FCC questions how to enforce net neutrality rules (another one)

[dlf]

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission needs to create explicit rules that tell broadband providers what traffic management techniques they can and cannot use if the agency has any hope of enforcing its proposed net neutrality rules, some advocates told the agency Friday.

The FCC needs to reclassify broadband as a common-carrier, public utility service in order to have a firm regulatory foundation to take net neutrality enforcement actions, representatives of Kickstarter and Mozilla said during an agency forum on net neutrality enforcement.

The FCC needs strong prohibitions against broadband providers selectively blocking or slowing Web traffic, said Susan Crawford, a visiting intellectual property professor at Harvard Law School. She called on the FCC to pass net neutrality rules pegged to Title II of the Communications Act, a section of the law that has focused on requirements for common-carrier telephone companies.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2686652/fcc-questions-how-to-enforce-net-neutrality-rules.html#tk.nl_today

 

Reclassify the freaking companies as title II, done, we have net(work) neutrality forever until someone else is "elected" to head the FCC and undo that.  Oh and raise the minimum broadband speed to 16 Mb/s (download) & 8 Mb/s (Upload)

[AlwaysFSX]

Reclassify the freaking companies as title II, done, we have net(work) neutrality forever until someone else is "elected" to head the FCC and undo that.  Oh and raise the minimum broadband speed to 16 Mb/s (download) & 8 Mb/s (Upload)

Oh but they'll never do that. It's too logical.

[vorticalbox]

Oh but they'll never do that. It's too logical.

+easy and costs to little.

[AlwaysFSX]

+easy and costs to little.

No money, no decisions obviously.

[Unhelpful]

No money, no decisions obviously.

Holy balls.. At this rate you might pass @brownninja97 today... Have you been sleeping/eating?

[AlwaysFSX]

Holy balls.. At this rate you might pass @brownninja97 today... Have you been sleeping/eating?

I just had a good ten hours of sleep.

[Trik'Stari]

How about just state that ISP's cannot in any way throttle a user or company using their services? If their network cannot handle the load, they are required to pay to upgrade their infrastructure.

 

I just cannot wait until the baby boomer generation dies off, so the more intelligent generations can start running things. My dad thinks everything now'a'days that's made better, for purposes of entertainment is stupid. He failed to understand my issue with the Iphone 6 having non expandable memory when the OS for it takes up half of it's onboard memory. All he said was "who cares?!", I tried explaining that you can put music on your phone and take pictures with it and all I got in response "that's stupid, your generation only cares about entertainment blah blah blah blah".

 

God I fucking hate old people sometimes.

[dlf]

How about just state that ISP's cannot in any way throttle a user or company using their services? If their network cannot handle the load, they are required to pay to upgrade their infrastructure.

Id presume they (the FCC) would have to reclassify them as title II, not title I, and then (congress? FCC?) would have to pass legislation to say exactly that.

[Trik'Stari]

Id presume they (the FCC) would have to reclassify them as title II, not title I, and then (congress? FCC?) would have to pass legislation to say exactly that.

Meh, seems a simple solution. Just a "no, behave fuckers or we'll take your license away or fine you into the ground" would suffice. Then again making it law would be longer lasting, at least until some paid under the table federal judge overturns it.

[bcredeur97]

omg FCC JUST LEAVE THE INTERNET ALONE THANK YOU

[Trik'Stari]

omg FCC JUST LEAVE THE INTERNET ALONE THANK YOU

Um, they're supposed to be fixing it because right now the companies are getting away with doing whatever the fuck they want, but only because of some jackass federal judge (or was it the fcc chairman that fucked it up?)

[dlf]

No . . . a federal judge I think had basically thrown out the former NN rules "out", then we got into this mess.

[Techhog]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2686652/fcc-questions-how-to-enforce-net-neutrality-rules.html#tk.nl_today

 

Reclassify the freaking companies as title II, done, we have net(work) neutrality forever until someone else is "elected" to head the FCC and undo that.  Oh and raise the minimum broadband speed to 16 Mb/s (download) & 8 Mb/s (Upload)

The current head was planted by the cable companies for sabotage, so no hope there. He's in the job for the money, and Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon give a much larger paycheck.

[brownninja97]

Holy balls.. At this rate you might pass @brownninja97 today... Have you been sleeping/eating?

id be more active if i didnt have so much coursework and revision to do, i average less then 10 posts per day these days

 

I just had a good ten hours of sleep.

congrats on beating me in advance

[Unhelpful]

id be more active if i didnt have so much coursework and revision to do, i average less then 10 posts per day these days

Yeah I can say the exact same sentence... I wish you the best of luck.

 

Paper Simulator 2014.

[Trik'Stari]

No . . . a federal judge I think had basically thrown out the former NN rules "out", then we got into this mess.

Oh, so as always some jackass federal judge for no reason decides "hey, I'm old, I don't know anything about what I'm about to pass judgement on, better fuck something up"

 

 

Yeah I can say the exact same sentence... I wish you the best of luck.

 

Paper Simulator 2014.

Lol here I am still trying to catch you guys

[AlwaysFSX]

id be more active if i didnt have so much coursework and revision to do, i average less then 10 posts per day these days

 

congrats on beating me in advance

I really don't want to. At all.

[dlf]

Oh, so as always some jackass federal judge for no reason decides "hey, I'm old, I don't know anything about what I'm about to pass judgement on, better fuck something up"

Perhaps he was also picked by the cable companies, decides to "gut" NN rules, then Wheeler (the head of the FCC, also a former lobbyist) . . . . . . .

[theironsheik]

Nobody ever talks about the downside of net neutrality. Reclassifying broadband carriers would require massive regulatory oversight and governmental approvals for any upgrades to be done whatsoever. Why would we want the internet to even more closely resemble US telephone companies before deregulation?

 

Also, different people need information at different speeds. Stock traders need information delivered much sooner than my grandma does her email, so why shouldn't etrade or similar be able to pay ISPs to prioritize their bits over hotmails? Bandwith is, in fact, a scarce resource and needs to be rationed somehow. I think price is more efficient than a bureaucrat arbitrarily deciding what should have priority.

[Trik'Stari]

Perhaps he was also picked by the cable companies, decides to "gut" NN rules, then Wheeler (the head of the FCC, also a former lobbyist) . . . . . . .

Again, my old quote "The government is the legal mafia, they have to get their protection money....ahrem, I mean "taxes" "

 

The mafia didn't disappear, they just got elected lol.

 

 

Nobody ever talks about the downside of net neutrality. Reclassifying broadband carriers would require massive regulatory oversight and governmental approvals for any upgrades to be done whatsoever. Why would we want the internet to even more closely resemble US telephone companies before deregulation?

 

Also, different people need information at different speeds. Stock traders need information delivered much sooner than my grandma does her email, so why shouldn't etrade or similar be able to pay ISPs to prioritize their bits over hotmails? Bandwith is, in fact, a scarce resource and needs to be rationed somehow. I think price is more efficient than a bureaucrat arbitrarily deciding what should have priority.

You my friend just brought down an avalanche of hate on yourself. Not even from me because I'm a relative newcomer to the tech scene.

 

They don't do what you describe, they decide abritrarily when you have used too much bandwidth, and then demand more money than you already agreed upon to restore the service (basically). I'd rather the government step in, force them to upgrade their infrastructure to what it should be (gigabit EVERYWHERE DAMNIT), instead of worrying about their profit margins, obviously they are going to make the money back, ITS THE INTERNET. Everything uses it these days.

[Techhog]

Nobody ever talks about the downside of net neutrality. Reclassifying broadband carriers would require massive regulatory oversight and governmental approvals for any upgrades to be done whatsoever. Why would we want the internet to even more closely resemble US telephone companies before deregulation?

 

Also, different people need information at different speeds. Stock traders need information delivered much sooner than my grandma does her email, so why shouldn't etrade or similar be able to pay ISPs to prioritize their bits over hotmails? Bandwith is, in fact, a scarce resource and needs to be rationed somehow. I think price is more efficient than a bureaucrat arbitrarily deciding what should have priority.

WE NEED BANDWIDTH CONSERVATION EFFORTS BEFORE THE WHOLE WORLD RUNS OUT

[theironsheik]

Again, my old quote "The government is the legal mafia, they have to get their protection money....ahrem, I mean "taxes" "

 

The mafia didn't disappear, they just got elected lol.

 

 

You my friend just brought down an avalanche of hate on yourself. Not even from me because I'm a relative newcomer to the tech scene.

 

They don't do what you describe, they decide abritrarily when you have used too much bandwidth, and then demand more money than you already agreed upon to restore the service (basically). I'd rather the government step in, force them to upgrade their infrastructure to what it should be (gigabit EVERYWHERE DAMNIT), instead of worrying about their profit margins, obviously they are going to make the money back, ITS THE INTERNET. Everything uses it these days.

 

I don't know why people get so butthurt about net neutrality, either.

 

I don't understand your second paragraph. Net neutrality isn't really about cutting someone's internet off because they use too much bandwith. Even if NN were enacted, comcast or whoever would be able to have a contract with you that says you can use X amount per month. What NN would NOT allow would be to say you can use X amount per month at Y speed, but any more than X goes at Z speed. So NN would decrease your options as a consumer in that case.

 

Also not sure how the FCC could force companies to upgrade to gigabit. The regulatory framework doesn't work like that. In similar regulations we already have (power lines, for example) the government can't force an upgrade if the company can show it doesn't make economic sense to do so. My guess is that gigabit does not make economic sense outside of big cities. And, surprise, google et al are moving in to build out gigabit network in big cities. Funny how capitalism works, sometimes.

[Trik'Stari]

I don't know why people get so butthurt about net neutrality, either.

 

I don't understand your second paragraph. Net neutrality isn't really about cutting someone's internet off because they use too much bandwith. Even if NN were enacted, comcast or whoever would be able to have a contract with you that says you can use X amount per month. What NN would NOT allow would be to say you can use X amount per month at Y speed, but any more than X goes at Z speed. So NN would decrease your options as a consumer in that case.

 

Also not sure how the FCC could force companies to upgrade to gigabit. The regulatory framework doesn't work like that. In similar regulations we already have (power lines, for example) the government can't force an upgrade if the company can show it doesn't make economic sense to do so. My guess is that gigabit does not make economic sense outside of big cities. And, surprise, google et al are moving in to build out gigabit network in big cities. Funny how capitalism works, sometimes.

Yeah, the problem there is I'm constantly having my youtube throttled by century link. If I pay for 10Mbps connection, it should be illegal for my speed to drop below that, as that is what is advertised. And yet, my steam only downloads at 1Mbps, and my youtube is always being a bitch, (oddly enough they don't throttle pornhub which doesn't make sense because I often have like 20 tabs open, and when I'm looking at youtube I get like 1 or 2 maybe up to 10 tabs open.....yeah I don't get it either, also how is it that there are fewer ads on pornhub than on youtube? and they're ALL skippable)

[theironsheik]

Yeah, the problem there is I'm constantly having my youtube throttled by century link. If I pay for 10Mbps connection, it should be illegal for my speed to drop below that, as that is what is advertised. And yet, my steam only downloads at 1Mbps, and my youtube is always being a bitch, (oddly enough they don't throttle pornhub which doesn't make sense because I often have like 20 tabs open, and when I'm looking at youtube I get like 1 or 2 maybe up to 10 tabs open.....yeah I don't get it either, also how is it that there are fewer ads on pornhub than on youtube? and they're ALL skippable)

 

I recently switched to pornhub, and agreed it is a superior service.

 

If it's the ISP throttling it and that's not allowed in the contract (and you can prove it) then its already illegal and you have a breach of contract action.

 

EDIT 

 

Let's say your ISP can deliver X units of bandwith to your service area. In the evening, when everyone logs on to netflix and yourtube, the demand for bandwidth is 1.5X, more than the network can handle. So the ISP has to throttle something or risk the network malfunctioning. What NN does not allow is for them to selectively throttle services, so everything would just run slowly under the NN scenario. In the non-NN scenario, youtube and netflix can pay the ISP to prioritize their traffic or you can pay your ISP to not throttle your traffic when demand is too great. NN restricts consumer choice in that scenario too. 

[Techhog]

I don't know why people get so butthurt about net neutrality, either.

 

I don't understand your second paragraph. Net neutrality isn't really about cutting someone's internet off because they use too much bandwith. Even if NN were enacted, comcast or whoever would be able to have a contract with you that says you can use X amount per month. What NN would NOT allow would be to say you can use X amount per month at Y speed, but any more than X goes at Z speed. So NN would decrease your options as a consumer in that case.

 

Also not sure how the FCC could force companies to upgrade to gigabit. The regulatory framework doesn't work like that. In similar regulations we already have (power lines, for example) the government can't force an upgrade if the company can show it doesn't make economic sense to do so. My guess is that gigabit does not make economic sense outside of big cities. And, surprise, google et al are moving in to build out gigabit network in big cities. Funny how capitalism works, sometimes.

The shill is strong with this one.