars to build infrastructure that they DIDN'T use for the intended purpose, and they don't allow any small ISPs to come along and challenge them. Google Fiber is struggling to set up shop in cities because of all the laws banning the competition.
ISPs have already gotten BILLIONS of dollars to build infrastructure that they DIDN'T use for the intended purpose, and they don't allow any small ISPs to come along and challenge them.
If what you say is true, then why isn't there a law being proposed that forces these ISP's to give back the money they've been given for these infrastructure improvements that they did not make and use for the intended purposes?
Look, I'm with you on this. Our government has given billions of dollars to all sorts of corporations who have misused it and some have even gone out of business (basically stealing that money). Why isn't the government doing anything to get that money back? Where's the accountability?
My fear is any increased government regulation is going to result in increased bills and fees for the services I currently get. That is the way it has ALWAYS worked out anytime any new regulation has been implemented. I have never seen a new regulation result in any of my bills being lowered. That's my concern.
[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 02-19-2015).]
My other fear is this: the Obama administration is currently using the federal banking/regulations system to implement their "operation chokepoint", which is forcing banks to refuse to do business with firearm and ammunition retailers - in attempt to make them go bankrupt.
Who's to say that once federal regulations exist controlling the internet, we couldn't have another administration come along and do the same kind of things to websites they don't politically agree with???
Do you understand where I'm coming from on this and why I don't trust the government?
The Internet isn't broken. Obama doesn't need to 'fix' it. [Obama wages war against small, new ISPs] Chicago Tribune ^ | February 18, 2015 | Ajit Pai, Joshua Wright
Posted on 2/19/2015, 5:31:59 PM by grundle
Consider that activists promoting this rule had previously targeted neither AT&T nor Verizon with their first net-neutrality complaint but MetroPCS — an upstart competitor with a single-digit market share and not an ounce of market power. Its crime? Unlimited YouTube. MetroPCS offered a $40-per-month plan with unlimited talk, text, Web browsing and YouTube streaming. The company's strategy was to entice customers to switch from the four national carriers or to upgrade to its newly built 4G Long Term Evolution network.
Or take T-Mobile's Music Freedom program, which the Internet conduct rule puts on the chopping block. The "Un-carrier" allows consumers to stream as much online music as they want without charging it against their monthly data allowance. And consumers love it; T-Mobile has been growing fast and may soon overtake Sprint as the third-largest wireless operator.
Low-price, prepaid voice plans are now also suspect. These plans brought mobile service to millions of low-income households, and because carriers have upgraded these plans to include data, they're the chief reason why such households now have mobile Internet access. But because these plans aren't the all-you-can-eat plans endorsed by the FCC, they, too, may violate the Internet conduct rule.
Economists have long understood innovative business models and product offerings like these are good for consumers because they give them more choices and lower prices.
And allowing new business models is critical to promote competition, particularly from smaller providers and new entrants. These entrepreneurs need the flexibility to experiment with different service plans so they can stand out from their larger competitors. Imposing a one-size-fits-all mandate from Washington would burden them, help the larger incumbents, reduce competition and stifle innovation.
I am not for net neutrality because the Federal Government will be regulating it with the FCC. I have written letters, signed petitions and called my representatives. If you are for net neutrality answer me this question. What business, sector, or branch has our government ever ran well? Not the IRS, the postal service, Fanny Mae-Freddi Mac what please name one. When Comcast was going to drop Netflix because of bandwidth (33%) they came to a solution and now no problem. Also Netflix is even faster than before. So why do you want-need net neutrality? Don't forget to answer the above question!!!
So charging Netflix extra solved what problem? My Netflix streaming was just fine before my rates went up and my service went down. As always, the consumer pays the extra costs.
I am not for net neutrality because the Federal Government will be regulating it with the FCC. I have written letters, signed petitions and called my representatives. If you are for net neutrality answer me this question. What business, sector, or branch has our government ever ran well? Not the IRS, the postal service, Fanny Mae-Freddi Mac what please name one. When Comcast was going to drop Netflix because of bandwidth (33%) they came to a solution and now no problem. Also Netflix is even faster than before. So why do you want-need net neutrality? Don't forget to answer the above question!!!
Earl
The FCC regulates electrical utility companies, right? Why would this be different?
The FCC isn't under direct control of any government branch. I don't like government, but I like my internet more.
The FCC regulates electrical utility companies, right? Why would this be different?
The FCC isn't under direct control of any government branch. I don't like government, but I like my internet more.
They also have rolling blackouts in our area with the electricity and with NO direct control over the FCC what do you think they will do, listen to the people? I think not.
Energy utilities are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. http://www.ferc.gov/ They are regulated because of their status as monopolies.
I still believe the ISPs brought this on themselves in an attempt to raise revenue. They will surely fight the new proposal.
Hudini's link This week, I will circulate to the members of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed new rules to preserve the internet as an open platform for innovation and free expression. This proposal is rooted in long-standing regulatory principles, marketplace experience, and public input received over the last several months.
Hudini, have you seen these new rules ? No ! No one has. They are sealed. How did he get any public input ? Really ? The FCC Chairman is defending his actions via an obscure website, ?
quote
more of Tom Wheeler's dribble per your link Originally, I believed that the FCC could assure internet openness through a determination of “commercial reasonableness” under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. While a recent court decision seemed to draw a roadmap for using this approach, I became concerned that this relatively new concept might, down the road, be interpreted to mean what is reasonable for commercial interests, not consumers.
I can fix this concern with a one written sentence, I don't need 322 pages. All acts, statutes, laws have a subsection defining items in the language of the measure. Just define “commercial reasonableness” as pertaining to the consumer. I will bet you a dollar to a doughnut these new "secret" rules go far beyond his stated concern that he is "championing" for us.
The FCC is supposed to be an independent body. That the President calls it his plan is very disturbing being that he violates the law at whim but that's another topic.
quote
Originally posted by Hudini: Energy utilities are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. http://www.ferc.gov/ They are regulated because of their status as monopolies.
Internet service providers are not a monopoly.
I was at the grocery store the other day. On a mission for certain things and Lays potato chips was one of them. My GSP (grocery store provider) had them way down on the bottom shelf. The prime shelf space was occupied by my GSP's brand. It got me to thinking. GSP's have endcaps (both ends of every isle) which are used to feature promotions (a psychological sales tactic). Product vendors pay for that space. Why do not all vendors have equal access to that space ?
quote
Originally posted by Hudini: So charging Netflix extra solved what problem?
Netflix's product is putting a strain on the infrastructure, a clogging of the arteries if you will. Fed-Ex, UPS, and other large carriers pay extra for their higher use of the roadways (gas taxes, registration fees, and other means). Why should Netflix be any different ?
You can also look at the history of the deregulation of Ma Bell, and also the deregulation of the trucking industry. Food for thought ... Did deregulation work?
Okay so most of the text is just citing sources.. then you get to the bottom and it's just 67 pages of one of the commissioner's comments on why he doesn't approve. So it isn't just 400 pages of a law. That's good.
What I have read so far...
8.5 No blocking. A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.
8.7 No throttling. A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.
8.9 No paid prioritization. (a) A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid prioritization. (b) “Paid prioritization” refers to the management of a broadband provider’s network to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic, including through use of techniques such as traffic shaping, prioritization, resource reservation, or other forms of preferential traffic management, either (a) in exchange for consideration (monetary or otherwise) from a third party, or (b) to benefit an affiliated entity. ederal Communications Commission FCC 15-24 285 (c) The Commission may waive the ban on paid prioritization only if the petitioner demonstrates that the practice would provide some significant public interest benefit and would not harm the open nature of the Internet.
8.11 No unreasonable interference or unreasonable disadvantage standard for Internet conduct. Any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage (i) end users’ ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet access service or the lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of their choice, or (ii) edge providers’ ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to end users. Reasonable network management shall not be considered a violation of this rule.
These are found on page 283, Appendix A.
I saw no rules forcing unbundling of last-mile facilities, they mentioned tariffing only in that the current document "will be adequate to protect the interests of consumers" without it, no rate regulation is in place, and no cost accounting rules are there. So basically the internet will stay as it currently is, except Netflix won't have to pay extra for prioritization anymore.
So just as Net Neutrality proponents wanted...
I haven't read the whole document but I skimmed it. Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Originally posted by avengador1: Let's make this simple. Name one thing the government took over that worked out well for the people.
lol - How about N.America? the highway system? NASA? the US Armed forces? and thats just the basics.
I fully understand having been inside "the system" for so damn long, you have forgotten what it actually does. like a spoiled kid who doesnt see what mommy & daddy actually do for you. and you stomp your baby feetz saying how much you hate them. go to Somalia. it is 100% goverment free. enjoy your "freedom".
everyone pays for their bandwidth. being ComCast & Netflix are the main crux's of this - lets stick with it.
everyone on Comcast is sold "broadband" - high speed - 10Mbs or better. currently they advertise 30-50Mbs. pretty good. so - as a subscriber - thats yours. go where you like with it. and that includes Netflix. even if EVERY Comcast subscriber went to Netflix - which requires 1-2Mbs - there should be PLENTY or capacity, since they were sold at least 10Mbs, and likely more. Netflix only uses10% or LESS of what was sold. There is NO REASON WHATSOEVER this should be any form of burden.
if this actually is a problem for ComCast - it is because they are lying about what they sold consumers. In fact - this maybe a FINE basis for a class action lawsuit to refund consumers.
.
. It is one gig plan with roll over of unused data to the next month (one month maximum, use it or lose it). 
.
?
