Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 93

Thread: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

  1. #1
    Sage
    The Giant Noodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Illinois
    Last Seen
    11-03-14 @ 05:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,333

    mad FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    WASHINGTON — U.S. communications regulators were poised to adopt Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would allow providers to ration access to their networks.
    Federal Communications Commission members Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn issued statements on Monday saying they would support the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this month despite some misgivings.

    The rules would ban high-speed Internet providers like Comcast Corp and Verizon Communications from blocking lawful traffic, while recognizing the need to manage network congestion and perhaps charge based on Internet usage.


    CONTINUED: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules - Technology & science - Tech and gadgets - msnbc.com
    CORPORATE GREED AND UNION GREED
    DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS
    DESTROYING THE BEST OF AMERICA ONE DAY AT A TIME

    This is the worst kind of discrimination. The kind against ME! ~ Bender

  2. #2
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Hooray corporate censorship!
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  3. #3
    Sage
    The Giant Noodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Illinois
    Last Seen
    11-03-14 @ 05:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,333

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Hooray corporate censorship!
    Yup! And higher prices for you and I!!!! So much for a free internet world. I smell a Republican behind this.
    CORPORATE GREED AND UNION GREED
    DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS
    DESTROYING THE BEST OF AMERICA ONE DAY AT A TIME

    This is the worst kind of discrimination. The kind against ME! ~ Bender

  4. #4
    Sage
    The Giant Noodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Illinois
    Last Seen
    11-03-14 @ 05:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,333

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Next thing ya know we will be paying a tax per email!!!!

    A great comment on this article.....

    am so sick and tried of being getting screwed by everyone. Employers are treating everyone poorly because they can. My bills keep going up, health care cost, gas, my heating bills, insurance. Now I am going to have to pay more for staying home trying to save money just surfing the internet ! Ok so are you trying to keep us all dumb?

    Whats next ? A limit how much education we can give our children.



    AND......

    Why because one party fought for true net neutrality one didn't. The Dems fought and lost to the GOP on this issue. The GOP blocked any bill that would insure Net neutrality.

    But the people who voted GOP don't like facts so there going to pretend the GOP never blocked a thing.
    Last edited by The Giant Noodle; 12-21-10 at 03:19 AM.
    CORPORATE GREED AND UNION GREED
    DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS
    DESTROYING THE BEST OF AMERICA ONE DAY AT A TIME

    This is the worst kind of discrimination. The kind against ME! ~ Bender

  5. #5
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,880
    Blog Entries
    1

    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......
    Hmmm...this brings to mind an interesting question...If this bill passes and we start being regulated could a case be made about them limiting our right to free speech?
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  6. #6
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    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.
    Wait! I'm obviously behind the curve here. This "sounds" like a good thing -- individual providers can't slow access speeds. What don't I understand? Oh, wait, it's because the providers can tier pricing? They've always been able to do that, no? At least ATT-Uverse does...faster speeds cost more per month. Or were the providers hoping for legislation that would let them slow speeds? I'm so confuuuuzed.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  7. #7
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,772

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Frankly, I'm trying to understand this issue myself. I'll try to read the proposal by New Years Eve, but from what I've gathered it's a matter of unsolicited information gathering, access control (since the major communications carriers such as ATT, Comcast and Verizon own most of the telecommunications lines) and cost gouging (again, they own the lines and therefore can control speed, access and cost). The issue as I understand the debate isn't whether or not information would be restricted but rather how much control should be given to those who "own" the Internet pathways.

    Some people have even argued that the government doesn't have the right to step into the frey here. I disagree; you'd first have to understand the origins of the Internet and how it has evolved before you can truly tackle that question.

  8. #8
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    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.

  9. #9
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,831

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    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) 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.
    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

  10. #10
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    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.
    Yep, that pretty much sums it up. It's the same as a luxury tax, except the communications companies get to pick and choose what luxuries they will tax. I think it's anti-competitive, and ultimately monopolistic in nature. There are various US legal precedents that will offer challenges to this law.


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

Page 1 of 10 123 ... 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
  •