FCC chair Wheeler proposes using Title 2 authority to make internet a utility

• Commander of Awesome

  

  Mooney44Cards;1708540 wrote:Sorry justin, but I think you either don't understand the issue or are just disagreeing from an ideological rather than logical standpoint.
  
  I know people hate government regulation of business but to call it bad across the board (which many people do, see: libertarians) is naive. The idea that a free and open market regulates itself has been proven wrong time and time again.
  
  The fact is that the ISPs, the majority of which are also cable companies, saw the writing on the wall that cable was dying and that the future of all entertainment was internet-based. This prompted them to attempt to fuck over the consumer in the same way the cable companies have for years: hold highly-sought-after features hostage unless the consumer pays up. And bundle those sought-after features with a bunch of garbage no one wants to try to justify the huge jump in price! ("Yes, you must buy this premium tier to get the NFL Network, but look how many other channels you get! Underwater Basketweaving TV! The Pony Channel! The Grass Growing Network!")
  
  The fact is, nobody should be able to control what I can and cannot access with my internet connection, as long as its not breaking the law. Not the government, and certainly not a huge shitty corporation like Comcast or Time Warner.
  
  But fucking over the consumer was only the end by-product. This was an attempt by the ISPs to shakedown Netflix and other content providers for a piece of the pie. "Because we can" has never been a good excuse for a company to do anything, and the ISPs fighting Net Neutrality failed to come up with a compelling argument against it other than "We want to make more money but not provide any additional services, but in fact actually limit the services we currently provide."

  Boom, great synopsis/breakdown.
• Mooney44Cards

  

  justin,
  
  Look at it from this perspective.....what if Time Warner Cable sent you a letter saying they were going to restrict access to Ohio Chatter for any Time Warner user unless you paid them a substantial fee.
  
  That is EXACTLY what they were attempting to do with Netflix and other content providers. If you think that should be legal to do, then I don't know what to tell you.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  Will this affect my pr0n?
• ernest_t_bass

  

  Mooney44Cards;1708543 wrote:justin,
  
  Look at it from this perspective.....what if Time Warner Cable sent you a letter saying they were going to restrict access to Ohio Chatter for any Time Warner user unless you paid them a substantial fee.
  
  That is EXACTLY what they were attempting to do with Netflix and other content providers. If you think that should be legal to do, then I don't know what to tell you.

  Can you imagine the time it would take them to sift through all of our active users?
• WebFire

  ernest_t_bass;1708544 wrote:Will this affect my pr0n?

  Not now.
• gut

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1708535 wrote:No that's the whole point of regulation so you can stop this.

  It's a pricing model issue, always has been. The pricing model will simply adapt. By charging Netflix a premium, presumably that gets passed on to their consumers. If broadband providers can't go that route, then they'll charge consumers directly, likely through metered plans or bumping prices on individual speed tiers. The issue remains one of competition, not unfairness.
  
  The whole thing is rather comical, anyway, because with someone like Netflix the FAR, FAR bigger issue is the power and money to negotiate favorable content deals - the content library is laughably more significant as a barrier to entry than a few pennies toll to deliver that content.
• Jawbreaker

  AT&T, TWC, Comcast, Verizon....etc. can whine and complain but I doubt many will feel bad for them. If they didn't try and screw over everyone for short term profits, this wouldn't have happened. I still don't understand how Google can offer a gigabit connection (up and down) for $70 a month but TWC charges an arm and a leg for a 10/10 connection.
• gut

  Mooney44Cards;1708543 wrote: That is EXACTLY what they were attempting to do with Netflix and other content providers. If you think that should be legal to do, then I don't know what to tell you.

  No it isn't. This boogeyman argument has been nothing more than that to date.
  
  Netflix was experiencing bottlenecks on the backend, and wanted to circumvent that with direct access to Comcast and others. That sure sounds like a premium service, that sure is good for everyone and sure is worth money.
  
  The Netflx issue has never been about net neutrality. It was a pissing contest between two giants over who should bear the infrastructure cost. In a more competitive market that's likely never an issue for Netflix...although maybe not as you don't get to cut-out the middle man for free, which is what Netflix was trying to do.
  
  Here's a pretty good explanation of the Netflix issue:
  http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-vs-netflix-is-this-really-about-net-neutrality/
• Jawbreaker

  Gut, I am guessing you have stock in Comcast, TWC, and Verizon.
  
  http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/10/study-comcast-and-verizon-connections-to-cogent-dropped-below-0-5mbps/
• QuakerOats

  ernest_t_bass;1708546 wrote:Can you imagine the time it would take them to sift through all of our active users?

  
  What do you think they built this for:
  
  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/01/seven-stats-to-know-about-nsas-utah-data-center-as-it-nears-completion/
  
  
  This is massive government overreach yet again---- what a disgrace. We cannot get rid of obama and his radical appointees soon enough.
• Mooney44Cards

  

  gut;1708563 wrote:No it isn't. This boogeyman argument has been nothing more than that to date.
  
  Netflix was experiencing bottlenecks on the backend, and wanted to circumvent that with direct access to Comcast and others. That sure sounds like a premium service, that sure is good for everyone and sure is worth money.
  
  The Netflx issue has never been about net neutrality. It was a pissing contest between two giants over who should bear the infrastructure cost. In a more competitive market that's likely never an issue for Netflix...although maybe not as you don't get to cut-out the middle man for free, which is what Netflix was trying to do.
  
  Here's a pretty good explanation of the Netflix issue:
  http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-vs-netflix-is-this-really-about-net-neutrality/

  what are you talking about? Not only is that exactly what those companies did to Netflix, Netflix actually paid up. They've been paying for over a year.
• Mooney44Cards

  

  QuakerOats;1708568 wrote:What do you think they built this for:
  
  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/01/seven-stats-to-know-about-nsas-utah-data-center-as-it-nears-completion/
  
  
  This is massive government overreach yet again---- what a disgrace. We cannot get rid of obama and his radical appointees soon enough.

  Lol. Yeah this evil anti-business FCC chairman.......that used to be a venture capitalist and a lobbyist for the telecom industry.
  
  This is wasn't an anti business ruling, this was a ruling that protected smaller businesses from the telecom giants who have been colluding and price fixing for years. They can't prove that so they fucked them a different way.
• Jawbreaker

  QuakerOats;1708568 wrote:What do you think they built this for:
  This is massive government overreach yet again---- what a disgrace. We cannot get rid of obama and his radical appointees soon enough.

  LOL @ theblaze.com
  
  I am not an Obama supporter but I think some people just like to complain about him for the dumbest reasons.
• Mooney44Cards

  

  The result, had these Internet fast lanes been allowed to exist, would have been so anti-competitive and so destructive to start ups that it would have the net result of raising streaming prices across the board while blocking any start ups from being able to compete with Netflix, Amazon, etc.
  
  The cable companies are a monopoly and you can blame government regulation for that but the fact of the matter is that these companies like it this way, they don't even compete with eachother because they agree to stay out of eachothers territory. They price fix, they collude, they're a monopoly, and they're among the most hated companies in America. So they have no one to blame but themselves for this because had they been providing good service to begin with, perhaps the backlash last year when it looked like Net Neutrality was gonna be squashed wouldn't have been so harsh.
• gut

  Mooney44Cards;1708569 wrote:what are you talking about? Not only is that exactly what those companies did to Netflix, Netflix actually paid up. They've been paying for over a year.

  Did you read the link or just not understand it?
• gut

  Mooney44Cards;1708574 wrote:The result, had these Internet fast lanes been allowed to exist, would have been so anti-competitive and so destructive to start ups that it would have the net result of raising streaming prices across the board while blocking any start ups from being able to compete with Netflix, Amazon, etc.

  LMFAO...yes, how can start-ups compete. Never heard of Vudu, Redbox, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter....Groupon, Seamless, Grubhub, Peapod....the environment is and has remained very friendly to start-ups. This anti-competition boogeyman argument is just that, and does not and has not existed.
• gut

  Mooney44Cards;1708570 wrote:They can't prove that so they fucked them a different way.

  LOL, you're on a roll...."we can't prove it, even with the massive amount of govt and consumer resources out there, but we KNOW this to be true nonetheless"
• QuakerOats

  
  Commissioner Ajit Pai, who delivered some of the most scathing criticism of the plan Thursday, warned the policy represents a "monumental shift" to "government control of the Internet."
  Further, he accused the FCC of bending to the will of Obama, who last fall came out in favor of such a sweeping regulatory plan.
  Pai said the FCC was reversing course from past positions for one reason: "President Obama told us to do so."
  He warned of a litany of negative consequences, intended or not, from the net neutrality plan. He said it allows rate regulation -- and, ultimately, rates will go up and broadband service will slow.
  Pai said that while the plan defers a decision on applying a service fee to Internet bills -- much like is applied to phone bills -- that surely will change.
  "The order explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes," he said. "Read my lips: More new taxes are coming. It's just a matter of when."
  Further, he pointed to slower Internet speeds in Europe, which largely treats the Internet as a public utility, in warning that the additional regulation will lead to less investment and slower speeds in the U.S. as well.
  "The Internet is not broken. There is no problem for the government to solve," Pai said.
  Fellow Republican member Michael O'Rielly called the plan a "monumental and unlawful power grab."
• QuakerOats

  And then there is this excellent piece:
  
  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/02/26/save-internet-fcc-net-neutrality-rules-worst-example-government-intervention/
• gut

  Jawbreaker;1708566 wrote:Gut, I am guessing you have stock in Comcast, TWC, and Verizon.
  
  http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/10/study-comcast-and-verizon-connections-to-cogent-dropped-below-0-5mbps/

  LMAO, yes, any time someone with a little common sense and knowledge comes down on the side of "big business" they must be on the payroll.
  
  Did you read and understand my link (which explains in some detail the anecdotal data you posted)? Did you even read and fully understand your own link?
  " The dispute continued until Netflix started delivering traffic to ISPs directly, taking the stress off Cogent's connections with ISPs."
  
  The whole Netflix thing was about Netflix wanting to PROFIT for superior service, since they would be avoiding those interconnection fees with direct links while relieving capacity stress on those intermediary providers.
• Mooney44Cards

  

  gut;1708576 wrote:Did you read the link or just not understand it?

  I did read it, and it's funny because she pretty much admits that she knows she'll be called a shill for the cable companies in the very last paragraph. This is because she explains the issues exactly the way the cable companies do.
  
  Even if we take her at her word, it still doesn't change the fact that the cable companies wanted to create Internet fast lanes that would push their own content and restrict newer content providers from breaking into the market.
  
  Less competition = higher prices across the board for streaming content, even if the overall price of Internet went down as a result.
  
  So what Comcast would like is to drive up content providers' prices for everyone (even those who are not their customers) so they can lower their prices and appear to be the good guy.
  
  spoiler alert: they still wouldn't lower the prices after that lol.
• Mooney44Cards

  

  Question for those against this ruling:
  
  why should ISPs be allowed to restrict whatever data they want? Why should they be allowed to restrict what the consumer sees, when they see it, and how long it takes to see it?
• Commander of Awesome

  

  ernest_t_bass;1708544 wrote:Will this affect my pr0n?

  If you like your pr0n, you can keep it.
• Jawbreaker

  gut;1708586 wrote:LMAO, yes, any time someone with a little common sense and knowledge comes down on the side of "big business" they must be on the payroll.
  
  Did you read and understand my link (which explains in some detail the anecdotal data you posted)? Did you even read and fully understand your own link?
  " The dispute continued until Netflix started delivering traffic to ISPs directly, taking the stress off Cogent's connections with ISPs."
  
  The whole Netflix thing was about Netflix wanting to PROFIT for superior service, since they would be avoiding those interconnection fees with direct links while relieving capacity stress on those intermediary providers.

  Yes I understand them and I understand that you think that Netflix should pay for their bandwidth a couple times over depending on the the network their customers are on. It must be nice to have content providers pay of access and also have customers paying to see the content from said providers. It also must be nice to block applications on your network since it directly competes with one of your own services.
• iclfan2

  

  I have no problem surfing the internet or watching netflix. So undoubtedly this will only hurt me somehow through higher prices or some bullshit tax. Same thing with healthcare. My insurance, because I'm not poor, was awesome. Low and behold the free insurance for everyone passes and my monthly rates have gone up every year more than they ever had. I'm sure it's just a coincidence though.