Page 1 of 24 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 233

Thread: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

  1. #1
    Guru

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In a Blue State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,733

    Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    In the statement, and a video on the White House website, Mr. Obama urged the Federal Communications Commission to adopt the strictest set of neutrality rules possible and to treat consumer broadband service as a public utility, similar to telephone or power companies.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/te...ality-fcc.html

    I am absolutely for this. This will allow the little guy the same access as the big guy. Great stuff.
    We went from sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me to safe spaces.

  2. #2
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,893
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    This was presented at a news cast this morning. From the president's letter, I got the impression that it doesn't support the FCC's regulation of charges to the customer for broadband access.

    If it's not regulating the charges, what's it proposing regulation on? Content? Delivery of content?

    Hmm. Is broadband content and content delivery really what we want the federal government regulating?

    I'm really leery of this until I learn more as to what this proposal really ends up doing.

    Isn't it really up to the network provider to manage their network to provide the best utility and service levels to their customers?

    The example in the article is that it would prevent 'Netflix paying huge sums to broadband companies for faster access to their customers.' Is this needlessly penalizing companies that deliver high bandwidth services from effectively delivering them by paying some sort of premium? Does this mean that Netflix subscribers are going to have to wait a 1/2 hr for their movie to download?

    I worry that as IT knowledgeable the government has proven itself, which is not at all (think of all the botched IT projects the government has conducted - including the ObamaCare web site), that here comes the typically needless, inefficient, ineffective, and counter productive government policies that never achieve their aims and always have disastrous unintended consequences.

    FFS! The Internet is one of the few things that actually works with any sort of reliability and utility and now the government is going to screw that up too??
    the Fix-is-in Bureau of Investigation

  3. #3
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 04:17 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,032

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue_State View Post
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/te...ality-fcc.html

    I am absolutely for this. This will allow the little guy the same access as the big guy. Great stuff.

    I agree. Mostly, this is how the internet has been working; and we need to keep it working this way. I'm glad he came out strongly for it.

  4. #4
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,090

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post

    FFS! The Internet is one of the few things that actually works with any sort of reliability and utility and now the government is going to screw that up too??
    From what I have read over the last few years, it is actually the private telecommunications companies that are wanting to screw people not the government per say. The whole Netflix thing is a power grab by the ISPs pure and simple. They refuse to expand their capacity to meet demand and must find alternatives to keep that demand down. On way is to slow down Netflix or other services, and hence force Netflix to pay more for content delivery.. this means the ISP not only makes your Netflix more expensive, but it is actually already taking far more from you as the consumer for what it is delivering... because the same rules also apply to you. In your contract it most likely says "unlimited" but in the small print it will clearly state "unless you use effects the quality of service of all".. which in geek speak means.. if you download too much, then we reserve the right to throttle you instead of expanding capacity. Comcast has been caught in doing it a few times.

    What these internet companies want is a tiered pay system, so you pay to get access to Youtube and Netflix and that they dictate what sites you can visit..... that is something everyone should be fighting against, because that will mean even higher prices for internet services.

    Now saying that, instead of "net neutrality", he could just force open up the market instead and you watch how fast the big companies stop their power grab when suddenly the have to actually compete. The US already has some of the highest prices for internet access in the industrialized world and it comes down to lack of competition. And because of this lack of competition, the tele companies think (and can) dictate quality of service and basically screw over the consumer on a daily basis as we have seen with Netflix. That Verizon was allowed to slow down Netflix and say it was not (utter lie)... just shows how much power these 4 or so main internet providers have in the US.
    PeteEU

  5. #5
    Guru

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In a Blue State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,733

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    ^^

    The companies are attempting to screw the consumers and the startups. As startups will not have the funding to purchase the high speed lane, they will deliver their information more slowly, making it less likely they will be used.

    Here a quick video on net neutrality.

    We went from sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me to safe spaces.

  6. #6
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Last Seen
    04-15-15 @ 01:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    459

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    What he really said was to reclassify the internet as a public utility. Or seize control of it.
    I find it odd that he was perfectly good with giving away authority but now wants it.
    If you think this is a boon you really need to think a little harder.

  7. #7
    Guru

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In a Blue State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,733

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by dogtowner View Post
    What he really said was to reclassify the internet as a public utility. Or seize control of it.
    I find it odd that he was perfectly good with giving away authority but now wants it.
    If you think this is a boon you really need to think a little harder.
    I went to the video on wh.gov. He is recommending it go under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. I wonder what the negative impacts of that are? I just want the internet free. No government intervention. No FCC intervention.
    We went from sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me to safe spaces.

  8. #8
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Currently, receipt of high-speed broadband requires more power and stronger equipment in our homes, which is more expensive, and we pay for that.

    When it comes to sending of high-speed broadband, does that not require more power and stronger equipment at the provider .. and isn't that more expensive for the provider?

    If so, who's supposed to pay for that?

    The provider?

    Or the distributing user?

    And, if not the distributing user, doesn't the provider eventually charge someone else to compensate?

    Is this whole issue simply another "rob Peter to pay Paul" argument?

    Are net neutrality supporters simply saying that they'd rather see the end-consumer in our homes pay for everything in our service rates rather than pay less and have the distributors pay more because they're afraid providers will slow down the speed we do pay for based on how much the distributor of content pays the provider?

    Shouldn't the issue be that providers can't slow down what we the end-counsumer pay for for any reason?

    I'm not sure the real argument here is framed right.

    Though if there are multiple providers, I'd hate to think of the hassle it would be for distributing users to find all the providers and pay them this or that amount of money.

    One day we may just have to have multiple providers in our homes to get all the content we get today.

    I hope this issue works out in the best interest of the end-consumer.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  9. #9
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,893
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    From what I have read over the last few years, it is actually the private telecommunications companies that are wanting to screw people not the government per say. The whole Netflix thing is a power grab by the ISPs pure and simple. They refuse to expand their capacity to meet demand and must find alternatives to keep that demand down.
    Increasing the capacity of a network is not an inexpensive thing. Lots of expense in the high speed data lines from the communications providers, and lots of engineering that has to go into the router and switch gear to support it. Any expansion of network capacity has to be cost justified by the ISP, based on their subscribers usage and their subscriber's charges. They just may have a situation where they can't afford to increase their network capacity.

    So they have to manage their network to the best end result and service satisfaction of their customers (basically piss the fewest number of people off, as it's not too hard to change ISPs, so yes, they are competing for customers).

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    On way is to slow down Netflix or other services, and hence force Netflix to pay more for content delivery.. this means the ISP not only makes your Netflix more expensive, but it is actually already taking far more from you as the consumer for what it is delivering... because the same rules also apply to you. In your contract it most likely says "unlimited" but in the small print it will clearly state "unless you use effects the quality of service of all".. which in geek speak means.. if you download too much, then we reserve the right to throttle you instead of expanding capacity. Comcast has been caught in doing it a few times.
    Again, you aren't going to get 10 lbs of crap through a 5 lbs pipe. Bandwidth abusers, those who ruin it for everyone else, should be throttled back somewhat. It's called managing your network resources to maintain the greatest number of satisfied customers.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    What these internet companies want is a tiered pay system, so you pay to get access to Youtube and Netflix and that they dictate what sites you can visit..... that is something everyone should be fighting against, because that will mean even higher prices for internet services.
    I really don't see IPSs charging more for access to any Internet web content. It's a billing headache for them, and would lead to intense customer dislike. I'm not seeing it as a viable action for the ISPs.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Now saying that, instead of "net neutrality", he could just force open up the market instead and you watch how fast the big companies stop their power grab when suddenly the have to actually compete.
    Umm, they are competing. They are competing on a subscriber by subscribe basis. Bad Internet experience and the subscriber jumps ship to another ISP first chance they get. This'll lower the demand for that part of an ISPs network. IT's kinda self-regulating that way.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    The US already has some of the highest prices for internet access in the industrialized world and it comes down to lack of competition. And because of this lack of competition, the tele companies think (and can) dictate quality of service and basically screw over the consumer on a daily basis as we have seen with Netflix. That Verizon was allowed to slow down Netflix and say it was not (utter lie)... just shows how much power these 4 or so main internet providers have in the US.
    In each community, there is a process that the cable co / ISP / television provider has to go through to be allowed to enter that market. Most communities that are fairly populous have multiple providers to chose from. If there's a throttle to competition, this would be it. Once in the market, the providers compete intensely for subscribers, to the point of giving away packages of channels and high speeds for Internet, and throw telephone service in for free, for example.

    Yes, Comcast, AT&T U-Verse, and a few others are the largest ones, but there are a lot of smaller ones too. I fail to see how you believe that there isn't competition, when there is. I prefer WideOpenWest (WOW), as they have excellent performance, excellent customer service, and I pay about the going rate for the service (channels and Internet speeds) that I get.

    Suffice it to say, this sounds like the government suffering from the delusion that they can manage an ISPs network better than the ISP can themselves (with everything to gain by effective network management and everything to lose with ineffective network management), and I really don't think that this is reality. The government comes along with yet another 'one size fits all' idea and mentality, and is bound to corrupt, distort and damage yet another market of which they have academicians and their 'theories' about how it works, rather than practical experience as how it really works.

    I'm not seeing anything compelling here for me to believe that this is a good idea.
    the Fix-is-in Bureau of Investigation

  10. #10
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,090

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    Increasing the capacity of a network is not an inexpensive thing. Lots of expense in the high speed data lines from the communications providers, and lots of engineering that has to go into the router and switch gear to support it. Any expansion of network capacity has to be cost justified by the ISP, based on their subscribers usage and their subscriber's charges. They just may have a situation where they can't afford to increase their network capacity.
    LOL not afford to increase their network capacity? HAHAH. Listen we are talking about some of the biggest ISPs on the planet with some of the biggest pots of cash of all companies out there. You would be correct if it was a small ISP, but Verizone, Cox, Comcast, AT&T and so on.. hell no.

    I have seen this crap so many times before in Europe and because we have real competition here in the telecommunications market, then those who used such tactics would loose customers faster than you can read this sentence. And those doing it were often the biggest former state monopoly companies... which is a double irony because they are usually the ones with the 100 year maintenance and expansion contracts of the networks.

    Again, you aren't going to get 10 lbs of crap through a 5 lbs pipe. Bandwidth abusers, those who ruin it for everyone else, should be throttled back somewhat. It's called managing your network resources to maintain the greatest number of satisfied customers.
    No it depends on how you define bandwidth abusers and ISPs can define that any way they wish. I read a story about a woman on Comcast that was kicked off Comcast for watching too much Youtube.. I mean come on, even if you were running Youtube 24/7 then that would hardly set a blip on the radar ... this was before Youtube had HD btw.

    I really don't see IPSs charging more for access to any Internet web content. It's a billing headache for them, and would lead to intense customer dislike. I'm not seeing it as a viable action for the ISPs.
    Then why are they proposing it, in the material they have sent to congress to get approval.. they are after all writing the so called "net neutrality" proposals...

    Umm, they are competing. They are competing on a subscriber by subscribe basis. Bad Internet experience and the subscriber jumps ship to another ISP first chance they get. This'll lower the demand for that part of an ISPs network. IT's kinda self-regulating that way.
    So you are saying that you can switch from Comcast to say Cox in the same area? (let me give you a hint.. no you cant). Alternatives are DSL, who have to rely on outdated telephone systems, satellite which aint an alternative at all and not much else. There is no real competition in most US markets, especially when it comes to cable provided internet. Here in Spain, which is in the dark ages internet wise (relative speaking), I have the choice of at least 5 main ISPs, 3 cable operators, 4+ wireless (WiMax and 4G) providers, 3+ satellite providers and of course 3G mobile operators. Soon I will also have fiber optic connections (they digging up the road at the moment), which will add another 3+ providers easily.

    In each community, there is a process that the cable co / ISP / television provider has to go through to be allowed to enter that market. Most communities that are fairly populous have multiple providers to chose from. If there's a throttle to competition, this would be it.
    Yes it is.. and those "communities" are a huge majority of the US.

    Once in the market, the providers compete intensely for subscribers, to the point of giving away packages of channels and high speeds for Internet, and throw telephone service in for free, for example.
    Cant compete if there is only one option..

    Yes, Comcast, AT&T U-Verse, and a few others are the largest ones, but there are a lot of smaller ones too. I fail to see how you believe that there isn't competition, when there is. I prefer WideOpenWest (WOW), as they have excellent performance, excellent customer service, and I pay about the going rate for the service (channels and Internet speeds) that I get.
    There is no competition in most of the US.. the main cities might have it, but out side those places.. hell no.

    ISP lobby has already won limits on public broadband in 20 states | Ars Technica

    There are so many limits on competition in the various states and they are being pushed by the telecommunications cartel.

    Suffice it to say, this sounds like the government suffering from the delusion that they can manage an ISPs network better than the ISP can themselves (with everything to gain by effective network management and everything to lose with ineffective network management), and I really don't think that this is reality. The government comes along with yet another 'one size fits all' idea and mentality, and is bound to corrupt, distort and damage yet another market of which they have academicians and their 'theories' about how it works, rather than practical experience as how it really works.

    I'm not seeing anything compelling here for me to believe that this is a good idea.
    Well considering the US has some of the highest prices in the industrialized world and no where near the fastest average speeds, then something is seriously wrong....and dont use the "we are a big country" bull**** excuse, because it is irrelevant.
    PeteEU

Page 1 of 24 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •