FCC poised to adopt network neutrality rules (Update 2)

Dec 20, 2010 By JOELLE TESSLER , AP Technology Writer

(AP) -- New rules aimed at prohibiting broadband providers from becoming gatekeepers of Internet traffic now have just enough votes to pass the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday.

The rules would prohibit phone and cable companies from abusing their control over broadband connections to discriminate against rival content or services, such as Internet phone calls or online video, or play favorites with Web traffic.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski now has the three votes needed for approval, despite firm opposition from the two Republicans on the five-member commission. Genachowski's two fellow Democrats said Monday they will vote for the rules, even though they consider them too weak.

The outcome caps a nearly-16-month push by Genachowski to pass "network neutrality" rules and marks a key turning point in a policy dispute that began more than five years ago.

"The open Internet is a crucial American marketplace, and I believe that it is appropriate for the FCC to safeguard it by adopting an order that will establish clear rules to protect consumers' access," Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, a Democrat, said in a statement.

Yet many supporters of network neutrality are disappointed. Clyburn and the other Democrat, Michael Copps, both said the rules are not as strong as they would like, even after Genachowski made some changes to address their concerns.

That sentiment was echoed by some public interest groups on Tuesday.

"The actions by the Federal Communications Commission fall far short of what they could have been," said Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge. "Instead of strong, firm rules providing clear protections, the commission, created a vague and shifting landscape open to interpretation."

A number of big Internet companies, including Netflix Inc., Skype and Amazon.com Inc., have previously expressed reservations about the proposal as well.

Meanwhile, even the weakened rules are likely to face intense scrutiny as soon as the Republicans take over the House next year.

The chairman's proposal builds on an attempt at compromise crafted by outgoing House Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., as well as a set of broad net neutrality principles first established by the FCC under the previous administration in 2005.

The rules would require broadband providers to let subscribers access all legal online content, applications and services over their wired networks - including online calling services, Internet video and other Web applications that compete with their core businesses.

But the plan would give broadband providers flexibility to manage data on their systems to deal with problems such as network congestion and unwanted traffic like spam as long as they publicly disclose their network management practices.

Senior FCC officials stressed that unreasonable network discrimination would be prohibited.

They also noted that this category would most likely include services that favor traffic from the broadband providers themselves or traffic from business partners that can pay for priority. That language was added to help ease the concerns of Genachowski's two fellow Deomcrats.

The proposal would, however, leave the door open for broadband providers to experiment with routing traffic from specialized services such as smart grids and home security systems over dedicated networks as long as these services are separate from the public Internet.

Public interest groups fear that exception could lead to a two-tiered Internet with a fast lane for companies that can pay for priority and a slow lane for everyone else.

They are also worried that the proposal lacks strong protections for wireless networks as more Americans go online using mobile devices.

The plan would prohibit wireless carriers from blocking access to any websites or competing applications such as Internet calling services on mobile devices. It would require them to disclose their network management practices too.

But wireless companies would get more flexibility to manage data traffic as wireless systems have more bandwidth constraints than wired networks.

"Individuals who depend on wireless connections to the Internet can take no comfort in this half-measure," said Joel Kelsey, political advisor for the public interest group Free Press.

Republicans, meanwhile, warn that the new rules would impose unnecessary regulations on an industry that is one of the few bright spots in the current economy, with phone and cable companies spending billions to upgrade their networks for broadband.

Burdensome net neutrality rules, they warn, would discourage broadband providers from continuing those upgrades by making it difficult for them to earn a healthy return on their investments.

Still, Genachowski's proposal is likely to win the support of the big phone and cable companies because it leaves in place the FCC's current regulatory framework for broadband, which treats broadband as a lightly regulated "information service."

The agency had tried to come up with a new framework after a federal appeals court in April ruled that the FCC had overstepped its existing authority in sanctioning Comcast Corp. for discriminating against online file-sharing traffic on its network - violating the very net neutrality principles that underpin the new rules. Comcast argued that the service, which was used to trade movies and other big files over the Internet, was clogging its network.

To ensure that the commission would be on solid legal ground in adopting net neutrality rules and other broadband regulations following that decision, Genachowski had proposed redefining broadband as a telecommunications service subject to "common carrier" obligations to treat all traffic equally. But Genachowski backed down after strong opposition from the phone and cable companies, as well as many Republicans in Congress.

Explore further: Verizon launches rewards program with tracking

5 /5 (8 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Net neutrality rules face mounting GOP opposition

Oct 05, 2009

(AP) -- Republican opposition is mounting as federal regulators prepare to vote this month on so-called "network neutrality" rules, which would prohibit broadband providers from favoring or discriminating against certain ...

FCC net neutrality plan faces battle with GOP (Update)

Dec 01, 2010

(AP) -- A proposal to prohibit broadband providers from blocking or discriminating against Internet traffic flowing over their networks has an uncertain future with just lukewarm support from large phone ...

FCC seeks input on rules for online services

Sep 01, 2010

(AP) -- Federal regulators are seeking public input on what rules should apply to wireless Internet access and specialized services that aren't part of the Internet but are delivered over wired broadband connections.

Recommended for you

Verizon launches rewards program with tracking

Jul 21, 2014

Verizon Wireless is launching a nationwide loyalty program this week for its 100-million-plus subscribers. There's a twist, though: To earn points for every dollar spent, subscribers must consent to have their movements tracked ...

Verizon boosts FiOS uploads to match downloads

Jul 21, 2014

Verizon is boosting the upload speeds of nearly all its FiOS connections to match the download speeds, vastly shortening the time it takes for subscribers to send videos and back up their files online.

The goTenna device pitch is No Service, No Problem

Jul 18, 2014

In the new age of Internet-based crowdfunding with special price offers, where startup teams try to push their product closer and closer to the gate of entry, goTenna's campaign offers a most attractive pitch. ...

Maths can make the internet 5-10 times faster

Jul 17, 2014

Mathematical equations can make Internet communication via computer, mobile phone or satellite many times faster and more secure than today. Results with software developed by researchers from Aalborg University ...

User comments : 72

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

lexington
1.3 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2010
It's the end of the internet!
alec123456789
4 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2010
It's the end of the internet!


I assume you're being sarcastic. The only problem with the FCC' current proposal is that it explicitly leaves a huge loop-hole for wireless providers. True Network Neutrality rules should apply to anything being sold to the public as "internet", regardless of the hardware layer.
Justsayin
1 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2010
If you can't legislate it through congress then do an end run around the public and get the FCC to impose the rules. A little more liberty is lost by this measure.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 20, 2010
If you can't legislate it through congress then do an end run around the public and get the FCC to impose the rules. A little more liberty is lost by this measure.

Yes it is another power grab by 'progressives' to keep the govt in power.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2010
http://www.youtub...hrURtcjU

Good reasons to oppose 'net neutrality'.
mattytheory
5 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2010
The rules should be the same for wired vs. non-wired networks since they are accessing the SAME DATA. If it isn't viable for a firm to provide wireless/broadband network access then maybe they shouldn't. Capitalism will find away, we don't need to be legislating a path that the market will find naturally over time.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (8) Dec 20, 2010
These rules simply prevent someone like Comcast or another TV media provider from preventing access to Hulu and Netflix and prevents phone companies like Verizon from preventing access to Skype and Vonage.

It has already been proved that companies like Comcast and Verizon do this. These rules are in response to consumer complaints about the service providers being the only game in town.

If these companies don't like providing the internet as a whole as opposed to parting it out, simply stop providing the internet and let companies that aren't attempting to establish monopolies do so in your stead.

Marjon's video is wholly speculatory and isn't at all related to the stated regulations.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 20, 2010
companies like Comcast and Verizon do this.

These companies ARE granted monopolies by govt. and you still bitch?
How many people now have wired phone service?
Before long, most will get their internet that way if the govts stay out of the way.
But, I know, SH just can't resist regulating. Govt knows best.

Just wondering how many people believe Apple has a monopoly on I-phones and ATT has a monopoly on I-phone service. And if you believe that, why not take them to court and force Apple to share their technology and force them to use other cell phone networks?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2010
Another internet provider:
http://www.hughesnet.com/
StarDust21
4 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2010
What? I don't get this, the US advocating net neutrality? Is this irony after the wikileaks censoring attempts?

Howhot
3 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2010
The NET needs to be a neutral. It has worked extremely well to this point. Right, corporate or left, or none-of-the-above, you should support net neutrality. It is like a no-brainier. Only the greediest major "phone company" providers want it. We the people do not.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
Another internet provider:
http://www.hughesnet.com/

Can't run a business on that, then again, I wouldn't expect you to know how to run a business.

So you can attempt to address my argument, or you can keep making up silly Marjon stories, your choice.
AkiBola
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
I was just thinking, if only the federal government would get involved then just maybe Al Gore's "internets" could become a success. It has no chance otherwise. Interference from the FCC, bypassing Congress, is just what is needed now. I don't know how the internet has survived without Julius Seizure at the FCC to tell those corporations how to run their business. Please save us, I need my mommy.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2010
"Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez defended plans for a law that would impose broadcast-type regulations on the Internet, saying Sunday that his government should protect citizens against online crimes. "
http://www.washin...461.html
Dictators agree, state control of the internet is a great thing.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
"The Political Power of Social Media"
http://www.foreig...al-media
This is why the state is afraid of the internet.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2010
"The Political Power of Social Media"
http://www.foreig...al-media
This is why the state is afraid of the internet.

You mean the Republican state?

Why else would they want their buddy Murdoch to be able to use his influence in business to prevent people from accessing online content through subscriber fees?

Think of it this way Marjon, would you want MSN online to be able to prevent you from accessing the WSJ or FOX.com? I wouldn't. I don't want my ISP to be able to limit the information that I can access via a public medium.

Your concerns about an internet filter are based wholly on ignorance. It would be virtually impossible to ban content on a national level and quite easy on an ISP level. The "state" can't even stop people from gambling online and that is completely illegal in the US.
Quantum_Conundrum
5 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2010
Anti-government people are pretty clueless to the fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE to run a modern civilization without regulation.

Just think, in a few years as these computers and nano-technologies advance more and more, how stupid people are going to be still stopping to investigate a "suspicious package" at an airport, when any terrorist could have made a virus-sized, programmable nano-toxin.

How are you going to stop stuff like that unless governments and businesses have countermeasures and monitoring in place AHEAD OF TIME? You CAN'T. By the time you detect something like that with existing conventional means, or else after the fact, r.e. "gee why's everyone dead at the airport?" It's too late.

No matter how much "freedom" you imagine yourself to have or require, in the real modern world, technologies MUST be regulated, and evil uses MUST be anticipated and countermeasures developed. Else Osama-like mass murderers eventually get "free kills" while you pout and complain.
zslewis91
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2010
"Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez defended plans for a law that would impose broadcast-type regulations on the Internet, saying Sunday that his government should protect citizens against online crimes. "
http://www.washin...461.html
Dictators agree, state control of the internet is a great thing.


Jesus christ...would you please drop it, skeptic is right and you are wrong....and you sound like a "tea partyer" or some ill-thought non-sense. go read real books and maybe put done the youtube??? great source of info.....and HAHAHAHAHA....@SH,this retard probably could not run a business if his life depended on it....sosososo, @ryggesogn, go pray to whatever bullshit god your pray to and pray for the conservative quasi fascist movement amongst the rest of the redneck hillbilly inbreed retards....like yourself.. good day to you.
PS-swallow that mouth full of cum, it carrys the seeds of RR
Quantum_Conundrum
5 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
And regardless of the "nightmare scenario", monopolies and oligopolies are bad for humannity, because they will control world economics and even try to corner all markets on technology.

Historically, even in the allegedly "free market" of america, when someone gains a monopoly on the production of a raw material, service, or finished good, they inevitably try to enslave everyone else, starting with their own employees, to the point of literally starting private wars between the owners and the workers. See the history of the steel industry, the coal mining industry, oil, early rail roads, etc.

Read some history. They practically owned washington and the u.s. army, and even forced the army to massacre their own workers who were on strike.

Unregulated capitalism has ALWAYS proven to be just as bad as any totalitarian regime, and it's been rearing it's ugly head again lately in America through wallstreet and the fact that 1% of people have 25% of income.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2010
when someone gains a monopoly on the production of a raw material, service, or finished good, they inevitably try to enslave everyone else,

BS. Give examples of ANY company that has gained and held a monopoly without help from a govt. and have enslaved anyone.
Unregulated capitalism

This is an oxymoron. Capitalism is ALWAYS regulated by competition and customers.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2010
It would be virtually impossible to ban content on a national level

No, it is not. Every internet connection into and out of Saudi Arabia is monitored for content.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2010
BS. Give examples of ANY company that has gained and held a monopoly without help from a govt. and have enslaved anyone.
DeBeers
Capitalism is ALWAYS regulated by competition and customers.
Unless there's no competition and customers require the service.
No, it is not. Every internet connection into and out of Saudi Arabia is monitored for content.
All two of them.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2010
How DeBeers had govt support for its monopoly:
"Cecil Rhodes and seven partners owned a block of 90 claims in the De Beers Mining Company Ltd, named for its land holdings on the old De Beers ranch.

Rhodes was a successful politician, and he helped to draft laws that protected the mining companies. Taxation on mining profits was kept very low. The Diamond Trade Act was aimed at diamond stealing and smuggling, but it also set two very dangerous social precedents.

First, anyone found with an uncut diamond was required to explain how it came into his possession, that is, guilt was assumed while innocence had to be proved. This is a European concept, but is not usually found in English or American law.

Second, the Diamond Trade Act allowed the companies to set up "searching-houses" in a system of routine surveillance, searching, and stripping by company police. This curtailment of private rights and personal liberty became a fact of South African society. "http://mygeologyp...davis.ed
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2010
"Within a few months of De Beers' move to Switzerland, it had concluded an agreement with Russia to sell that country's rough diamonds on an exclusive 5-year contract, thus maintaining an almost total control over all the global production of diamonds. De Beers paid $1 billion as a cash advance. "
http://mygeologyp...nds.html
Without govt protection, monopolies cannot survive.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2010
There is no government protection offered specifically to DeBeers. Secondly, making a contractual deal with a single, non-local government entity only shows how powerful their monopoly was, not that Russia established one with DeBeers.

You don't seem to understand the concept of monopoly.
GSwift7
5 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2010
I'm surprised this happened. I think it's a good thing because it will foster more competition in several industries. The cable companies may want to protect their near monopoly on internet, phone and cable tv, but they will benefit in the long run as they should remain the major provider of broadband in the US and people will continue to rely more and more on internet services.

We should start seeing a LOT more mobile phone plans that are data-only now, and smartphone apps that offer VIOP through a data-only plan. This should have happened a long time ago. Smart phone users should be able to use VOIP most of the time and only need a VERY small amount of talk minutes on their plans. This could put an end to these unreasonable $120/month mobile phone plans.
GSwift7
5 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2010
In regard to a monopoly without government influence, is there anything in the modern world that happens without some line connecting it to government?

The more government-induced monopolies are usually characterized by artificially low prices, like the helium market. The less government-induced monopolies are usually characterized by atrificially high prices, like various drug cartels.

it's just a matter of degree. if debeers isn't influenced by government in some way, then what do they trade for their diamonds? I asssume it's currency.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2010
In regard to a monopoly without government influence, is there anything in the modern world that happens without some line connecting it to government?

That is one problem.
The more government-induced monopolies are usually characterized by artificially low prices, like the helium market. The less government-induced monopolies are usually characterized by atrificially high prices, like various drug cartels.

The opposite is more true.
When ATT lost its national monopoly phone service and products dropped in price, expanded in quality and services.
What drug cartels? All pharmaceuticals are heavily regulated. And govts do grant monopoly rights in the form of patents.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2010
I've waffled on this issue considerably.

At the end of the day, I think this needed to be done.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2010
I've waffled on this issue considerably.

At the end of the day, I think this needed to be done.

You have joined the dark side.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
I've waffled on this issue considerably.

At the end of the day, I think this needed to be done.

You have joined the dark side.

No, you just have your head stuck up your ass and can't see the light of day.
When ATT lost its national monopoly phone service and products dropped in price, expanded in quality and services.
I thought you said that governments were required for monopolies, then you turn around and use the term "natural monopoly". Not surprising to see you talk out both sides of your mouth agian.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2010
use the term "natural monopoly".

I said national monopoly granted by the federal government.
trekgeek1
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
Ha! On part one of this article I decided ryqqesoqn2 was an idiot based on his statements. It's nice to find part two and see that everyone else thinks so as well. Everything he says is pure nonsense. He opposes government telling him what to do, but has no problem with his isp provider throttling his bandwidth as they please. How could any conservative favor allowing a company to strong arm you into their approved content and reduce competition in the marketplace by blocking access to rival services? Good posts Skeptic Heretic, as usual.
ekim
not rated yet Dec 21, 2010
Read some history. They practically owned washington and the u.s. army, and even forced the army to massacre their own workers who were on strike.

This reminds me of a story from several years ago. Not quite a massacre but a sign of things to come if net neutrality fails to be adopted.
http://www.cbc.ca...724.html
GSwift7
5 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2010
With so many things depending on the internet these days, it's silly to leave control in the hands of stockholder boards. Keep in mind that stockholders don't have any nationality requirements. They could be from India or Indiana.

If you want the internet to be more like a public service, then you have to protect it from non-public interests sometimes.

One thing some people are complaining about is that this set of FCC rules is too vague, but I see that as a good thing too. The vagueness of the rules leaves them open, so that specifics of individual situations can be worked out on a case by case basis, under existing laws. That sounds like a good thing to me, however much I hate lawyers.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2010
, it's silly to leave control in the hands of stockholder boards

If the company does not provide the service, they go out of business and the shareholders have zero value.
The only organization that whats a robust, growing internet service are the ones who are doing so to make a profit.
The interest of the govt is power. The internet is empowering individuals and this must be stopped.

as no problem with his isp provider throttling his bandwidth as they please.

Go to a different provider.
BTW, the internet bandwidth is controlled by the weakest link in the data stream and the number of users on the system.
If you neighbor sucks up or spits out a lot of data on your shared cable line, shouldn't he pay more?
Javinator
5 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2010
He opposes government telling him what to do, but has no problem with his isp provider throttling his bandwidth as they please.


He has no problem being controlled by anything not called the government (ie. corporations/Church/etc.)

I've waffled on this issue considerably.

At the end of the day, I think this needed to be done.

You have joined the dark side.


I'm going to go ahead and say MM's beliefs haven't changed at all. He looked at the issue, debated it in his head, and made a choice that seemed logical to him.

No need to mindlessly tow the party line.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2010
Go to a different provider.
If one is available.
BTW, the internet bandwidth is controlled by the weakest link in the data stream and the number of users on the system.
False and false.
If you neighbor sucks up or spits out a lot of data on your shared cable line, shouldn't he pay more?
Sure, have him pay for the bandwidth, not the content.

Let's say you have Comcast as your internet provider and Comcast is bought out by Ted Turner. You only use your internet to read the WSK, Drudgereport, etc. Turner makes you pay $80 a month for the right to have that content in addition to your subscriber fee.

Meanwhile I play online games from companies that Turner has stake in. I suck down tons of bandwidth in comparision but you're paying more because of your political ideology, not your usage. Net neutrality stops this practice. If you're against net neutrality, you are for corporate censorship of the internet.

That makes you no better than Pakistan.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2010
The really funny thing here Mr. Swenson, is that the government is accountable to you as a citizen and as an individual. Companies aren't accountable to you at all.

You'd scream bloody murder if the government wanted to censor the internet, as you very well should, but you're willing to bend over and get fucked for a company's bottom line. Seriously, how stupid are you?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2010
He has no problem being controlled by anything not called the government (ie. corporations/Church/etc.)

Govt has no incentive to provide a service and there are NO choices.
I don't like Comcast, I go to Verizon or Hughesnet or go wireless. There are many choices for service.
But all these 'choices' are still controlled by many govt regulations. Wired internet providers pay city franchise fees, which are passed on to us.
With govt, there is NO choice, PERIOD.
I HAVE choices with corporations and churches as they CANNOT put a gun to my head and force me to do their bidding. Govt CAN, which is why so many here prefer the govt. They must love the power rush.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2010
government is accountable to you as a citizen and as an individual.

No they are not. They are accountable to the majority that elect them. In MA, the majority are socialists.
Corporations that want to sell a product to me must persuade me to buy and to keep buying every day. Every day I can vote for or against a company. I can't do that with Barney Frank or John Kerry, they don't care.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2010
You'd scream bloody murder if the government wanted to censor the internet,

But you won't?
That's what you don't want to admit, SH. You love the regulations, but don't want to admit or attack the dark side.
As noted, a prime mover in the 'net neutrality' is a socialist who wants govt control over the media.
When you compromise with socialists, socialists win.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2010
SH must be a lawyer:
"A lawyer friend once joked to me that every time the government passed a regulation based around the word “reasonable,” it meant full employment for another class of lawyers. Between the FCC—which earlier today gave itself the right to determine what counts as “unreasonable” network management on the Internet—and a new rule governing health insurance rate increases released by the Department of Health and Human Services, the government put a lot of lawyers to work today."
"the entire regulatory process is arbitrary. "
{And that is EXACTLY what 'progressive' 'populists' want, NO standards.}
http://reason.com...hikes-un
Javinator
5 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2010
You don't even seem to comprehend what this is about.

All you see is "FCC blank blank blank NETWORK blank RULES" and that some "socialist progressives" support net neutrality.

Try thinking critically and not politically.

I HAVE choices with corporations and churches as they CANNOT put a gun to my head and force me to do their bidding.


Umm... church has Hell. "Do our bidding or you will suffer in eternity forever" is the same as the metaphorical gun you say the government is apparently holding to everyones' heads.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2010
You'd scream bloody murder if the government wanted to censor the internet,

But you won't?
Did I not immediately say afterwards "As you should"?

Let's review it again:
You'd scream bloody murder if the government wanted to censor the internet, as you very well should, but you're willing to bend over and get fucked for a company's bottom line.
I certainly did say it.
That's what you don't want to admit, SH. You love the regulations, but don't want to admit or attack the dark side.
What dark side? I'm thoroughly convinced that you haven't read the regulations.
As noted, a prime mover in the 'net neutrality' is a socialist who wants govt control over the media.
And that would be?
When you compromise with socialists, socialists win.
When we follow your ideologies everyone loses.

I'm also thoroughly convinced that you want the regulation repealed because you'd rather have less to read. All those pesky facts getting in the way of your reality
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Dec 22, 2010
Govt has no incentive to provide a service and there are NO choices.
The ability to be heard and large scale access to information by the citizenry is certainly in the government's best interest. The more you have access to, the more you can learn and the more productive you can be. There are definite benefits to educational services.
I don't like Comcast, I go to Verizon or Hughesnet or go wireless. There are many choices for service.
You cannot get a subscriber line in Chelmsford for less than $500 that has comparable speed to Comcasts $100 service. It does not exist. You do not have any option of said nature. And if you want to argue that you do, prove it. That's a 54Mbps connection for the record. Money where your mouth is Marjon.
Corporations that want to sell a product to me must persuade me to buy and to keep buying every day.
No, they don't.
I can't do that with Barney Frank or John Kerry
It's called a citizens' recall. Look into it.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2010
"Reasonable network management. Reasonable network management consists of:
(a) reasonable practices employed by a provider of broadband Internet access service to:
(i) reduce or mitigate the effects of congestion on its network or to address quality-of-service
concerns;
(ii) address traffic that is unwanted by users or harmful;
(iii) prevent the transfer of unlawful content; or
(iv) prevent the unlawful transfer of content; and
(b) other reasonable network management practices."
"§ 8.5 Content.
Subject to reasonable network management,..."
"§ 8.7 Applications and Services.
Subject to reasonable network management,..."
"§ 8.9 Devices.
Subject to reasonable network management,..."
"§ 8.11 Competitive Options.
Subject to reasonable network management,..."
"§ 8.13 Nondiscrimination.
Subject to reasonable network management,..."
"§ 8.15 Transparency.
Subject to reasonable network management,..."
Plenty of work for lawyers here.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2010
Plenty of work for lawyers here.
Technology changes rapidly, laws don't.

Make the law too specific and you stifle innovation. There is actually an established definition of "reasonable network management" as lain out by the IEEE and ISO, then again, I wouldn't expect you to understand that either as you'd prefer to have one company feed their opinion into your head so you can endlessly repeat it.
GSwift7
5 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2010
As noted, a prime mover in the 'net neutrality' is a socialist who wants govt control over the media


As opposed to capitalist John McCaine, who wants censorship of internet content and video games, as well as internet sales taxes?
GSwift7
5 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2010
You know, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this here yet: What about Google TV? Isn't it a little auspicious that this net neutrality rule coincides with the google effort to bust into the television market that's been dominated by cable companies for so long?

Heck, I'm looking at a google TV ad on this page right now.
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (3) Dec 23, 2010


Heck, I'm looking at a google TV ad on this page right now.


Not me, I have an ad blocker enabled. I keep getting a message on the top of the page telling me how I'm hurting their revenue by not viewing their ads. Little do they know, I wasn't buying any of it anyway.
AdrianReef
1 / 5 (1) Dec 25, 2010
WAKE UP "BOYS"

I'm italian and luckily(I guess..)we don't have to pay so much for "the wheel"..btw , the real point is : who cares about regulations??
THERE ARE PROXIES(and BOOKS)around.
Just read some and EVADE "some others"...got it ? ;)

Anyway , the more I "surf" , the more I'm astonished by IGNORANCE.

WE ALL GOT WI-FI and the like on our handhelds and people density is so high in some places WE CAN START A NEW NETWORK.
With a signal amplifier circuit we can reach transmission in the order of kilometers...
That's the BIG DEAL.
CARRIERS ? Just a bunch of LEGALLY QUALIFIED(by the ENSLAVER,LORD&MASTER(666)GOVERNMENT ) THIEVES.
Also , did you ever heard of trigonometric trangulation ? YOU SHOULD !!!!
It means "I"(hypothetical wireless/wired isp ) can ALWAYS know where are you.ALWAYS.EVERYWHERE.EVEN ON THE MOON.
If you like that "policy" just stick with it...all this regulation debate is just nonsense cause we're ACTUALLY BORN "REGULATED" (I would say ENSLAVED)...AND I WANNA DIE FREE.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Dec 25, 2010
Also , did you ever heard of trigonometric trangulation ? YOU SHOULD !!!!
It means "I"(hypothetical wireless/wired isp ) can ALWAYS know where are you.ALWAYS.EVERYWHERE.EVEN ON THE MOON.
You do know that cell tower antennae are unidirectional and cell phones uniquely identified by a MAC address, right? They only need 2 to pinpoint you.

Beyond that, you're being a crank. If you had actually done any homework on the matter you would know the above and understand that most of what you're referring to has been in place for decades. Being on the Grid makes you more anonymous than being off of it. Only the guilty need to hide in a shack in the woods.
Skultch
5 / 5 (2) Dec 27, 2010
I don't like Comcast, I go to Verizon or Hughesnet or go wireless. There are many choices for service.


I've told you this before, Mongo:

In most rural areas, the only options are 56k dial-up, or your not-really-an-alternative 1500+ millisecond latency satellite (HughesNet or WildBlue). Both have different debilitating flaws. Pure bandwidth, or time lag. Satellite is especially frustrating. Zero gaming, VPN problems, banking crawls, snow on the dish, video streams nearly impossible at medium quality, etc, etc, etc.

Sorry suburbanite, there are not ALWAYS alternatives.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 27, 2010
there are not ALWAYS alternatives.

MOVE.
Pay Comcast the money to run a cable out to your property.
Why should city folks subsidize those who chose to live in rural areas?
Skultch
5 / 5 (2) Dec 27, 2010
MOVE.
Pay Comcast the money to run a cable out to your property.
Why should city folks subsidize those who chose to live in rural areas?


Wow, the irony. You are lost cause, but I'll play anyway.

It would cost, and I'm being VERY conservative here, $100,000 to run cable to my house. Know why? It's at 11,000 ft elevation in the Rocky Mtns. Metallic rocks are kinda hard to dig up, in case you didn't know. WISPs don't serve my area. Know why? There's a big mountain in the way! Most of my neighbors stay here 2 weeks a year. NEWSFLASH! - There is a world outside the East Coast of the USA.

YOU are the one who needs to move. I'm not the one complaining; YOU are. Our fairly representative government has made a decision. LIVE WITH IT. If YOU don't like it, YOU move. Or, lobby your congressman to make a law changing the powers of the FCC. You know this won't happen, of course, which is probably why you come off as so pathetically stupid.
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Dec 27, 2010
..cont..

There is no terrestrial cable provider not less than 5 miles away. DSL is supposedly coming in June, but I've heard that before. There's simply not a big market here. Have I moved? No. I love it here, despite the many hardships, internet being a minor one. I don't support net neutrality to get better speeds, I support fair market practices. Simpleton.

Why should city folks subsidize those who chose to live in rural areas?


Subsidize what? Where is the direct financial transaction happening in this issue? Oh, nowhere.

Try again, you pathetic little person.

Oh, and since your small imagination needs complete help, it's actually in urban peoples' best interest to have a rural population with good internet. Without, the societies would evolve away from each other to the point of two different nationalities existing.

Think more, comment less.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 27, 2010
best interest to have a rural population with good internet.

Why?
Will you force the govt to open a Starbucks on your mountain, too?
There's a big mountain in the way!

Were you forced to live there?

This should work:
http://www.isatlan.com/
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Dec 27, 2010
Correction: 50 miles away, Comcast exists. In order for them to get withing 6 miles of my house, they would have to bury fiber optic that distance, which includes going over one of the most treacherous mountain passes in the lower 48. THEN, they would need a costly distribution center in the valley. There are simply not enough customers to justify this.

Again, there are immature markets in this country that must be considered if you really care about any kind of real fairness.
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Dec 27, 2010
best interest to have a rural population with good internet.

Why?


Why does it not matter to you what is in your best interest? Do you feed your kids, or make them enter the workforce at age 5?

I'm not advocating forcing any business to serve any customers they don't already. No one is, and you know this. You are only being obnoxious, at this point. Fairness to existing customers.

Have you ever argued with logic?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 27, 2010
Or this:
http://www.iridiu...goryID=2
there are immature markets in this country that must be considered if you really care about any kind of real fairness.

What's fair? I think it should be fair that thousands of people should be able to move to your mountain and enjoy the same views you do. It's only fair that condos and houses be built to accommodate them at reasonable prices.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 27, 2010
best interest to have a rural population with good internet.

Why?


Why does it not matter to you what is in your best interest?

Says who? Who are YOU to decide what is in MY best interest?
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Dec 27, 2010
Or this:
http://www.iridiu...goryID=2


Simpleton. Explain how that would have better latency than HughesNet or WildBlue? You have less than half a clue, googler.

What's fair? I think it should be fair that thousands of people should be able to move to your mountain and enjoy the same views you do. It's only fair that condos and houses be built to accommodate them at reasonable prices.


They are and they do. Know why more don't? Probably the 9 month winter and associated difficulties: heating, snow tires, 4WD, snow removal, altitude sickness, death by exposure, etc, etc, etc.

Try again. You have no concept of what logic is, do you?
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Dec 27, 2010
best interest to have a rural population with good internet.

Why?


Why does it not matter to you what is in your best interest?

Says who? Who are YOU to decide what is in MY best interest?


Not deciding anything; merely stating my opinion of reality. Do you really not know the difference between a person with an opinion and a person with actionable power?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 27, 2010
Not deciding anything; merely stating my opinion of reality. Do you really not know the difference between a person with an opinion and a person with actionable power?

I say the same thing about people of faith and the answer I get from atheists is they fear people of faith will influence legislation in some way.
BTW, we do have a political party that claims they DO know what is in everyone's best interest and DO make laws implementing their agenda.

Why is it in MY best interest to subsidize your internet access?
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Dec 28, 2010
we do have a political party that claims they DO know what is in everyone's best interest and DO make laws implementing their agenda.


A party? As in one? Riiiight.

I'm not threatened by your opinions. Why are you threatened by mine? Oh yeah, you hate the concept of democracy.

Why is it in MY best interest to subsidize your internet access?


No one is subsidizing anything. Even entering the idea into the discussion is a stretch to the point of absurdity. The new rules will HELP businesses and consumers. Saying otherwise is BS propaganda. Ever heard of the straw man fallacy? I know you have, Mongo. Why do you so obnoxiously spew your ideology?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 28, 2010
The new rules will HELP businesses and consumers.

No, they will not.
Most consumers say 'it ain't broke, don't fix it'.
They understand quite well how govt. 'help' really works.
So if a majority of voters, a majority in Congress, a majority in a court of LAW don't support 'net neutrality', how is that democratic?
"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 21% of Likely U.S. Voters want the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate the Internet as it does radio and television. Fifty-four percent (54%) are opposed to such regulation, "
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Dec 28, 2010
So if a majority of voters, a majority in Congress, a majority in a court of LAW don't support 'net neutrality', how is that democratic?
Who cares. We live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Majority say isn't necessarily correct either, think segregation...

Oh wait, you probably preferred segregation.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 21% of Likely U.S. Voters want the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate the Internet as it does radio and television.
Must be out of date. Latest poll showed 53%.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 28, 2010
Who cares. We live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy

SH claimed to be a populist and damn the Constitution.

Where does the FCC have the authority? Congress said NO as did Federal Courts. Two branches of the Federal govt in the Constitutional Republic said the FCC can NOT do what it is trying to do.

SH prefers a dictatorship.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Dec 28, 2010
SH claimed to be a populist and damn the Constitution.
Being for the people doesn't mean you listen to the majority. Being for the people doesn't allow you to pick and choose which laws you follow.

You need more depth to your arguments. I'd suggest you read up on these pet issues of yours and come back when you have a defensible stance.
Where does the FCC have the authority?
Federal "Communications" Commision. It's kinda in the name, and the regulations that establish the body.
Congress said NO
The House only voted no on giving the FCC the power to police and fine companies for complaints.
as did Federal Courts.
Didn't legislate on the powers of the FCC, only legislated on whether there was a legal basis for the FCC to fine Comcast.
Two branches of the Federal govt in the Constitutional Republic said the FCC can NOT do what it is trying to do.
Actually neither said that, and if you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't have brought this up.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 28, 2010
Being for the people doesn't allow you to pick and choose which laws you follow.

It seem it does allow you to create any law you want regardless of the limited, enumerated powers of the Constitution you claim to support.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2010
It seem it does allow you to create any law you want regardless of the limited, enumerated powers of the Constitution you claim to support.
You're certainly not familiar with the Constitution or the law if that's your stance.

FCC is established under the general welfare, supremacy, and commerce clauses. Their regulations are passed in accordance with the various HR and SR bills passed by Congress and ratified by multiple Presidents (primarily conservatives).

If you want to take issue with a Department of the Government, show us the illegality. As you've said, if it isn't illegal, it's allowed. Show us where it's illegal or back down.