Net Neutrality Bill

[Vypernight]

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/02/26/regulators-approve-tougher-rules-for-internet-providers/21147155/?icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D619617

If I read this correctly, it basically reads that under this bill, providers cannot screw over customers anymore (I don't get how that works though).  However, there's a chance, come October, that internet costs could be taxed. 

So do you think this bill is a good thing?  I read people saying it's a step closer to censorship, but I don't see how that would work.

[ironbite]

It's not a bill.  The FCC has reclassified internet as a utility rather then a commodity that it has been.  Now the providers are gearing up to pressure their employees in the House and Senate to pass laws making it a commodity or  such.  But for now, this is a huuuuuuuge victory for us.

Ironbite-NET NEUTRALITY DAMN IT!

[Random Gal]

Meh. I've seen people flipping their shit over "SAVE TEH INTERNETS!!!" for about 10 years now about some new policy or bill that is days away from a deadline. And naturally none of these horrible consequences ever happen.

Net Neutrality is basically the new End of Days.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Meh. I've seen people flipping their shit over "SAVE TEH INTERNETS!!!" for about 10 years now about some new policy or bill that is days away from a deadline. And naturally none of these horrible consequences ever happen.

Net Neutrality is basically the new End of Days.

Still, it never hurts to be alert.

[Ironchew]

And naturally none of these horrible consequences ever happen.

You must not be paying attention. IPv4 address exhaustion is hitting us hard, as anyone who's tried to reserve a range of static IP addresses can attest. It's a case of artificial scarcity but ISPs have an incentive to extract profits with the current setup rather than make the switch to IPv6.

SOPA would have been bad, but the momentum behind it was defeated just in time and it didn't pass. Also there are the several documented cases of content providers/ISPs playing favorites with their in-house content and slowing down everyone else's traffic.

[Vypernight]

So could the rumors of censorship laws over the internet and taxes be true?  Do the benefits of this outweigh the possible problems?

[mellenORL]

The only opportunity lost was for the huge cable companies and other ISP's to charge tiered rates against the content providers, putting firms like Netflix in a jam. Your local broadband provider would rather you watch their streamed shit over your "cable TV" - which is all the same digital coded shit as your "broadband internet connection" coming through the same fucking coaxial cable or fibreoptic comm line. Any rate increases from your broadband provider are just sour grapes bitch slapping, not taxes or the government. The disinformation campaigns these fuckers stirred up was just amazingly effective.

[Sigmaleph]

The only opportunity lost was for the huge cable companies and other ISP's to charge tiered rates against the content providers, putting firms like Netflix in a jam.

I'm not sure that's true?

That is the canonical example of the abuses we want net neutrality to prevent, sure. That's not the same as saying that it's the only possible thing affected by net neutrality.

E.g. there was some talk recently about whether Wikipedia Zero would be affected by the current FCC rules, since technically that it's differentiation of rates based on content (Wikipedia Zero is a program where carriers agree to give zero-rate access to Wikipedia). As far as I know net neutrality as implemented right now does not prevent such programs, which is great. But it does mean I'm not confident I know all the possible things that could conceivably be affected by this.


Also, libertarians are giving nasty looks at it on the basis that it's regulation of the internet, but then giving nasty looks to things that seem like regulation is the libertarians' job.

[KZN02]

Looks like Verizon has responded ... in morse code.

[Cloud3514]

$20 says that Comcast and Time Warner are absolutely FURIOUS over this.

[mellenORL]

Actually, the broadband companies are thrilled. Their disinformation campaign created a no-lose/win-win scenario for them. They are raising rates because the duped public expected rate raises from net neutrality winning; "Them librul gov'mint commies gonna tax da companies and dey pass it to us!" "Duh companies are starvin' - bandwidth gotta be pay-rated! We loozin' jerbs!" You've all seen the idiot political cartoons, and maybe some other parts of the hype if you can stomach watching Fox News.


My broadband provider - Brighthouse Networks - just yesterday sent a boiler plate policy and pricing PDF...everything is going up about 10% starting in March. Coinky-dink? Nope, I don't buy that. But the average customer is going to blame that rate raise squarely on the FCC and net neutrality. Net neutrality gets besmirched no matter what, because these corporations know exactly how ill informed and naïve the general public are, since they make lots of extra money off of that naiveté every day. 

Bandwidth throttling has apparently been documented, as mentioned in the article and elsewhere for years. I sincerely believe I've experienced it in the past when I had Comcast, with Netflix HD streaming being a fucking nightmare of interruptions, and signal degradation down to SD on a regular basis, even though I paid extra for higher bandwidth. These broadband companies get very low consumer ratings for all kinds of reasons, and I don't see why that they would refrain from screwing with content providers just as they do with subscribers. If throttling can generate enough frustration, I think they assume people will drop things like Netflix and look to their cable TV pay-per-view or cable company website steaming instead. Their persistence in trying to sell astoundingly overpriced VoIP home phone service is telling, too; these companies are avaricious and contemptuous of their under-informed customers, happily fleecing them at every chance into paying out the nose for shit that costs the companies next to nothing.

[Vypernight]

Actually, the broadband companies are thrilled. Their disinformation campaign created a no-lose/win-win scenario for them. They are raising rates because the duped public expected rate raises from net neutrality winning; "Them librul gov'mint commies gonna tax da companies and dey pass it to us!" "Duh companies are starvin' - bandwidth gotta be pay-rated! We loozin' jerbs!" You've all seen the idiot political cartoons, and maybe some other parts of the hype if you can stomach watching Fox News.


My broadband provider - Brighthouse Networks - just yesterday sent a boiler plate policy and pricing PDF...everything is going up about 10% starting in March. Coinky-dink? Nope, I don't buy that. But the average customer is going to blame that rate raise squarely on the FCC and net neutrality. Net neutrality gets besmirched no matter what, because these corporations know exactly how ill informed and naïve the general public are, since they make lots of extra money off of that naiveté every day. 

Bandwidth throttling has apparently been documented, as mentioned in the article and elsewhere for years. I sincerely believe I've experienced it in the past when I had Comcast, with Netflix HD streaming being a fucking nightmare of interruptions, and signal degradation down to SD on a regular basis, even though I paid extra for higher bandwidth. These broadband companies get very low consumer ratings for all kinds of reasons, and I don't see why that they would refrain from screwing with content providers just as they do with subscribers. If throttling can generate enough frustration, I think they assume people will drop things like Netflix and look to their cable TV pay-per-view or cable company website steaming instead. Their persistence in trying to sell astoundingly overpriced VoIP home phone service is telling, too; these companies are avaricious and contemptuous of their under-informed customers, happily fleecing them at every chance into paying out the nose for shit that costs the companies next to nothing.

Sounds like what the health care companies in FL have been doing.  Since a lot of rules in place by the ACA are optional in FL, a number have raised their rates and blamed it on Obamacare.  My friend lost his insurance for this reason, can't get another he can afford, and can't get Medicaid because the Medicaid rule is one of those made optional here.

But of course, as long as the GOP keeps dishing out religious B.S. and labels, people will continue to vote for them