FCC internet takeover just keeps looking worse and worse

[ThomasD]

http://buzzpo.com/surprise-new-net-neutrality-regs-have-huge-loophole/

 

Gee, who would have thought government regulations, written by an ISP industry insider, would ever end up benefiting ISPs?

[Jade]

See: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/11724-read-before-posting-in-this-section/

[tmlhalo]

So illegal traffic can be blocked or throttled. I don't particularly see how this benefits ISPs. Only digital media rights owners and to cut the discussion short, I'm ok with traffic being blocked to piracy sites. If it is abused you just take them to court. Not a hard concept.

[Fulgrim]

See: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/11724-read-before-posting-in-this-section/

It's not that big of a deal, as to how the OP has laid out his original post. 

 

He's already put some input, and linked a source. The title is also relevant. Aye he did not add a quote, or an image but those are not huge deals tbh.

 

So don't be anal about his post.

[Yoinkerman]

Ability to discriminate against some traffic is better than isps current ability to discriminate against any and all traffic.

[nicklmg]

So illegal traffic can be blocked or throttled. I don't particularly see how this benefits ISPs. Only digital media rights owners and to cut the discussion short, I'm ok with traffic being blocked to piracy sites. If it is abused you just take them to court. Not a hard concept.

Ability to discriminate against some traffic is better than isps current ability to discriminate against any and all traffic.

The issue that I see is that it doesn't include a statement that puts the burden of proof on the ISPs (from what I've seen)... "Nothing in this part prohibits reasonable efforts by a provider of broadband Internet access service to address copyright infringement or other unlawful activity."

 

I haven't read the full document, so it's possible that it's in there. But unless the ISPs have an obligation to PROVE they were reacting to some type of illegal activity, they can just use that as a hail Mary to block whatever the hell they please. "Why did you slow this user's connection down?" "Uhhhhhhhh TORRENTS. THEY WERE TORRENTING ILLEGAL STUFF. WE THINK..."

I fully agree that they should use their best efforts to protect copyrights, but we have all seen how ISPs can abuse loopholes for personal gain... Perfect example is throttling all streaming services aside from their own. "Oh, we thought they didn't have the copyright for random no-name show that no one is actually watching, so we throttled their traffic or blocked it completely."

[Trik'Stari]

The issue that I see is that it doesn't include a statement that puts the burden of proof on the ISPs (from what I've seen)... "Nothing in this part prohibits reasonable efforts by a provider of broadband Internet access service to address copyright infringement or other unlawful activity."

 

I haven't read the full document, so it's possible that it's in there. But unless the ISPs have an obligation to PROVE they were reacting to some type of illegal activity, they can just use that as a hail Mary to block whatever the hell they please. "Why did you slow this user's connection down?" "Uhhhhhhhh TORRENTS. THEY WERE TORRENTING ILLEGAL STUFF. WE THINK..."

I fully agree that they should use their best efforts to protect copyrights, but we have all seen how ISPs can abuse loopholes for personal gain... Perfect example is throttling all streaming services aside from their own. "Oh, we thought they didn't have the copyright for random no-name show that no one is actually watching, so we throttled their traffic or blocked it completely."

I would think, and a lawyer would probably be a better person to determine this, that you could then sue and say "they claimed I was doing something illegal, but provided no proof of that".

 

Not 100% sure on that.

[Entropy]

The ability to throttle traffic to illegal downloads or peer to peer connections is fine. There should be some discouragement from downloading pirated content.

As for peer to peer sharing, it is kind of hell on networks, and reasonable throttling isn't the worst thing.

[tmlhalo]

The issue that I see is that it doesn't include a statement that puts the burden of proof on the ISPs (from what I've seen)... "Nothing in this part prohibits reasonable efforts by a provider of broadband Internet access service to address copyright infringement or other unlawful activity."

 

I haven't read the full document, so it's possible that it's in there. But unless the ISPs have an obligation to PROVE they were reacting to some type of illegal activity, they can just use that as a hail Mary to block whatever the hell they please. "Why did you slow this user's connection down?" "Uhhhhhhhh TORRENTS. THEY WERE TORRENTING ILLEGAL STUFF. WE THINK..."

I fully agree that they should use their best efforts to protect copyrights, but we have all seen how ISPs can abuse loopholes for personal gain... Perfect example is throttling all streaming services aside from their own. "Oh, we thought they didn't have the copyright for random no-name show that no one is actually watching, so we throttled their traffic or blocked it completely."

Since now there is a framework in place, the throttled user could challenge it. It may not be specifically outlined in the rules but I can't image you can falsely accuse a site of illegal activity, throttle them, then continue without an impending lawsuit from said site. I'm not a lawyer but if cell phone companies can sue each other over rectangles... I would also imagine it would be very hard to PR spin that they continued throttling Netflix because they believe it is illegal content. 

[kpreg]

The issue that I see is that it doesn't include a statement that puts the burden of proof on the ISPs (from what I've seen)... "Nothing in this part prohibits reasonable efforts by a provider of broadband Internet access service to address copyright infringement or other unlawful activity."

 

I haven't read the full document, so it's possible that it's in there. But unless the ISPs have an obligation to PROVE they were reacting to some type of illegal activity, they can just use that as a hail Mary to block whatever the hell they please. "Why did you slow this user's connection down?" "Uhhhhhhhh TORRENTS. THEY WERE TORRENTING ILLEGAL STUFF. WE THINK..."

I fully agree that they should use their best efforts to protect copyrights, but we have all seen how ISPs can abuse loopholes for personal gain... Perfect example is throttling all streaming services aside from their own. "Oh, we thought they didn't have the copyright for random no-name show that no one is actually watching, so we throttled their traffic or blocked it completely."

ohhh slay nick! 

 

anyways op yeah this sucks. They need to specify whether or not it's explicitly illigal, but that could raise issues about data harvesting ect.

this one could be tough

[RH00D]

I don't get the post. The article starts with "The several hundred pages of regulations". First, the regulations is 8 pages, not hundreds, so they're already off to a false start.

 

Second, I didn't see them reference a single page or paragraph in the FCC's document. So where is the citation? That is a thing you know.

[Stomplar]

its all the young and dumb adults thats the problem. Keep having this illusion that the government will save them. lol Yes lets get the government involved. thats always worked haha.

[deadher0]

I don't get the post. The article starts with "The several hundred pages of regulations". First, the regulations is 8 pages, not hundreds, so they're already off to a false start.

 

Second, I didn't see them reference a single page or paragraph in the FCC's document. So where is the citation? That is a thing you know.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/258496522/FCC-Open-Internet-Order-February-2015

 

^That looks to be over 400 pages.  I get what you are saying, but the actual order itself is indeed hundreds of pages.  The length of it is irrelevant though.

 

The article says that this loophole was created to help "protect the financial interests of the MPAA and RIAA".  Isn't it possible this was created to actually help provide a way for content creators to protect their intellectual property.  Discouraging piracy and protecting the rights of those that create stuff shouldn't be that big of a deal... right?  Are people trying to throw us that "slippery slope" argument again... or?

 

The article says, "Ultimately, this proves once again that using the government to address a problem that the free market can and already does address only gives the keys to giant special interest groups that nobody likes."  No it doesn't.  It doesn't prove anything.  

[Misanthrope]

Ultimately, this proves once again that using the government to address a problem that the free market can and already does address only gives the keys to giant special interest groups that nobody likes.*

 

*Signed

   -Some Evil Comcast Asshole

 

 

Seriously though let's find a less biased source please?

[Darkman]

The issue that I see is that it doesn't include a statement that puts the burden of proof on the ISPs (from what I've seen)... "Nothing in this part prohibits reasonable efforts by a provider of broadband Internet access service to address copyright infringement or other unlawful activity."

 

I haven't read the full document, so it's possible that it's in there. But unless the ISPs have an obligation to PROVE they were reacting to some type of illegal activity, they can just use that as a hail Mary to block whatever the hell they please. "Why did you slow this user's connection down?" "Uhhhhhhhh TORRENTS. THEY WERE TORRENTING ILLEGAL STUFF. WE THINK..."

I fully agree that they should use their best efforts to protect copyrights, but we have all seen how ISPs can abuse loopholes for personal gain... Perfect example is throttling all streaming services aside from their own. "Oh, we thought they didn't have the copyright for random no-name show that no one is actually watching, so we throttled their traffic or blocked it completely."

^ This... My ISP still is finding ways to slow the fuck out of my connection

Want to watch 720p YouTube videos? Oh wait, you're paying us $50, let me throttle you to 240-480p.

Want to game with friends? Oh wait, will throttle you to .2Mb/s down and .1Mb/s up. Enjoy!!!

Same goes for Twitch to, oh wait, I can't watch livestreams. Thanks.

[Daegun]

I love the comment at the bottom saying democrats = fascists.

(Not part of the article, I just thought it was hilarious)

[deadher0]

If you look at this website, it's full of ultra-right wing opinion pieces.  That's not a bad thing, it's just that we're fools if we don't think they aren't trying to twist the narrative here.  Using the order's vague language to raise strawman-like arguments in attempt to give the impression the ISPs, RIAA and MPAA will hold all our bit torrent traffic (or any traffic for that matter) hostage is fear mongering at best.  They act like the RIAA and MPAA haven't had the power to go after copyright infringers already (they sometimes do).  They act like the ISPs don't throttle bit torrent traffic already (they sometimes do).  It's like on one hand they argue this ruling is too far-reaching and on the other hand it's at fault for not reaching far enough.

 

If they keep resorting to the "SEE we told ya so!  ANY REGULATION IS BERD" tactics it's only going to continue to reinforce the idea that the FCC had it right with this one.  If the OP can give us a more unbiased perspective, we may be able to have a more coherent discussion on this loophole.  Regardless, it's a little early to raise the alarm here... but I shouldn't be surprised the anti-regulation crowd is still trying to grasp any little thing that can show this entire FCC order should be thrown out the window... 'cuz any regulation is bad, m'kay.

[TAK]

.

[tmlhalo]

Welcome to the slow road to c********p.

The government already attempts to take down piracy sites. The last attempt at the piratebay anyone?

This "loophole" just means ISPs can throttle / block illegal activity. Something that would about to be attempted for take down like above.

Unless you were about to tell me throttling people stealing Farcry 4 or something is censorship. If that is the case just say so.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

This "loophole" just means ISPs can throttle / block illegal activity. Something that would about to be attempted for take down like above.

And how are they going to decide what is and isn't illegal? It's perfectly ok to download music or movies that you already paid the copyright for. There's no piracy there.

As for downloading FC4, again I don't see the problem if you've bought the game already.

Yes, it may be against the EULA, but then again Ubisoft brought that on themselves by annoying every legit customer with that Uplay shit.

[TAK]

.

[tmlhalo]

And how are they going to decide what is and isn't illegal? It's perfectly ok to download music or movies that you already paid the copyright for. There's no piracy there.

As for downloading FC4, again I don't see the problem if you've bought the game already.

Yes, it may be against the EULA, but then again Ubisoft brought that on themselves by annoying every legit customer with that Uplay shit.

The justice system usually does a fairly "good" job at defining legal and illegal. If you think you're in the right can always challenge the block / throttle in court. As far as the illegal activities those have already been defined in similar documents. Excuse me if I sound cynical over downloading music you've already paid for from a piracy site. Why not just get it again from the site you did buy it from? As far as issues from DRM it can be argued the DRM wouldn't be as bad if it wasn't for piracy. That being said I do understand where piracy is in a grey area. Such as region locks where the option to buy isn't even there.

[tmlhalo]

Yeah, good idea. Oh, how is that new Windows 10 update download working out for ya? Or WoW updates? Or tons of stuff that have fuck all to do with piracy. Good job buddy, have a merit badge and keep drinking the MAFIAA Kool-Aid.

 

As @Captain Chaos said, who are the ISP's to decide what is illegal and what is not? I for one wouldn't give them that power... Not least because it gives them a free reign to block anything "cos piracy, so fuck you". No company should have that option.

As I stated to them. ISPs don't decide what is illegal or legal. There is a branch of government that does that... Which we vote into office. They can lawfully block illegal traffic and unlawfully block legal traffic. If they unlawfully block legal traffic feel free to challenge them and included damages.

[ivan134]

 

*Signed

   -Some Evil Comcast Asshole

 

 

Seriously though let's find a less biased source please?

It's my 1st time seeing that site and my conclusion is that it's TMZ for right wingers. Not of a single article of substance regardless of whether they have viewpoints I disagree with.

[Nowak]

http://buzzpo.com/surprise-new-net-neutrality-regs-have-huge-loophole/

 

Gee, who would have thought government regulations, written by an ISP industry insider, would ever end up benefiting ISPs?

While it is true that Tom Wheeler was a cable industry lobbyist, he ended his venture there before 1990, when the Internet went public.