• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

The Giant Noodle

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
7,332
Reaction score
2,011
Location
Northern Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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
 
Hooray corporate censorship!
 
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:
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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-
 
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:
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 :(
 
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.
 
Is there a way that these rules can be challenged in court, so that more sane rules can be established?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?



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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?

comcast does, they have a ceiling limit, now its something obnixious that Ill probably never hit but people have.



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.
thanks and do be very clear again im not being a smart ass im honestly curious

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. .

and that fine by me i just wonder if the public outrage is properly informed or driven by misinformation. The idea of comcast controlling ANYTHING traffic wise if a solid argument cant be made that it hinders over all traffic quality is not OK with me BUT neither is random EXTRA charges. So im kinda stuck and I also my be misinformed not having deeply researched.






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.

I understand thats why I was looking for more, more solid info than just opinion




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?

thats fair Ill see if I can find it, but I want trying to proove it to you or say you didnt know only saying they already do it so the srgument of "we dont want the internet regulated" is a good one but not 100% solid since its already being done or can be done.

Ill see if I can find stories on it but if i recall correctly if had to do with comcast, some traffic was given priority for weak reasons, the reason were enough i guess law wise but to everybody out side of comcast who was technical and experts it didnt seem to add up. The other thing was comcast and share programs like bearshare, the searches where also being limited.

Ill look for it




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.

well thats good I dont want ANYBODY to do it, and like i said if the bill is done right im fine with it if it just forces comcast and others to treat all similar traffic equal because thats what i want for sure
 
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-

It's worse than that. This is the Internet version of The "Fairness" Doctrine which progressives have been pushing in an attempt to get conversative talk shows and FoxNews off the air. It will allow the government to track your every move on the Internet and see everything you do online and charge you for sites like Facebook, YouTube or Skype. Progressives always come up with cutesy names for their insidious plans. It's not Net Neutrality. It's government invasion of your online privacy. I'm surprised they didn't throw in the word "Democratic" somewhere in the name.
 
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?

I am pretty sure that is not what Obama said. He addressed the need to get information from more than once source.
 
I am pretty sure that is not what Obama said. He addressed the need to get information from more than once source.

How is this the government's role exactly?
 
Back
Top Bottom