FCC Passes Net Neutrality Rules

[K2N hater]

[citation][nom]ThatsNotNeutral2[/nom]@davewolfgangPoint well made, and i have nothing against packet prioritization, it's content prioritization that im against, in particular prioritizing traffic to one site over another because an agreement may have been made between the service provider and the websitethe internet allowed for small upstarts to come close to a level playing field with your mega corp, this would more or less kill the small upstarts and favor those with big pockets[/citation]
The TCP protocol has a bit for priority in header but that was never really implemented so routers ignore it. The only way to prioritize traffic is to open the packet and see where it goes and which port it uses which if fact violates the privacy of the contents of the packets. Having said that the content prioritization has been there for a while even though it was considered an abuse. Rather than making the average user browse the internet faster or lowering prices that allows the companies to allocate more and more users per link, raising their profits. But the threat is that it will allow certain routes to have their bandwidth limited from the client side, being an alternative to censorship. After all, think about a wikileaks mirror site that is having their client-side bandwidth reduced to 100Kbps and then how many clients will be unable to read a thing even after half an hour with page loading.

 

[njalterio]

[citation][nom]flachet[/nom]But I already do. My faster car uses more expensive tires and burns more fuel. My bigger house costs more to power and costs more to insure. Once again, none of this is new to us as consumers, just new to us for internet usage. Tiered pricing will let us pay for what we use and foster some decent competition in regards to pricing/service/speed.[/citation]

Now you are just equivocating. You are now talking about indirect costs, which is not what we were discussing. The issue is paying for the same service twice by two different metrics - not the indirect costs incurred.

 

[K2N hater]

[citation][nom]sykozis[/nom]Lawful content, means content that isn't stolen.[/citation]
Please only comment on subjects you understand.

 

[zenmaster]

[citation][nom]gm0n3y[/nom]To me, #4 basically mean that they're allowed to charge different prices for different speeds. I think that #3 protects us from ISPs charging different rates for different content. The part that worries me is that they can use the 'congestion' issue to throttle torrents, etc.As for #2 (lawful content), there had better be large fines for infractions here or ISPs will just start throttling all torrents saying that they are illegal.[/citation]

I have a home office and pay for the fastest available internet in my area.
My parents lightly use the internet and have one of the least expensive plans.
This makes perfect sense.

 

[flachet]

[citation][nom]Anonymous[/nom]The ignorance of the general population is mind boggling. Do you all not realize that this is the first stage of governmental control of the Internet? These plans ALWAYS sound good at first. They ALWAYS are designed to protect you. They are like vampires, once you invite them in its game over. Why do you think pedophiles lure children with candy and puppies? Please people for the love of God think for once in your lives! Even if everyone in the government had nothing but love in their hearts and were looking out for you do you really think it will be so forever? Try to think of one thing the government does well and efficiently. Exactly. Nothing.[/citation]

You are mistaken if you think the government isn't already in complete control.

 

[jabliese]

Yet another take bashing these rules:

http/www.infoworld.com/t/regulation/fccs-net-neutrality-order-will-castrate-the-internet-966?source=IFWNLE_nlt_blogs_2010-12-22

Would any of you Republican bashers care to explain how the Huffington Post and Republicans ended up on the same side of this?

 

[bgaimur]

[citation][nom]flynn_serlant[/nom]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.[/citation]

The issue isn't the fact that regulators didn't place specific restrictions in section 4, essentially leaving it open to abuse; the problem here is that we allow corporations to exist as super citizens with rights beyond those of your average citizen. That's why corporations will continue to neglect the needs of people and abuse the societies that place power in their hands in the first place. All of the power with none of the responsibility makes people tend to act with only one thing in consideration: the bottom line.

 

[Guest]

For what it's worth - I am currently confined to a long term care facility (i.e. nursing home). My only real contact to the outside world is via the internet. I shop, check on both local and international news, take online college credit, and watch streaming of sports action. I have at many times been blocked by our wi-fi network. This could be as simple as checking to see who the betting favorites are on a NCAA basketball game. No sites containing porn, felonious crimes, etc.

I mentioned this new law to our administrator the comment received was "if you don't like it we will disable the network for everybody". Nice comment to an open concept

 

[WarraWarra]

[citation][nom]annymmo[/nom]This is a great step forward.It's good to see rules that should be there.WTF is rule 4 doing there!?![/citation]

WTF as in "Wikileaks Task Force" setup by the CIA ?
Just google it if not banned on google then use yahoo / other less blocked search engines to get the answer.

 

[WarraWarra]

Damn so the FCC gave full blessing to any ape "ISP" to do what they have been doing for ages + the ISP's can now go ape and add more problems for end users.

Does this just apply to what data enters the USA borders or is this the connection from say UK heading to USA ie: what is outside USA in the ocean so CUBA data from UK will be FCC'd as well as it gets close within 400 miles of the USA ?

Same goes for 400 miles rule meaning Hermosillo Mexico, Montreal CA, Bahamas , Bermuda, several Islands in the Caribbean will be FCC'd as well ?