Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 93

Thread: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

  1. #11
    Student
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    01-03-11 @ 04:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    190

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant Noodle View Post
    Yup! And higher prices for you and I!!!! So much for a free internet world. I smell a Republican behind this.
    Really? You need to have your nose checked. This is straight out of Obama and George Soros' play book. Obama stated in a speech that "there's too much 'confusing' information on the Internet" and he wanted it "controlled". Well duh. What doesn't he want controlled? He was tired of seeing guys like his communist protege, Van Jones, put up on the screen of the Glenn Beck show talking about "Top down, bottom up and inside out" revolution. This also fits Soros' five steps to take down the U. S. government. It's step two. To wit:

    Step two: control the airwaves. Fund existing radio and TV outlets and take control over them or start your own outlets. Remember: take control of existing or start your own. Maybe dump tons of cash into NPR, maybe.

    The Internet fits nicely into this step. So, get your nose fixed.
    Last edited by VF500; 12-21-10 at 01:29 PM.

  2. #12
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Perhaps I can better explain this since some are confused.

    What this supposedly would not allow is a cable company BLOCKING lawful traffic. So say, you can't have Cox Communications blocking YouTube or Comcast blocking Netflix.

    However, what it appears they ARE allowed to do is say charge you an additional fee when you watch videos from YouTube or Netflix.

    This is not the same as currently. The "Tiers" you look at currently are not about what kind of data, but how fast. 5 MBps, 15 MBps, 25 MBps, etc. Theoritically, you're paying for the speed and what you do with said speed is your own business.

    Now, you may pay for a 5 MBps plan, and you get to go at that speed. However, if you choose to use your 5 MBps speed to go watch NetFlix you get charged an extra $.10 per "X" amount of data you're using.

    Or say you really like Warcraft, but Verizon cuts a deal with Bioware to make the new Star Wars "The Old Republican" their MMO of choice? Well, you may be paying for a 5 MPbps plan, but if you're playing WOW (or any other MMO) you're getting charged extra for the data usage while you wouldn't be charged extra for playing SW:TOR.

    So what it is essentially opening the way for these telecoms to do is charge you a certain price for the SPEED of your plan, but then restrict how you actually use that speed by charging you more if you use said speed for websites they don't want you to use.

    To give you an analogy, lets say you rent a car that can easily go up to 80 MPH. You expect to then be able to use that car in whatever fashion you need that is normal for driving a car. However, lets say they then state that if you use the car on the open highway it has a governor on it that keeps it from going over 40 MPH. But if you use the toll road, which was paid for by the government but the car company operates, then it'll work at its full 80 MPH speed.

    This is majorly aimed, initially, at things like NetFlix or Amazon On Demand, because Cable Companies can then jack up the price of their plans by offering THEIR on demand services as part of it while charging you for using other peoples.
    Omg thats awful and it will retard the development of the internet

  3. #13
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,964

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist77 View Post
    So admittedly i dont know the TRUE ins and outs of this, and besides people guessing they might try to charge for certain things (which they already do)
    They don't charge for certain things, save for things THEY offer or have an agreement with someone to offer for a fee. This allows them to start charging for things OTHER people are offering, regardless of whether that other person wants them to charge and without the other person seeing any of the money.

    why would it be better for a power house like Comcast or Verizon etc to control the internet traffic (which they have already been caught doing) then to have it open and free (not price wise0 but free for all "similar" traffic to move equally.
    It wouldn't be. It'd be horrible. The most amazing thing about the Internet, and the idea that has allowed it to flourish like it has, is the openness of it. That ability for so much to be at your fingertips, for almost anything you can imagine creating to be able to be created and marketted to the masses in some form. Its an extremely free market, where consumer demand for consumption pretty much drives how successful something is. And a market that is so large, with so many people, that even relatively obscure or mundane things can find a niche due to that amazing openness. If you micromanage it, if you begin to package it into neat little boxes, then that freedom, that flexibility, that idea that has allowed it to blossom into such an amazing and intigral thing goes away.

    If crap like this occured 10 years ago we'd see no facebook, no youtube, no netflix, no 10+ million playing MMO's, no blogosphere, no itunes, no skype, etc.

  4. #14
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Is there a way that these rules can be challenged in court, so that more sane rules can be established?

  5. #15
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,964

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    Omg thats awful and it will retard the development of the internet
    Yep. And the infuriating thing is the telecoms keep bitching about congestion and network pressure on the infrastructure. However, that infastructure was greatly created on the back of tax payer funds with the idea that the telecoms would be investing the money they'd be making from using said infrastructure into next gen technologies to help increase available bandwidth and fight congestion.

    However, for the most part that didn't happen, with few entities other than Verizon making a legitimate attempt at laying down that next gen backbone of any kind. And so now they're trying to find new ways to bilk people out of money, not have ot invest like they were supposed to, and continue to screw us out by lamenting about the "tubes" that we helped pay for.

    I still say that the best option would be to go toward deregulation and kill the ability for these companies to establish monopolies in areas where you literally have one to two choices for broadband, if that. However, the likilihood of that happening is probably zero to none. As such, the next best option is truely enforced net neutrality legislation stating that companies may create plans as they do now, giving "X" amount of speed for the cost, but WHAT content they access is uncontrollable and all content must be given the same priority in regards to speed.

    Essentially, think of a road where each lane of traffic had a different speed limit. The Telecomms should be free to charge us to get onto that road and for us to pick which lane we want to drive in based on a price. Once we're on that road though we should be able to go the speed of our lane without direct force by them slowing it down regardless of what store we're looking to stop at along the way.

    Its one thing for my 25 MBps internet to slow down to 10 MBps while watching NetFlix one night because it just so happens that a ton of people on my local hub are online and thus the bandwidth is being sucked down. Its an entirely different thing when it goes down to 10 MBps because they are throttling NetFlix themselves regardless of current congestion issues. Its the difference, in the above analogy, of there being too many cars turning and thus the speed of traffic drops and them throwing up a 35 MPH sign in the 55 MPH lane.

  6. #16
    Cynical Optimist
    jambalaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Last Seen
    11-28-12 @ 05:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,481

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant Noodle View Post
    Next thing ya know we will be paying a tax per email!!!!

    A great comment on this article.....




    AND......
    You better believe we are going to be taxed. Just like telephone, television, radio and every other type of electronic communications. Ever see the details of a cell phone bill. I haven't looked at my internet bill. There is probably already some surcharges and fees associated with the federal government.

  7. #17
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,784

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    They don't charge for certain things, save for things THEY offer or have an agreement with someone to offer for a fee. This allows them to start charging for things OTHER people are offering, regardless of whether that other person wants them to charge and without the other person seeing any of the money.
    yes they do if you use to much bandwith or information they some charge
    I get you are saying they could charge more if they wanted to but I want to know where that guess comes from and what stops them from doing it now?



    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    It wouldn't be. It'd be horrible. The most amazing thing about the Internet, and the idea that has allowed it to flourish like it has, is the openness of it. That ability for so much to be at your fingertips, for almost anything you can imagine creating to be able to be created and marketted to the masses in some form. Its an extremely free market, where consumer demand for consumption pretty much drives how successful something is. And a market that is so large, with so many people, that even relatively obscure or mundane things can find a niche due to that amazing openness. If you micromanage it, if you begin to package it into neat little boxes, then that freedom, that flexibility, that idea that has allowed it to blossom into such an amazing and intigral thing goes away.

    If crap like this occured 10 years ago we'd see no facebook, no youtube, no netflix, no 10+ million playing MMO's, no blogosphere, no itunes, no skype, etc.
    according to who or what?
    im not saying you are wrong but im asking who says, what says?
    and the point i was making comcast already controls large parts and they already CENSOR and RESTRICT or REROUTE traffic NOW

    so isnt it better to not allow them to do it

    what im getting at is the only OFFICIAL FACTUAL info i know is that this will no longer allow comcast or others to mess with any routing traffic that they currently do.

    again Im not saying you are wrong by any means i admitted already I dont know the ins and out but what im asking for is proof or facts instead of what sounds like guessing
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  8. #18
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,964

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist77 View Post
    yes they do if you use to much bandwith or information they some charge
    To my knowledge the only people doing this are wireless carriers, which is a little bit of a different ball of wax.

    What standard telecomm's do this for normal broadband internet?

    I get you are saying they could charge more if they wanted to but I want to know where that guess comes from and what stops them from doing it now?
    I'll try and go back and find some of my old links and give you some references to what I'm about to say. But essentially, people are saying they are going to do this because they've either tried or there's been talk of it. There's been attempts at throttling certain information already. There's been talk of companies attempting to charge people for using a service from another company that they themselves offer. There's actually something that came out a few days ago with a company specifically pushing technology to telecomm's that would allow for this type of charging to happen.

    Essentially, what's stopped it up to now is a mix of public outrage and court cases with the potential threat to the companies if they make the gamble. If they win, they win big, but if they lose suddenly their ability to use the grey area as they do at times now goes away.



    according to who or what?
    im not saying you are wrong but im asking who says, what says?
    I'm not sure what you're getting at, but the quoted section was my opinion concerning the internet. Some of it is opinion, such as my belief its the openness of the internet that has let what has occured actually happen. Other is somewhat common sense, like suggesting that the huge consumer base of it is what allows for "obscure" things to still find a niche on the internet.

    and the point i was making comcast already controls large parts and they already CENSOR and RESTRICT or REROUTE traffic NOW
    See this, this isn't an opinion. This is stating a fact. Please link. What things are they censoring or restricting? What traffic is being rerouted?

    what im getting at is the only OFFICIAL FACTUAL info i know is that this will no longer allow comcast or others to mess with any routing traffic that they currently do.
    Except court cases were already backing that notion up. This is expanding it, stating that they can't do that...but specifically saying they CAN start charging for specific services or sites.

  9. #19
    Familiaist


    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    11-16-16 @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    7,470

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    People have a pretty limited understanding of the network neutrality issue. While the concept is simple, which is no one should apply discriminatory policy on the nets, the issue before the FCC is quite ridiculous. On one side we have Google and Vonage looking out for their best interests and the other side we have the physical infrastructure (telecomm companies) looking out for their best interest. The issue is not really about an entirely free Internet (i've written multiple articles on this topic), but instead about who gets to control the Internet after it leaves the DoC and the IANA, or what is known as the "last mile". It is an argument over what conglomerate gets what part of the booty.

    The real issue here should be where does the FCC get the authority to regulate or make Internet policy. Sure you can point to the Telecomm Act 1996 where Congress invested the Commission with authority, but a tool such as the Internet is outside the realms of even the Federal government.
    "I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann

  10. #20
    Can't stop the signal...
    theangryamerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    07-29-13 @ 11:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,233

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Perhaps I can better explain this since some are confused.

    What this supposedly would not allow is a cable company BLOCKING lawful traffic. So say, you can't have Cox Communications blocking YouTube or Comcast blocking Netflix.

    However, what it appears they ARE allowed to do is say charge you an additional fee when you watch videos from YouTube or Netflix.

    This is not the same as currently. The "Tiers" you look at currently are not about what kind of data, but how fast. 5 MBps, 15 MBps, 25 MBps, etc. Theoritically, you're paying for the speed and what you do with said speed is your own business.

    Now, you may pay for a 5 MBps plan, and you get to go at that speed. However, if you choose to use your 5 MBps speed to go watch NetFlix you get charged an extra $.10 per "X" amount of data you're using.

    Or say you really like Warcraft, but Verizon cuts a deal with Bioware to make the new Star Wars "The Old Republican" their MMO of choice? Well, you may be paying for a 5 MPbps plan, but if you're playing WOW (or any other MMO) you're getting charged extra for the data usage while you wouldn't be charged extra for playing SW:TOR.

    So what it is essentially opening the way for these telecoms to do is charge you a certain price for the SPEED of your plan, but then restrict how you actually use that speed by charging you more if you use said speed for websites they don't want you to use.

    To give you an analogy, lets say you rent a car that can easily go up to 80 MPH. You expect to then be able to use that car in whatever fashion you need that is normal for driving a car. However, lets say they then state that if you use the car on the open highway it has a governor on it that keeps it from going over 40 MPH. But if you use the toll road, which was paid for by the government but the car company operates, then it'll work at its full 80 MPH speed.

    This is majorly aimed, initially, at things like NetFlix or Amazon On Demand, because Cable Companies can then jack up the price of their plans by offering THEIR on demand services as part of it while charging you for using other peoples.
    Thanks to Zyphlin for the explanation. This is getting ridiculous. The cost of my internet has already gone up $40 a month in the past 3 years (Nothing about the service has changed except for the amount I pay for it) I'm really starting to wish there was some way for me to kick Comcast to the curb and still get my internet fix.

    I'm almost to the point where I would rather the service providers just open everyone up to the highest practical speed and charge us strictly for use, like the water or electrical company does. I'm tired of being told your monthly cost will be X and then receiving a bill for x plus y and z random fees.
    "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it." - Judge Learned Hand

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... 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
  •