Questions Net Neutrality

[Spev]

So I'm a bit confused on this, I watched a video by tech syndicate but I guess I'm stupid and need clarification. Basically, the FCC is trying to impose some sort of law/bill to help regulate ISPs, so that they don't abuse or do immoral things with their services? From what I know, the ISPs can charge big companies like Netflix, Youtube, etc, extra money and prioritize their bandwidth. I know there are some other things, but here are some of my questions.

 

1. Basically, net neutrality is this bill/law the FCC is trying to establish to regulate ISP? Is this good/bad and should we support them?

 

2. The FCC tried to impose new ruling on this issue, and was shot down by Verizon. The FCC is probably gonna take a crack at it again. So we want to support the FCC in this, correct? Because if they pass whatever bill/law this is it would prevent the ISPs from abusing their "authority"?

 

2. What are the advocates against net neutrality use as their reasons?

 

4. What are the advocates for net neutrality use as their reasons? 

[Glenwing]

Net neutrality is just the general concept, it means that ISPs can't look at your data and slow down your access to specific websites. All data and internet traffic has to be treated equally, regardless of where it's going. If you pay for a 100Mbps connection they can't say, "Mhm, Gmail, fine, uh-huh... Aha, you're trying to use your 100Mbps connection for Netflix! Your connection is now 56kbps until you pay us an extra fee to get 100Mbps download from Netflix!" Likewise they can't charge Netflix a ransom fee threatening to slow down access to their website for all customers regardless of how fast a connection that customer is paying for. In a nutshell, net neutrality is very good.

 

The reasons for not supporting net neutrality range from "I don't understand how the internet works" to "because the big ISPs will pay me a lot of money if I say I don't support it" to "I'm a big ISP".

 

Everyone other than that supports net neutrality.

[CCap]

This website describes what the internet would be like without net neutrality. http://jointhefastlane.com/

 

Basically, think of it as equality to all websites. If Verizon and Comcast had it their way, they would throttle our connections to things like Youtube, Netflix, and other bandwith-hogging websites. In order to get our full connection speeds that we're paying for, we will instead have to pay extra money to get equal bandwith to those sites, or to 'have a fast lane'. e.g. Verizon might cap all connections to youtube to 500kb/s unless you paid extra to have that unlocked.

 

Net neutrality is very important to us consumers of media. We need to be backing this.

[Spev]

This website describes what the internet would be like without net neutrality. http://jointhefastlane.com/

 

Basically, think of it as equality to all websites. If Verizon and Comcast had it their way, they would throttle our connections to things like Youtube, Netflix, and other bandwith-hogging websites. In order to get our full connection speeds that we're paying for, we will instead have to pay extra money to get equal bandwith to those sites, or to 'have a fast lane'. e.g. Verizon might cap all connections to youtube to 500kb/s unless you paid extra to have that unlocked.

 

Net neutrality is very important to us consumers of media. We need to be backing this.

 

 

Net neutrality is just the general concept, it means that ISPs can't look at your data and slow down your access to specific websites. All data and internet traffic has to be treated equally, regardless of where it's going. If you pay for a 100Mbps connection they can't say, "Mhm, Gmail, fine, uh-huh... Aha, you're trying to use your 100Mbps connection for Netflix! Your connection is now 56kbps until you pay us an extra fee to get 100Mbps download from Netflix!" Likewise they can't charge Netflix a ransom fee threatening to slow down access to their website for all customers regardless of how fast a connection that customer is paying for. In a nutshell, net neutrality is very good.

The reasons for not supporting net neutrality range from "I don't understand how the internet works" to "because the big ISPs will pay me a lot of money if I say I don't support it".

Everyone other than that supports net neutrality.

Thanks for the responses guys that clears things up a bit. Guess it's pretty important to support net neutrality. One more question, are ISPs already doing this stuff? Or how did this come into being an "issue"? I wasn't aware that ISPs were doing this currently.

[MackTruck3873]

Well its interesting you asked this question because it came up on a conference call at work this week. Basically the government is trying to treat ISP's as utility providers such as Electricity, water etc. If that were to happen the pricing could be regulated by the government. But the last I heard about this was that it was not approved. I will tell you that this is heavily playing on the Comcast and TWC Merger. 

[Glenwing]

Thanks for the responses guys that clears things up a bit. Guess it's pretty important to support net neutrality. One more question, are ISPs already doing this stuff? Or how did this come into being an "issue"? I wasn't aware that ISPs were doing this currently.

They're already ransoming Netflix, yes.

[shert73]

This is insane! I always wondered why I pay for 50mgps and only get speeds of like 10mgps d/l. Where I live I have to pay 100$ a month for this shit service. Sometimes my connection just drops for hours at a time and I live about 3 blocks from TWC office.

[zonahbear]

The other day I actually emailed my Congressman about net neutrality. This was his response:

Dear Mr. S****:

 

Thank you for contacting me to share your views regarding pending legislation on net neutrality. Your input is vital to me representing you in the House of Representatives.

As you may know, net neutrality is a rather arbitrary and confusing term which refers to proposed restrictions on internet service providers (ISPs) to ensure unfettered access to the Internet. Public and congressional debate has centered on how best to ensure a free and open internet while shielding against ISPs blocking or throttling access to content and the ability of data bits to travel the network free of discrimination based on pricing structures.

On January 14, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. ruled against the FCC's "net neutrality" policy in the court case Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This decision struck down portions of the FCC's 2010 Open Internet Order, ruling that the agency's rules overstepped its regulatory authority under current law. However, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler subsequently proposed a new set of net neutrality rules on May 15, 2014. While these rules have not been finalized, the FCC is encouraging interested individuals and groups to comment on the proposal through the FCC's website.

Since the announcement of the proposed net neutrality rules in May 2014, there has been widespread speculation that the FCC would use its powers granted in Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 to reclassify ISPs as "a telecommunications service instead of as an information service." This action would lead to imposed regulations on price-caps, closed-captioning and emergency services.

Two net neutrality measures have been introduced into the House in this Congress:

• House Resolution 196, the Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act of 2015, if enacted would address the relationship between ISPs and content providers, direct the FCC to establish and adopt regulations within 90 days to prohibit ISPs from entering into agreements for pay with content providers to give preferential treatment or priority to that content, often termed "paid prioritization," and to prohibit ISPs from giving preferential treatment to their own or affiliated content.

 

• H.R. 279 prohibits the FCC from regulating the provision of Internet access as a telecommunications service. More specifically, the bill includes provisions that classify broadband Internet access service as an "information service," not a telecommunications service, and clarifies that a provider of broadband Internet access service may not be treated as a telecommunications carrier when engaged in the provision of an information service.

 

Both pieces of legislation have been referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. While I am not a member of this committee, I will be sure to keep your views in mind should these bills come before the full House of Representatives for a vote.

Again, thank you for sharing your insight on this issue. Please feel free to contact me again in the future.  You may wish to visit my website at http://brooks.house.gov/ for additional information about issues and legislation before Congress.

Sincerely,

Mo Brooks

Member of Congress

 

MB/CM

[Trik'Stari]

 

The other day I actually emailed my Congressman about net neutrality. This was his response:

Dear Mr. S****:

 

Thank you for contacting me to share your views regarding pending legislation on net neutrality. Your input is vital to me representing you in the House of Representatives.

As you may know, net neutrality is a rather arbitrary and confusing term which refers to proposed restrictions on internet service providers (ISPs) to ensure unfettered access to the Internet. Public and congressional debate has centered on how best to ensure a free and open internet while shielding against ISPs blocking or throttling access to content and the ability of data bits to travel the network free of discrimination based on pricing structures.

On January 14, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. ruled against the FCC's "net neutrality" policy in the court case Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This decision struck down portions of the FCC's 2010 Open Internet Order, ruling that the agency's rules overstepped its regulatory authority under current law. However, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler subsequently proposed a new set of net neutrality rules on May 15, 2014. While these rules have not been finalized, the FCC is encouraging interested individuals and groups to comment on the proposal through the FCC's website.

Since the announcement of the proposed net neutrality rules in May 2014, there has been widespread speculation that the FCC would use its powers granted in Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 to reclassify ISPs as "a telecommunications service instead of as an information service." This action would lead to imposed regulations on price-caps, closed-captioning and emergency services.

Two net neutrality measures have been introduced into the House in this Congress:

• House Resolution 196, the Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act of 2015, if enacted would address the relationship between ISPs and content providers, direct the FCC to establish and adopt regulations within 90 days to prohibit ISPs from entering into agreements for pay with content providers to give preferential treatment or priority to that content, often termed "paid prioritization," and to prohibit ISPs from giving preferential treatment to their own or affiliated content.

 

• H.R. 279 prohibits the FCC from regulating the provision of Internet access as a telecommunications service. More specifically, the bill includes provisions that classify broadband Internet access service as an "information service," not a telecommunications service, and clarifies that a provider of broadband Internet access service may not be treated as a telecommunications carrier when engaged in the provision of an information service.

 

Both pieces of legislation have been referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. While I am not a member of this committee, I will be sure to keep your views in mind should these bills come before the full House of Representatives for a vote.

Again, thank you for sharing your insight on this issue. Please feel free to contact me again in the future.  You may wish to visit my website at http://brooks.house.gov/ for additional information about issues and legislation before Congress.

Sincerely,

Mo Brooks

Member of Congress

 

MB/CM

 

Wow, sounds like you've got a real moron of a congressman. They don't have to be apart of a committee to sit in on one.

[zonahbear]

Wow, sounds like you've got a real moron of a congressman. They don't have to be apart of a committee to sit in on one.

*sigh* republicans

[Trik'Stari]

*sigh* republicans

Both parties are dirty, the ISP's have bought out 32 of the 35 members of that committee that your congressman mentioned.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/comcast-cash-spread-wide-on-capitol-hill-104469.html

 

The parties don't matter anymore, it's just them doing what the fuck they want, and all of us trying to stay alive and find some form of happiness while they fuck the world up.

[STRMfrmXMN]

*sigh* republicans

I was gonna say "Aye!" but then I saw you're from Alabama.

You must be a minority there

[zonahbear]

I was gonna say "Aye!" but then I saw you're from Alabama.

You must be a minority there

Yeah, pretty much.

[zonahbear]

Both parties are dirty, the ISP's have bought out 32 of the 35 members of that committee that your congressman mentioned.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/comcast-cash-spread-wide-on-capitol-hill-104469.html

 

The parties don't matter anymore, it's just them doing what the fuck they want, and all of us trying to stay alive and find some form of happiness while they fuck the world up.

That was a joke lol,

[Trik'Stari]

That was a joke lol,

Oh...just saying lol.