F.C.C. New Proposed "Net Neutrality" Rules

[dangue]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/t....html?emc=edit_na_20140423&nlid=62430113&_r=0

Someone just got paid under the table to allow ISPs to hold content providers and their subscribers hostage. Absolutely ridiculous.

 

[mike123abc]

Sounds like Netflix will start to have to have regular price increases to pay rising internet connection fees...

 

[Tampa8]

Worse than you may even think. Nothing would stop them from charging anyone they want, using bandwidth wouldn't be a factor necessarily.

 

[Yespage]

So riddle me this... what in the heck am I paying for? I pay for up to 15 Mbps. But then they tank the download speed capability of the service I want to use. How in the heck is that even remotely legal?

 

[Stargazer]

May make for more competition of services that would not have such restrictions as an advantage. I guess this would not bode well for Dish's new IP service they want to launch as well or for those that want to do Roku or go online and view the content on demand.

 

[Huntr]

This is very bad and I am wondering just exactly what the president meant when he said he would work to ensure net neutrality. Internet service acts a lot like a utility at this point, regardless of whether the ISPs want it to be or not.

The New Yorker has piece today on Mr. Obama's previously stated stance and his flip flop of position. I don't generally like discussing politics on message boards, but this is relevant, IMO.

In 2007, at a public forum at Coe College, in Iowa, Presidential candidate Barack Obama was asked about net neutrality. Specifically, “Would you make it a priority in your first year of office to reinstate net neutrality as the law of the land? And would you pledge to only appoint F.C.C. commissioners that support open Internet principles like net neutrality?”
“The answer is yes,” Obama replied. “I am a strong supporter of net neutrality.” Explaining, he said, “What you’ve been seeing is some lobbying that says that the servers and the various portals through which you’re getting information over the Internet should be able to be gatekeepers and to charge different rates to different Web sites…. And that I think destroys one of the best things about the Internet—which is that there is this incredible equality there.”

 

[Yespage]

May make for more competition of services that would not have such restrictions as an advantage. I guess this would not bode well for Dish's new IP service they want to launch as well or for those that want to do Roku or go online and view the content on demand.

Dish's IP service only works if they provide the IP as well.

This is very bad and I am wondering just exactly what the president meant when he said he would work to ensure net neutrality. Internet service acts a lot like a utility at this point, regardless of whether the ISPs want it to be or not.

The New Yorker has piece today on Mr. Obama's previously stated stance and his flip flop of position. I don't generally like discussing politics on message boards, but this is relevant, IMO.

There are a couple realities.
1) the FCC did originally try to enforce net neutrality
2) the Supreme Court said it overstepped its regulatory power
3) Obama couldn't get the House to vote "yes" on a bill that would name the White House after Reagan, forget a bill to support net neutrality
4) Your quote is from the original Obama, not the Pod Replacement Obama that has been in office since January '09[/political commentary]

 

[Tampa8]

This is why political talk is not allowed...........

 

[Voyager6]

Congress can enable the FCC to issue a net neutrality regulation. The FCC can also decide to regulate ISP's as utilities and then enforce net neutrality. Most would prefer the former rather than the latter. What has happened to Netflix is a prime example as to why a net neutrality regulation is needed. Several of the largest ISP's could literally bring streaming of data over the internet to a crawl unless they get paid more.

 

[TheKrell]

This sucks. Very badly. We are being fleeced by ISPs and nobody is standing up for us. Wheeler is a stooge. Now we know why Ken Bode calls this "regulatory capture" (regarding the FCC).

 

[Yespage]

This is why political talk is not allowed...........

That's the problem here though, it is a political issue. Some things are relative and subject to judgment, others are black and white. I tried to stick with the later as I know Scott tries to keep the forum free of the derails.

This sucks. Very badly. We are being fleeced by ISPs and nobody is standing up for us. Wheeler is a stooge. Now we know why Ken Bode calls this "regulatory capture" (regarding the FCC).

What I don't get is that I pay for a certain stream rate. I guess I'd need to check the contract (I never signed a contract, though) and see whether it gives the provider the right to throttle services I try to download.

 

[mike123abc]

So riddle me this... what in the heck am I paying for? I pay for up to 15 Mbps. But then they tank the download speed capability of the service I want to use. How in the heck is that even remotely legal?

That is the problem. ISPs got in trouble for advertising speeds that were not there before. Now you can get that speed at your house, but it is now constrained instead at the other end of the connection.

 

[Voyager6]

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304518704579519963416350296

WASHINGTON—Regulators are proposing new rules on Internet traffic that would allow broadband providers to charge companies a premium for access to their fastest lanes.

The Federal Communications Commission plans to put forth its rules on Thursday. The proposal marks the FCC's third attempt at enforcing "net neutrality"—the concept that all Internet traffic should be treated equally.
Developed by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, the proposal is an effort to prevent broadband Internet providers such as Comcast Corp. , Verizon Communications Inc., and Time Warner Cable TWC from blocking or slowing down individual websites served up to the consumer. The idea is that consumers should be able to access whatever content they choose, not the content chosen by the broadband provider.

But it would also allow providers to give preferential treatment to traffic from some content providers, as long as such arrangements are available on "commercially reasonable" terms for all interested content companies. Whether the terms are commercially reasonable would be decided by the FCC on a case-by-case basis.

 

[dfergie]

FCC Chairman Circulates Net Neutrality Proposal Barring “Commercially Unreasonable” Practices

Wheeler hopes to “conclude this proceeding and have enforceable rules by the end of the year.” The plan he will begin to circulate will look at net neutrality violations on a case-by-case basis, an adjustment needed to meet the objections that the D.C. Court of Appeals raised in January when it remanded the FCC’s previous net neutrality rules. But he vigorously objects to the “great deal of misinformation” that characterized his proposal as an effort to gut the principle of open Internet by allowing companies to pay for speedier service. His plan “would establish that behavior harmful to consumers or competition by limiting the openness of the Internet will not be permitted,” he says.

deadline.com

 

[riffjim4069]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/t....html?emc=edit_na_20140423&nlid=62430113&_r=0

Someone just got paid under the table to allow ISPs to hold content providers and their subscribers hostage. Absolutely ridiculous.

As a businessman, shareholder and cable customer...I could not disagree more. It is long past time that freeloaders like Netflix (and Joe Blow who is streaming video 24x7) start paying for their share of bandwidth they're using. I commend the FCC for taking action that is in the best interest of consumers.

 

[dfergie]

The FCC is taking action to line the pockets of whoever pays them, remember Wheeler was a "Cable Guy" ...

 

[jayn_j]

As a businessman, shareholder and cable customer...I could not disagree more. It is long past time that freeloaders like Netflix (and Joe Blow who is streaming video 24x7) start paying for their share of bandwidth they're using. I commend the FCC for taking action that is in the best interest of consumers.

I'm beginning to think your business is cable operator.

Nobody said that folks shouldn't pay for data, nor that it shouldn't be metered. What this is going to do is provide a benefit to broadband providers to create or promote their own high bandwidth applications at a lower cost while charging a premium to their competitors. Especially beneficial to companies such as Comcast who provide both internet and programming services and discriminatory to Netflix and Amazon who don't

 

[TheKrell]

As a businessman, shareholder and cable customer...I could not disagree more. It is long past time that freeloaders like Netflix (and Joe Blow who is streaming video 24x7) start paying for their share of bandwidth they're using. I commend the FCC for taking action that is in the best interest of consumers.

Is this a bad joke?

 

[dangue]

Is this a bad joke?

Based on the wonky face at the end, I'm not going to take the statement seriously.

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[mike123abc]

The cable industry know cable TV is going to eventually die, so this is just a new way to get back all that revenue.