[citation][nom]digiex[/nom]US of A is always the champion of democracy and freedom. I hope it stays that way.[/citation]
ehh? you've overlooked the last 200 years of history me thinks ... obama's the only time in modern history where the country's been respectable and democracy still keeps being masacred in cali every day.
5. The principle of Internet openness applies to mobile broadband. This means that there is only one Internet, and it must remain an open platform despite the device used for access. Mobile broadband providers are thus required to remain transparent and are prohibited from blocking websites or blocking certain applications provided by competitors.
So surely this means apple have to cave into flash?
[citation][nom]hypercondor[/nom]5. The principle of Internet openness applies to mobile broadband. This means that there is only one Internet, and it must remain an open platform despite the device used for access. Mobile broadband providers are thus required to remain transparent and are prohibited from blocking websites or blocking certain applications provided by competitors.So surely this means apple have to cave into flash?[/citation]
No it just means that the service provider isn't allowed to block flash. The rotting Apple can however choose not to support flash.
it adds nothing that they didnt already have, and all i can see is good for consumers.
they say lawfull content, are you thinking that things like wiki leaks will be banned than? really i want to know because this is something that conspryacy people openly rant about, but their cases are all what if.
This is bad entirely because of point 4 which totally negates all the good done by enshrining the rest of the rights.
By allowing ISP's and telecomms companies to dictate Tiered usage and access will create a seperated web of haves and have nots, for example AT&T can say on "basic" tier you get 512k connection for $5 a month so no chance of reasonably viewing youtube and for the "premium tier 20mb connection at only $20 pcm!!
the end of the free internet is here mark the date on your calenders folks 21/12/2010
[citation][nom]ethaniel[/nom]Great news, but as far as I can see it, rule 4 technically authorizes throttling. Hmmm...[/citation]
Ye but only with regards to network congestion. It probably just means they can do QoS to prioritise voip and other latency sensitive things.
And here i was wondering if i was the only one who saw the rule allowing telecom companies to regulate/throttle etc. I agree with RIP, with these FCC rules companies are going to go apeshit with their pricing and models and its going to make Australia's internet companies look lke gods.
4. Broadband providers need meaningful flexibility to manage their networks to deal with congestion, security and other issues. The section also honors the business practice of tiered pricing.
This gives ISP's the right to block, throttle or charge you more to access certain sites. It also allows them to charge websites for access to high speed connections, even when they are not on their service. this one little rule in the middle of all the others DESTROYS net neutrality and removes any restrictions on ISP's to manage, censor or manipulate their service. It is happening now in the USA, soon your net will be the same as China's. The UK is following suit as will all other so called free societies
Yeah, I smelled some bias on this story. First off, all politicians are corrupt no matter what side of the aisle. That said, no politician would declare war on a bill like described in this article for such a meaningless reason as "Unnecessary regulation" if the bill were as good as this article makes it seem. They'd appear stupid and their re-elections would be threatened. Tea party demands can only be taken so far at this point.
Secondly, the fact that the reason stated is so bland and vague it makes me think that there was something else at work here, and this is all from the first few paragraphs.
Also, a newsletter I receive advocating video game rights, typically a liberal domain given the gratuitous violence and occasional sexual themes in video game conflicting with traditional conservative values, cried foul at this ruling which puts people on both sides arguing against it. Which, consequently, is completely different from how this article portrayed it with Dems in favor and Repubs against, split right down the aisle.
Finally, we get to part four with the tiered pricing. This bites consumers in rather sensitive places: their wallets.
Honestly, net neutrality seems like a great idea but this does not accomplish what everyone said it was out to.