FCC's Net Neutrality Starts Today!

[Trik'Stari]

So, score another win for the internet. Yesterday, Thursday June 11th, a federal judge denied cable and phone companies attempt to put a stop to the implementation of the FCC's new Net Neutrality rules.

 

 

The Federal Communications Commission’s long-awaited rules to ensure Internet openness take effect today. Whether you’re a casual Web user or a so-called “cord cutter” who’s ditched pay-TV service in favor of streaming sites like Netflix and Hulu, here’s how the regulations might affect you.

 

Under the FCC rules, companies providing you a broadband Internet access service -- whether it’s cable in your home or 4G on your phone -- must treat all traffic traveling over the Web equally. They can’t block your lawful content or slow your connection to keep you from using particular services, apps or devices. They also can’t favor their own content ahead of others’ or create fast lanes for a fee.

 

Your days of buffering delays aren’t necessarily over though, especially during peak hours when networks are congested. But the FCC rules require Internet service providers to be much more upfront about how they manage their networks. For example, they must now tell you when a “network practice” is “likely to significantly affect” your use of their Internet services.

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-12/fcc-open-internet-rules-are-finally-here-so-what-s-changed-

 

However, this does not mean the fight is over, as another hearing is expected later this year, as the Telecom companies continue to claw their way back into an environment where they can commit anti-trust and anti-consumer activities with absolute disdain. Not to mention that we likely won't see much of a change in anything we do online, at least for the time being. Especially where Data-caps are concerned, as the FCC has declined to "make blanket findings about the benefits and drawbacks of data allowances and usage-based pricing plans".

 

 

The good news is that the rules leave certain tools at your disposal. You can run speed tests to monitor your Internet connections for signs it’s being degraded at websites like battleforthenet. You can report concerns to the FCC, many of which the commission has said it will address on a case-by-case basis.

 

“The rules going into effect don’t prevent any of those arguably discriminatory uses; it just leaves the door open for the FCC to analyze it if someone brings a complaint about it,” said Matt Wood, policy director of Free Press, in an interview. “Does anything change? Not really, but the legal protections are put back.”

 

So what does this mean for us? It means that people need to start monitoring their network speeds, and reporting ISP violations to the FCC. Seriously, we need to do this, we need to fight as we know they aren't just going to let this go. If we pay attention, and we report a crap ton of violations to the FCC, maybe it will be enough to showcase the anti-consumer, anti-competitive, and all around immoral behavior taking place at the hands of these companies, in court, and give them a firm enough ground to stand upon to make some real changes.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-12/fcc-open-internet-rules-are-finally-here-so-what-s-changed-

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-net-neutrality-rules-go-into-effect-no-stay-20150611-story.html

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/12/technology/net-neutrality/

[CtW]

So what does this mean for us? It means that people need to start monitoring their network speeds, and reporting ISP violations to the FCC.

What if the ISP is giving you faster speeds than what you pay for tho...

[Delusional Phil]

YES ! 

 

 

What if the ISP is giving you faster speeds than what you pay for tho...

Then why complain about it 

[Castdeath97]

Comcast: ''I'll be back''

[Pugs501]

[JoaoPRSousa]

[Johannes_Lazor]

[Real_PhillBert]

I struggle to get excited over an increase in government regulations.

[Trik'Stari]

I struggle to get excited over an increase in government regulations.

Normally so do I, but this is one that is actually something that the government is SUPPOSED to be doing. Preventing anti-competitive and anti-consumer behavior in corporations.

 

And it's not an increase either, it's something they were already trying to do, that got thrown out in court, with the judge saying "you need to reclassify them as title 2 (which they are) before you can do this" so they did, and they are.

[Real_PhillBert]

Normally so do I, but this is one that is actually something that the government is SUPPOSED to be doing. Preventing anti-competitive and anti-consumer behavior in corporations.

 

And it's not an increase either, it's something they were already trying to do, that got thrown out in court, with the judge saying "you need to reclassify them as title 2 (which they are) before you can do this" so they did, and they are.

 

There is increase regulatory authority under title two. That is the whole point.

 

My issue stems from the simple fact that the reason we have these issues is that municipalities are allowed to make deals with the ISP's for a local monopoly. If governments would have stayed out of this from the start this would not have been a problem.

[blackadder]

Woot woot. Thats right do your job, not like we can fire him nor does he has to be re elected.

[E-Ro]

Wow, we actually won? 

 

Finally. 

[Trik'Stari]

There is increase regulatory authority under title two. That is the whole point.

 

My issue stems from the simple fact that the reason we have these issues is that municipalities are allowed to make deals with the ISP's for a local monopoly. If governments would have stayed out of this from the start this would not have been a problem.

Partially true. There has to be something to prevent them from doing what they've been doing.

 

Wow, we actually won? 

 

Finally. 

Not entirely, there's another hearing expected this year. This was just a judge saying "no I will not delay the implementation of these rules until the upcoming hearing".

[Suika]

Can't wait to see how AT&T reacts with their unlimited plans.

[Sidiox]

Can't they just now all increase prices because they still have monopolies and deals? I can see the good bit but I fear it might still go wrong

[Trik'Stari]

Can't they just now all increase prices because they still have monopolies and deals? I can see the good bit but I fear it might still go wrong

That's what they've been doing for a while now. They don't overlap each other and all charge relatively similar prices. There is some stuff included in title 2 that gives smaller start up isp's a chance to build their own infrastructure.

[Real_PhillBert]

Partially true. There has to be something to prevent them from doing what they've been doing.

 

The free market would have prevented this if the ISPs were made to compete in a free market. But when they are given local territory, they have no competition to keep their actions in check.

 

I agree that something needed to be done, I'm just not convinced this method is the best method.

[Trik'Stari]

The free market would have prevented this if the ISPs were made to compete in a free market. But when they are given local territory, they have no competition to keep their actions in check.

 

I agree that something needed to be done, I'm just not convinced this method is the best method.

The question is, how can the free market prevent "non competition agreements" without something to enforce it? For these companies to build infrastructure, they have to access public property (laying the lines on the side of the road) so the governments (local, state, and federal) are already involved somehow.

 

I do agree, no company should EVER be able to get exclusive access to public property (the are where infrastructure is laid down).

[Kherm]

[Real_PhillBert]

The question is, how can the free market prevent "non competition agreements" without something to enforce it? For these companies to build infrastructure, they have to access public property (laying the lines on the side of the road) so the governments (local, state, and federal) are already involved somehow.

 

I do agree, no company should EVER be able to get exclusive access to public property (the are where infrastructure is laid down).

 

Interesting you would bring that up. There is another ISP coming into my area right now using no public land, they are doing it all through private easements with landowners. I believe they are the fourth ISP in my area. Free markets really do work.

 

There is always another way.

[Derangel]

Interesting you would bring that up. There is another ISP coming into my area right now using no public land, they are doing it all through private easements with landowners. I believe they are the fourth ISP in my area. Free markets really do work.

 

There is always another way.

 

Free markets work until a company gets big and has power. Like every other good idea on the planet it's instantly corrupted when the human factor is introduced. The issue with the big players wasn't caused solely from deals with local governments. They've also made deals with each other to prevent a lot of competition between themselves. Some of these deals exist from back when their primary business was cable TV.

[Guest Kloaked]

I struggle to get excited over an increase in government regulations.

So was everyone else when this was starting. Now more and more people are for it, now that they realize it's within the government's (FCC's) job description to fight for the consumer; mainly because people are tired of Netflix buffering when you're paying for fast enough speeds.

[Trik'Stari]

Interesting you would bring that up. There is another ISP coming into my area right now using no public land, they are doing it all through private easements with landowners. I believe they are the fourth ISP in my area. Free markets really do work.

 

There is always another way.

True, but how much more (or less) does it cost them to run their internet infrastructure that way? Sometimes it just isn't feasible, especially in rural area's like mine where the terrain isn't very flat, and there are a lot of small creeks and what-not. Also, the point still stands, if it's public property, all of the companies should have equal access to it, not one company with a deal with the city/county/state etc.

 

Free markets work until a company gets big and has power. Like every other good idea on the planet it's instantly corrupted when the human factor is introduced. The issue with the big players wasn't caused solely from deals with local governments. They've also made deals with each other to prevent a lot of competition between themselves. Some of these deals exist from back when their primary business was cable TV.

They haven't actually made written deals about that, it would be completely illegal to do so, as anti-competition agreements are illegal. They're more "unspoken agreements" than contractual deals.

 

So was everyone else when this was starting. Now more and more people are for it, now that they realize it's within the government's (FCC's) job description to fight for the consumer; mainly because people are tired of Netflix buffering when you're paying for fast enough speeds.

 

Century Link keeps doing it to me, I'd like to figure out how to catch them in the act and then report their asses for it.

[Derangel]

True, but how much more (or less) does it cost them to run their internet infrastructure that way? Sometimes it just isn't feasible, especially in rural area's like mine where the terrain isn't very flat, and there are a lot of small creeks and what-not. Also, the point still stands, if it's public property, all of the companies should have equal access to it, not one company with a deal with the city/county/state etc.

 

They haven't actually made written deals about that, it would be completely illegal to do so, as anti-competition agreements are illegal. They're more "unspoken agreements" than contractual deals.

 

 

Century Link keeps doing it to me, I'd like to figure out how to catch them in the act and then report their asses for it.

 

They might as well be written deals. They've sold sections of the country between themselves at times and it's been ignored. If Comcast had been able to pick up TWC it would have been another case of very blatantly obvious agreements between major players setting boundaries. Here in Minnesota Comcast and Charter made a deal that if Comcast bought TWC they would both create a new company that would run all of St. Paul and Minneapolis, a place where Comcast had a majority stake and Charter had a few small sections to themselves. The new company would mostly be run by Charter.

[spartaman64]

The free market would have prevented this if the ISPs were made to compete in a free market. But when they are given local territory, they have no competition to keep their actions in check.

 

I agree that something needed to be done, I'm just not convinced this method is the best method.

part of the net neutrality bill is allowing municipal broadband to expand and also changing the laws on infrastructure allowing small ISP startups to access them for much lower cost

you are saying you dont want government to regulate business but government regulation is very important in making sure businesses provide safe working conditions. dont do things that greatly damage the environment etc