FCC Passes Net Neutrality Rules

[T-Bone]

So many ridiculous comments:

"Keep the internet free..." Last I checked, it was never free! As far as I know, everyone pays for their internet access.

"Allows for tired pricing..." Last I checked, it's the status quo! Let's see: you pay more $$ for more speed/density...Oh that's so wrong! Evil corporations!

I wonder who pays for and maintains the internet? I wonder what would happen if they decide to "close shop?"

 

[dogman_1234]

Now all we need to do is tell the Big Guys to set up fiber optic communications so we can have 2 Gbps speed...under 50 buck per month...with phone!

 

[flachet]

Tiered pricing works for me. Everything else in the world is that way. Want a better house, pay more, want a better car, pay more. Want to go on vacation to Hawaii. Guess what? Pay more.

Some people don't need super high speed internet, and some do. I work hard for my money and will be willing to pay for high end internet. If Bob down the street wants it, he can pay for it too. Sounds very reasonable to me.

 

[gm0n3y]

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.

 

[njalterio]

[citation][nom]flachet[/nom]Tiered pricing works for me. Everything else in the world is that way. Want a better house, pay more, want a better car, pay more. Want to go on vacation to Hawaii. Guess what? Pay more. Some people don't need super high speed internet, and some do. I work hard for my money and will be willing to pay for high end internet. If Bob down the street wants it, he can pay for it too. Sounds very reasonable to me.[/citation]

Your clearly do not understand the issue. Of course if you want "better" internet you should pay more - no one will disagree with you on that. The problem with tiered pricing is that not only to paying for a certain level of bandwidth, you would also have to pay for a certain amount of data you download.

In terms of your analogy that would be like spending more for a high end car, and then incurring a charge if you ever drive over 60 mph.

 

[davewolfgang]

One thins I see that nobody here mentioned - that the FCC was told not only by Congress, but by the Courts, that they have NO AUTHORITY to do this.

Is there something they don't "understand" about No Authority???

I guess I can drive 100mph on the freeway now, even though I have no authority to make those rules - since a group of people in D.C. think they can - even AFTER they have been told they can't.

 

[gm0n3y]

[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/jaso [...] 99844.html[/citation]

The points in that article are almost exactly the opposite of what the Toms article says. One of the sites is full of shit. Being a faithful Tom's reader, I'm going to side with them until proven otherwise.

Huffington Post:

Corporate censorship is allowed on your phone: The rules passed today by Obama FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski absurdly create different corporate censorship rules for wired and wireless Internet, allowing big corporations like Comcast to block websites they don't like on your phone -- a clear failure to fulfill Net Neutrality and put you, the consumer, in control of what you can and can't do online.

Toms:

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.

Huffington Post:

Online tollbooths are allowed, destroying innovation: The rules passed today would allow big Internet Service Providers like Verizon and Comcast to charge for access to the "fast lane." Big companies that could afford to pay these fees like Google or Amazon would get their websites delivered to consumers quickly, while independent newspapers, bloggers, innovators, and small businesses would see their sites languish in the slow lane, destroying a level playing field for competition online and clearly violating Net Neutrality.

Toms:

Consumers and innovators have a right to a level playing field. The FCC rules state that no central authority, public or private, should have the power to pick winners and losers on the Internet. This is essentially a ban on unreasonable discrimination.

Huffington Post:

The rules allow corporations to create "public" and "private" Internets, destroying the one Internet as we know it: For the first time, these rules would embrace a "public Internet" for regular people vs. a "private Internet" with all the new innovations for corporations who pay more -- ending the Internet as we know it and creating tiers of free speech and innovation, accessible only if you have pockets deep enough to pay off the corporations.

Toms:

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.

 

[clownbaby]

I think there is some confusion on the tiered pricing issue.

The issue at hand isn't the consumer level access pricing, it's the possible ability of big money corporations to be able to fast track their web business above small business.

That's where the inequality lies, and is the the reason that having the phrase "net neutrality" attached to this is a bullshit lie. The concept of net neutrality is a level playing field for all who use it. What the consumer gets is only one side. Being able to fast track and reach more users because of corporate capital basically amounts to corporate censorship.

Those with the fiscal means to do so can control what you see on the internet. It's bullshit, and it's an intentional loophole in this joke of a regulation.

I would think Tom's would present a more in depth story on this issue considering it's a web based tech site. The clearly partisan slanted blurb presented here shows either ignorance, or favoritism, or both. Not that this is necessarily a partisan issue; there are groups on both sides of the political fence poised to benefit from this.

I encourage you all to read up and gain a firm understanding of this before posting knee-jerk reactions.

 

[jabliese]

Umm, Kevin Parrish, could we get a link to the actual rules passed, as opposed to some politicians spin on it?

 

[davewolfgang]

[citation][nom]clownbaby[/nom]I think there is some confusion on the tiered pricing issue. The issue at hand isn't the consumer level access pricing, it's the possible ability of big money corporations to be able to fast track their web business above small business. That's where the inequality lies, and is the the reason that having the phrase "net neutrality" attached to this is a bullshit lie. The concept of net neutrality is a level playing field for all who use it. What the consumer gets is only one side. Being able to fast track and reach more users because of corporate capital basically amounts to corporate censorship. Those with the fiscal means to do so can control what you see on the internet. It's bullshit, and it's an intentional loophole in this joke of a regulation.I would think Tom's would present a more in depth story on this issue considering it's a web based tech site. The clearly partisan slanted blurb presented here shows either ignorance, or favoritism, or both. Not that this is necessarily a partisan issue; there are groups on both sides of the political fence poised to benefit from this. I encourage you all to read up and gain a firm understanding of this before posting knee-jerk reactions.[/citation]

Exactly - I've been on this thre 3+ years and all the "sound bites" really do sound fair, but it's what they WANT to do behind the scenes that is scary as all git out. #4 there proves it all - they actually are ENCOURAGING what they are "proposing" to stop.

Guess what folks - the internet isn't some "right" that you "deserve" or are "entitled" to.

 

[HolyCrusader]

There's a lot of contradictory information being posted here and other sites. I wonder how many people have actually read the source material and formed their own opinion about it, and not just follow the hype and opinions of others?

I for one haven't yet, but I plan on it. Only then can I form an educated opinion on the subject.

 

[Guest]

erm, the majority of you dont really understand net neutrality do you, the principle behind #4 is deceptive to say the least, at a cursory glance it maybe talking about download speed tier but this is incorrect

what #4 allows is for preferentially prioritization of content, it allows for say comcast to demote hulu bandwidth to a lower content tier, this would mean even though you pay for their top speed, hulu stuff will sux because they operate at a lower content tier, you would probably have to pay comcast an additional fee to access lower tiered content at higher tiered speeds, they are more or less pricing hulu out of the market, i guess hulu could probably pay comcast to promote their content to a higher tier, but then they would have to pass that onto the customer, so they still getting priced out the market

Net neutrality was suppose to prevent service providers from offering preferential treatment for one content over another, rule #4 in effect allows them to stomp all over this premise

 

[davewolfgang]

[citation][nom]ThatIsNotNeutral[/nom]erm, the majority of you dont really understand net neutrality do you, the principle behind #4 is deceptive to say the least, at a cursory glance it maybe talking about download speed tier but this is incorrectwhat #4 allows is for preferentially prioritization of content, it allows for say comcast to demote hulu bandwidth to a lower content tier, this would mean even though you pay for their top speed, hulu stuff will sux because they operate at a lower content tier, you would probably have to pay comcast an additional fee to access lower tiered content at higher tiered speeds, they are more or less pricing hulu out of the market, i guess hulu could probably pay comcast to promote their content to a higher tier, but then they would have to pass that onto the customer, so they still getting priced out the marketNet neutrality was suppose to prevent service providers from offering preferential treatment for one content over another, rule #4 in effect allows them to stomp all over this premise[/citation]

The funny thing is that's what most of the supporters "think" NN was "suppose" to stop.

What a lot of people don't realize is that prioritizing traffic (those packets and bits) on the ISP's backbone is what enables the ISP's to give better service to MORE people at cheaper prices, than if everything were "equal" - then that guy two streets over uploading and downloading GB's of torrents wouldn't slow down the whole subdivision and 10 block area with most people just surfing the web and checking email.

 

[tommysch]

[citation][nom]davewolfgang[/nom]The funny thing is that's what most of the supporters "think" NN was "suppose" to stop. What a lot of people don't realize is that prioritizing traffic (those packets and bits) on the ISP's backbone is what enables the ISP's to give better service to MORE people at cheaper prices, than if everything were "equal" - then that guy two streets over uploading and downloading GB's of torrents wouldn't slow down the whole subdivision and 10 block area with most people just surfing the web and checking email.[/citation]

Not his fault if the ISP is promising something it cannot deliver. If you have a 80GB cap on a 15Mbps connection you should be able to download 80GB non-stop at 15Mbps.

 

[Guest]

@davewolfgang

Point 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 website

the 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

 

[tburns1]

I am not surprised republicans want to block this. Free and equal is not on thier agenda. Seems more of a socialist idea. I bet they like provision 4 though. Kinda undermines the other points.

 

[bonezy]

This is terrible. I'm actually with the two dissenting Repubs on this one. This pretty much makes it so that the FCC now will actually have the authority to oversee the internet, whereas before it had no authority.

Think about it people -- do you like the FCC censoring your radio and TV as they do now?? Why would you cheer for any expanded authority from an already powerful and oppressive communications overseer?

 

[bonezy]

[citation][nom]davewolfgang[/nom]One thins I see that nobody here mentioned - that the FCC was told not only by Congress, but by the Courts, that they have NO AUTHORITY to do this.Is there something they don't "understand" about No Authority???I guess I can drive 100mph on the freeway now, even though I have no authority to make those rules - since a group of people in D.C. think they can - even AFTER they have been told they can't.[/citation]

We're some of the few people that actually get this. The reason that the internet is so free and open at the moment is because there is such little government regulation on it. Why regulate something that doesn't need it?

People give the government these powers, not realizing it's almost impossible to take it back.

 

[Guest]

@tburns1

....... did u just shoot yourself in the foot there

what the hell is wrong with these fanatics, you just said the anti free and equal party was blocking an anti free and equal initiative......

WTF!!!!

 

[flachet]

[citation][nom]njalterio[/nom]Your clearly do not understand the issue. Of course if you want "better" internet you should pay more - no one will disagree with you on that. The problem with tiered pricing is that not only to paying for a certain level of bandwidth, you would also have to pay for a certain amount of data you download. In terms of your analogy that would be like spending more for a high end car, and then incurring a charge if you ever drive over 60 mph.[/citation]

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.