FCC Passes Net Neutrality Rules

[aaron88_7]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]ok tell me, what is bad about this? 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.[/citation]
It adds laws on the books regarding the internet, currently there were none.

ISPs have nothing to gain from censoring things like wikilinks, which is 100% legal despite what some blowheart politicians say on TV. This is more about preventing ISPs from blocking or slowing down content, such as slowing down your high definition video steams on youtube unless you subscribe to some stupid "HD access" plan.

 

[aaron88_7]

Wait, maybe I'm still confused, lol...it appears #4 is exactly what I thought this bill prevented. Anybody care to explain?

 

[husker]

These rules are a Trojan Horse. Looks nice at first but it's a trap.

 

[ohseus]

As opposed to reading some BS announcement read the actual items the FCC is voting on. They are basically handing the government the right to control the internet. The whole "net neutrality" meme is simply a shiny facade on more intrusion.

Someone explain how it is the FCC is empowered to oversee the internet anyway.

 

[elbert]

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.

So this means back bone providers can sale to the highest bidder? Small ISP's bidding on bandwidth are destroyed having to go against google and such. So as others have said we will be throttled or pay a higher price.

 

[ahnilated]

I am curious why everyone keeps saying the USA is a Democracy when it NEVER was supposed to be one. It was ALWAYS supposed to be a Constitutional republic. People need to learn their history.

 

[Grizely1]

Did anyone here ever think... WHO DEFINES THE TERM "LAWFUL" ? Yep, lets let some more political bureaucrats decide these things for you, instead of yourselves.

You people are sick, cheer and cheer as your freedoms go down the drain. Have fun

 

[kkiddu]

Not that it affects Indians, but a pleasant move by the world's most influential country [ yet ]

 

[Hupiscratch]

The rules thus prohibits the block of lawful content, apps, services and the connection of devices to the network.

5. The principle of Internet openness applies to mobile broadband.

Does this institute tethering?

 

[TomsSound]

I'm curious if this will somehow change things for google tv. Right now many of the major broadcast companies are blocking google tv. Not sure if this would be in the same realm of discussion.

 

[scook9]

My main take away from this is maybe some day I can do wifi tethering legally on my Droid Incredible without having to pay verizon......

 

[Flynn_Serlant]

[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]Ye but only with regards to network congestion. It probably just means they can do QoS to prioritise voip and other latency sensitive things.[/citation]

It's possible that is the intention of item 4, but it's far more likely that the ISPs will use this as the loophole that it is, rather than behave as they are expected.

I'd argue that anytime a corporation is presented with the options A) Act in the intention of regulations and behave in a manner which is beneficial to the public, versus B) Act in such a way which, while still within the bounds of the regulation, increase the corporation's sphere of influence, profit, property, or control, corporations will almost always go with option B.

 

[wiyosaya]

The worry with this is that it may be short lived. With republicans against it as too much government regulation, it just may be blocked.

Some day, republican voters will realize just what they are getting when the vote republican, especially when content is blocked on the devices of their choice just because some company does not like the competition.

IMHO, it is a shame. The US was moving in the direction of respecting freedom, however, republicans think that giving more freedoms to companies and individuals is the same as giving them the wisdom to use that freedom in ways that benefit all. Call me skeptical, but many out there will do something because they can.

 

[tommysch]

[citation][nom]digiex[/nom]US of A is always the champion of democracy and freedom. I hope it stays that way.[/citation]

Was that meant as a joke?

 

[K2N hater]

[citation][nom]VicVicVic[/nom]Surprised by the comments here. "Big Tele," including AT&T lobbysists, are incredibly happy with what the FCC did. The net neutrality rules are horrible for the general public. For more information, check out http/www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-rosenbaum/breaking-fcc-breaks-obama_b_799844.html[/citation]
Very relevant criticism.
Thus laws could restrict internet content even more (see UK's intention to restrict porn access) without conflicting with these rules. Say bye bye to wikileaks even when they're hosted in other countries and say hello to future sanctions if you bypass the block.

 

[Guest]

Seriously people? rule 4 basically just honors what is already in place. There already IS tiered pricing or don't you realize there are different connection speeds at different rates? Thats what rule 4 is, it has nothing to do with the content but with the CONNECTION.

 

[clownbaby]

WOW, if you think this is a win for the little guy, the wool has been pulled over your eyes. This not a set of usership rights. This is a set of guidelines for the FCC to regulate and CENSOR the internet. It also gives them permission to come after anyone they can that they don't feel is abiding by their 6 commandments.

It's worded in a way to make you feel good, but the fact is, this is a piece of legislations lobbied by Hollywood and the music industry to keep their greedy pockets filled, and backed by the democratic party as a mouthwatering piece of extra governmental control.

The most important part of capitalism is a minimally controlled market so the most open and effective processes can evolve. Things get fucked up when people start interjecting their "ideas" of how things should be that are generally riddled with emotion and self serving motives.

 

[konjiki7]

[citation][nom]scook9[/nom]My main take away from this is maybe some day I can do wifi tethering legally on my Droid Incredible without having to pay verizon......[/citation]
Never going to happen ... Rule 4 mainly for the greedy telecoms companies that are raping consumers.

Raping consumers with ridiculous wireless charges is now federal approved....

 

[Thor]

Politician are just bastards working for billionnaire and trillionnaire.
And of course they want to censored all Internet. The ONLY media who stay free (for the moment).

 

[jimslaid2]

one thing about this is, comcast played a part in getting this passed. Comcast does not like netflix, or hulu. Comcast has strong ties to the Democratic party and it shows.