Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kogan Loloklam]

http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-resources

just FYI.

[Lectorog]

FYI, most people actually put information in their OPs.

A) So, last I checked, the law is never consistently applied to anything regarding the internet, so ISPs could've been doing this anyway. And then things happen when a bunch of people complain, regardless of the legality of the actions. So this will be effectively changing nothing.

B) If I'm wrong and this does make a difference, people will just switch to ISPs promising neutral presentations.

Things that are funny:
1) ISPs saying that the FCC doesn't have the right to control the net, so that they can control the net themselves.
2) ISPs having the trend of turning against the people who pay them. It's been happening for a while, if not forever.

[wierd]

The problem is that "toll booth" rent seeking when traversing the internet is going to create a race to the bottom.

As companies introduce the tollbooths, it will drive traffic away from those routes and onto free routes. The free route suppliers won't be able to service the traffic, and will incur costs greater than their incomes, and they will be forced to close under the flood, or, be forced to introduce tollbooths of their own.

(I am using the term "toll booth" figuratively. Literally, I am referring to one network operator charging a fee for data to traverse their subnet. Eg, charging a toll at the gate; aka, a "toll booth".)

The ultimate end of this will be for all network operators to charge tolls, and for internet traffic to be choked off by the cumulative tolls.

You'll suddenly have "long distance" internet.

[GlyphGryph]

B) If I'm wrong and this does make a difference, people will just switch to ISPs promising neutral presentations.

This is very different from switching to ISPs delivering neutral presentations.

And regardless, I'm not sure why you even think that would be a thing that would happen? Most places in the US don't have the option to switch to an ISP that doesn't plan on abusing the hell out of a lack of net neutrality. I'm not even sure if any place I've lived does...

[nenjin]

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304049704579320500441593462?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304049704579320500441593462.html

"The court also threw out an FCC rule that barred providers from blocking Internet traffic outright."

Not only will it be the toll booth system, I can forsee active retribution between ISP and content providers. Remember when the major television networks were going to war over licensing rights? Now imagine Time Warner Cable getting into a spat with Twitter, and refusing to service Twitter traffic. Different lanes of traffic might be arbitrarily unavailable based on different ISP and what arrangements they have. CNN.com might load fast as hell, super fast, on TWC's network (because they own CNN), while Foxnews.com runs abnormally slow.

It's always nice to watch technology regress back to the Wild West.

[Sensei]

Wall Street Journal: "Appeals Court Strikes Down FCC's Net Neutrality Rules"

"The court also threw out an FCC rule that barred providers from blocking Internet traffic outright."

The same article DOES also say that the appeals court believes the FCC has the power to make that sort of rule, if it were written more clearly.

The appeals court, in a 63-page opinion by Judge David Tatel, spent much of its ruling expressing sympathy for the FCC. The majority opinion said the commission had general power to issue rules on how broadband providers treat Internet traffic. However, the ruling said the FCC's explanations for its rules were "patently insufficient."

Rep. Henry Waxman of California, the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, said the FCC should "act expeditiously to exercise the authority the court has recognized."

So, it's hardly as if all is lost on that front. I expect we will see revised net neutrality rules soon.

[nenjin]

True. But going back to the drawing board means Congress will probably get involved in the debate again, and we know how fast things happen when Congress is involved. Especially in an election year. (Although we're pretty much in a permanent election cycle these days.)

[GreatJustice]

Something is probably going to be done in the future, since ISPs hypothetically do have the ability to cause mischief, though thus far consumer pressure has stopped them from going too far. It would have to be a pretty major change, though. The problem with Net Neutrality is that it gets the FCC's foot in the door to cause mischief, and while the ISPs could potentially be a bother with the current system, the FCC would most definitely be a bother if NN was put into place.

[wierd]

Personally, I hope this is the straw that breaks the camel's back concerning the recent "strong push" away from US centric politics being in control of the internet.

I mean, you have the recent snits over ICANN and domains-- now we have US insanity over network neutrality.

I hope the ball gets taken away from us idiots here in the US. The internet is bigger than one nation's pride. (No matter how much the Ds and Rs rattle their sabers at each other.)  The world should not be held hostage by such things, and throwing the single biggest triumph in human cooperation in history under the bus in the name of rentseeking and profit is....

It's simply insane. That's what it is.

[Sensei]

...while the ISPs could potentially be a bother with the current system, the FCC would most definitely be a bother if NN was put into place.

It's been in place since 2010. It was just struck down by appeal recently. A lot of people think the reason ISPs did that is that they wanted to do things like charge high-volume content providers extra. Whether they're that brazen or not is debatable but it definitely qualifies as a bother.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Much like the environment and fossil fuel availability, we're in an Internet golden age. It's good and cheap and we love it. Which means it can only get worse, but we won't be around to see the devastation. Our grandchildren will grow up with a tenth of the Internet we have. But it'll be all they know so they won't understand how much had been lost.

I think the government should regulate. We've seen what deregulation does to an industry - it ruins people's lives and loses them their homes just so some fatcats can line their pockets. And let me tell you, on the off chance you're in favor of that, you're not one of those fatcats. You're a victim like all the rest of us.

Alternately, go ahead and deregulate, but post the home addresses of the ISP board members and executives so their customers can send them polite letters explaining their dissatisfaction with toll boothing. After receiving these letters the people in charge will certainly change their minds and become willing to serve their customers. I'm sure of it.

[nenjin]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but, part of me wants deregulation. I don't have a lot of faith in market forces, but in terms of tollbooths and throttling down people's speeds, that's something the market will react to. People will go with an ISP that aren't dicks because it will offer them more choices and better speeds for just about everything. Maybe I still hold on to the naive belief that corporate entities can learn lasting lessons about parity.

Because in the give and take of things, we can't have regulation without losing something. We're a greater risk, I think (with this Congress and this President in particular) of handing the ISPs exactly what they want so we can get a few measly concessions out of them. (Like legal and unfettered access to user records by the government.) I'm deeply afraid of the US government handing the Internet to the ISPs and businesses on a silver platter. So in the current system, where people can do what they want, there's at least room for a higher standard and that will draw customers when competitors are sleazy enough.

I mean, it's not like TV where we never had a true stake in what's going on, we were pure consumers. We have a vested interest in the future of the internet beyond entertainment, as we're all content creators pretty much any time we do anything on the net. And considering how much of our lives now pass through ISP's servers......they're the gatekeepers to pretty much half of reality right now.

[Remuthra]

PTW;

[misko27]

Much like the environment and fossil fuel availability, we're in an Internet golden age. It's good and cheap and we love it. Which means it can only get worse, but we won't be around to see the devastation. Our grandchildren will grow up with a tenth of the Internet we have. But it'll be all they know so they won't understand how much had been lost.

Most Golden Ages are nothing more then white-washed wrongs and rose-colored lenses of the past. Their purpose is nothing more then justify reactionary and backwards looking policies by those who prospered during the period, or those who simply don't remember. To assert that there is some sort of natural golden age tendency is simply nuts and utterly untrue from a historical perspective. The tendency of technology is to go forward.

Or did you miss the Golden Age of Radio? Oh wait, you did. Aren't you so miserable about that now? And I bet you've never even read by whale oil light.

[Kogan Loloklam]

FYI, most people actually put information in their OPs.

I'm not most people. I'm Kogan. Hi! Nice to meet you.

Yea. I believe in the race to the bottom. The US is a great place to live, innit?

Ready to pay extra to access bay12? They can do that now.