FCC overturning Net neutrality rules

C

Cancel 2018.2

Oh, hi
Who here supports this? I've read some sources and still don't really understand what it will mean. Seems downloaders will be hurt the most.

So much different information on it, hoping someone here, can explain it or make an argument one way or another.
 
1. That was awesome, thanks

2. I take it you are against this move by the FCC

3. The part comparing date to electricity is not accurate IMO. If you use more electricity you are charged more. The only time that occurs with the internet, for me, is with my cell phone. Home use is unlimited, I pay based on speed, not amount used.
 
Imagine for instance if comcast all of a sudden wants to start their own streaming service. But netflix and hulu are already big players. Without net neutrality laws comcast could simply arbitrarily throttle netflix's connection to your home. They can pick and choose which services you are allowed to use. If you are a big player, maybe you can pay the ISPS off, but if you are the next zuckerberg and want to create the next facebook, your new site may not be able to catch on because you'll be blocked or have traffic to your servers considerably slowed. This stiffles innovation which has been the engine that has driven the internet.

The ISPs argument is that it's their pipes so they should be able to do what they want. Normally I would agree with this but there are two distinct issues at play here. The first is, there is only so much physical space on the sides of roads to lay pipe. It's not like anyone can just dig up and lay down their own technology. So we aren't dealing with a truly free marketplace. The government has already granted ISP's a defacto monopoly. Second they have also had their infrastructure heavily subsidized by taxpayers but now they want to turn around a dick us over.

The bottom line is they are essentially common carriers. Like electricity or a water line.

This is the future under net neutrality:

what-is-net-neutrality-isp-package-diagram.0.jpg
 
Since this is the FCC under Trump, is he supporting this?

And thanks for explaining it, the information I was getting from other sites was not as definitive as yours.
 
Yaya said:
1. That was awesome, thanks

2. I take it you are against this move by the FCC

3. The part comparing date to electricity is not accurate IMO. If you use more electricity you are charged more. The only time that occurs with the internet, for me, is with my cell phone. Home use is unlimited, I pay based on speed, not amount used.
Click to expand...

ISP's aren't talking about charging more or less for data. They are talking about charging for SPECIFIC data. You see, at the most basic level it's all 1's and 0's.

There is no difference for the ISP between handling 5mb of data from justplainpolitics or 5mb of data from google. But the ISPs want the right to charge more for the 5mb from sites they don't approve of.
 
x said:
ISP's aren't talking about charging more or less for data. They are talking about charging for SPECIFIC data. You see, at the most basic level it's all 1's and 0's.

There is no difference for the ISP between handling 5mb of data from justplainpolitics or 5mb of data from google. But the ISPs want the right to charge more for the 5mb from sites they don't approve of.
Click to expand...

That is BS and should be considered censorship as the government has control over that.
 
Yaya said:
Since this is the FCC under Trump, is he supporting this?

And thanks for explaining it, the information I was getting from other sites was not as definitive as yours.
Click to expand...

trump is against net neutrality. (i don't he's actually sat down and thought about it, but it's the type of thing he hand waves away and lets others around him fuck up).

This is one of the many reasons why I am not a trump supporter but of course we all know how that goes on JPP.
 
x said:
trump is against net neutrality. (i don't he's actually sat down and thought about it, but it's the type of thing he hand waves away and lets others around him fuck up).

This is one of the many reasons why I am not a trump supporter but of course we all know how that goes on JPP.
Click to expand...

This is totally messed up. How any Trump supporter can defend this is beyond me.
 
Yaya said:
That is BS and should be considered censorship as the government has control over that.
Click to expand...

It could very well lead to censorship. Verizon and comcast could just straight up ban publications they don't agree with. They literally think they own the internet.
 
the only decent argument ive heard for this is that selective throttling rarely if ever happens anyway so the rules are not needed.

Anyway it doesnt matter we could assasinate the leader of south korea and replace him with an american puppet and everyone would still be talking about Russia. This will pass because there is not enough airtime and attention available to mount any sort of defense. Russia is the only thing that must be discussed.
 
https://www.wired.com/2014/06/net_neutrality_missing/

WHAT EVERYONE GETS WRONG IN THE DEBATE OVER NET NEUTRALITY

Even Sunday night HBO watchers are worried the Federal Communications Commission will soon put an end to net neutrality.

Earlier this month, on the HBO comedy news show “Last Week Tonight,” host John Oliver went on a 13-minute rant against the new set of internet rules proposed by the FCC. He warned that the rules would lead to a world where internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon can sell special treatment to web companies like Google and Netflix, charging extra fees to deliver their online videos and other content at fast speeds, and he urged viewers to bombard the FCC website with protests, saying the rules would end up hurting smaller web outfits that can’t afford to pay the fees. The next day, the FCC site buckled under the traffic and went offline.

It was just part of a sweeping effort to squash the proposed rules. When the rules first leaked out in May, protesters camped out in front of the FCC’s Washington offices. Big tech companies such as Google, Amazon, and Netflix signed a letter asking the government communications agency to bar internet providers from discriminating “both technically and financially against internet companies.” And last week, two big name Democrats on Capitol Hill unveiled a bill that seeks to undermine the new rules. Nearly everyone, it seems, wants to prevent the FCC from allowing some companies to have internet “fast lanes” while others toil at slower speeds.

‘Most of the points of the debate are artificial, distracting, and based on an incorrect mental model on how the internet works.’
The only trouble is that, here in the year 2014, complaints about a fast-lane don’t make much sense. Today, privileged companies—including Google, Facebook, and Netflix—already benefit from what are essentially internet fast lanes, and this has been the case for years. Such web giants—and others—now have direct connections to big ISPs like Comcast and Verizon, and they run dedicated computer servers deep inside these ISPs. In technical lingo, these are known as “peering connections” and “content delivery servers,” and they’re a vital part of the way the internet works.

More at link...

The government is more than a decade behind the reality and creating rules that would have made a difference then, but do not now affect as much as you may think...
 
tsuke said:
the only decent argument ive heard for this is that selective throttling rarely if ever happens anyway so the rules are not needed.

Anyway it doesnt matter we could assasinate the leader of south korea and replace him with an american puppet and everyone would still be talking about Russia. This will pass because there is not enough airtime and attention available to mount any sort of defense. Russia is the only thing that must be discussed.
Click to expand...

The very fact it could happen is why the rules are needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top