It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionSo what just happened with the FCC Net Neutrality issue today? (please read OP)(51 posts)(51 posts)
(51 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Posted February 27, 2015
I am not posting a link to any specific website about this because I know that some of you are gonna criticize the article for being biased and had no idea what really just happened. But basically all I know from the articles is that congress voted against the whole "fast lanes" proposal from the FCC, but of course there is more things going on like the government introdducing a 300+ page manuscript/book whatever regarding this issue with people regarding as a series of regulations for the internet.

I apoligize if this is wrong and you know what I change my mind I am gonna post a bunch of websites talking about this and try to get out a general consensus:

http://www.pcgamer.com/fcc-approves-net-neutrality-everyone-rejoices/

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.871369-FCC-Votes-Approves-Net-Neutrality-Rules-For-Broadband

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-vote-internet-utility.html

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/26/net-neutrality-fcc-vote-new-rules-future-of-broadband

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/26/fcc-net-neutrality-ruling_n_6761174.html
Post edited February 27, 2015 by Elmofongo
Posted February 27, 2015
From what I understand from it, based upon a Dutch tech news site, the FCC basically classified providers as utility companies. That brings different regulations to it, which results in net neutrality becoming a reality in the US.
Providers are pissed of as this means they can't discriminate competitive services like netflix or youtube anymore or demand money from them for guaranteed speeds etc.
For instance Verizon drastically reduced the bandwith for Netflix on it's network resulting in customers canceling their Netflix subscription. Netflix saw no other option than to pay Verizon for a guaranteed bandwith. Those practices are now deemed illegal.
The same goes for mobile providers if I understand correctly. For instance blocking whatsapp in favor of their own messing service is no longer allowed.
In short, providers are now forced to treat all traffic and all parties using their network equally.

Providers now claim the consumer will be forced to pay more as a result of this, that they can't invest in their networks, etc.
Most if not all of the complaints from providers are void. theverge.com has a good article about it.
Some of the so called complaints from providers are void as judges already ruled in favor of the FCC on those subjects.

Providers are now forced to go back to their basics and provide good internet access for their customers.
IMHO and coming from a country that has net neutrality by law, this is a very good point. No discrimination when it comes to how we consumers want to use the internet and consume multimedia is good for us as consumers.

We've had the same arguments here from some providers, none of them came true.
Post edited February 27, 2015 by HertogJan
Posted February 27, 2015
avatar
HertogJan: From what I understand from it, based upon a Dutch tech news site, the FCC basically classified providers as utility companies. That brings different regulations to it, which results in net neutrality becoming a reality in the US.
Providers are pissed of as this means they can't discriminate competitive services like netflix or youtube anymore or demand money from them for guaranteed speeds etc.
For instance Verizon drastically reduced the bandwith for Netflix on it's network resulting in customers canceling their Netflix subscription. Netflix saw no other option than to pay Verizon for a guaranteed bandwith. Those practices are now deemed illegal.
The same goes for mobile providers if I understand correctly. For instance blocking whatsapp in favor of their own messing service is no longer allowed.
In short, providers are now forced to treat all traffic and all parties using their network equally.

Providers now claim the consumer will be forced to pay more as a result of this, that they can't invest in their networks, etc.
Most if not all of the complaints from providers are void. theverge.com has a good article about it.
Some of the so called complaints from providers are void as judges already ruled in favor of the FCC on those subjects.

Providers are now forced to go back to their basics and provide good internet access for their customers.
IMHO and coming from a country that has net neutrality by law, this is a very good point. No discrimination when it comes to how we consumers want to use the internet and consume multimedia is good for us as consumers.

We've had the same arguments here from some providers, none of them came true.
Basically another SOPA like bullshit is no longer a threat....for now?
Posted February 27, 2015
avatar
HertogJan: From what I understand from it, based upon a Dutch tech news site, the FCC basically classified providers as utility companies. That brings different regulations to it, which results in net neutrality becoming a reality in the US.
Providers are pissed of as this means they can't discriminate competitive services like netflix or youtube anymore or demand money from them for guaranteed speeds etc.
For instance Verizon drastically reduced the bandwith for Netflix on it's network resulting in customers canceling their Netflix subscription. Netflix saw no other option than to pay Verizon for a guaranteed bandwith. Those practices are now deemed illegal.
The same goes for mobile providers if I understand correctly. For instance blocking whatsapp in favor of their own messing service is no longer allowed.
In short, providers are now forced to treat all traffic and all parties using their network equally.

Providers now claim the consumer will be forced to pay more as a result of this, that they can't invest in their networks, etc.
Most if not all of the complaints from providers are void. theverge.com has a good article about it.
Some of the so called complaints from providers are void as judges already ruled in favor of the FCC on those subjects.

Providers are now forced to go back to their basics and provide good internet access for their customers.
IMHO and coming from a country that has net neutrality by law, this is a very good point. No discrimination when it comes to how we consumers want to use the internet and consume multimedia is good for us as consumers.

We've had the same arguments here from some providers, none of them came true.
avatar
Elmofongo: Basically another SOPA like bullshit is no longer a threat....for now?
Yep they'll probably try and try until they get it.
Posted February 27, 2015
avatar
HertogJan: Providers are now forced to go back to their basics and provide good internet access for their customers.
IMHO and coming from a country that has net neutrality by law, this is a very good point. No discrimination when it comes to how we consumers want to use the internet and consume multimedia is good for us as consumers.
For the sake of argument, I understand what this mean to let's say Netflix as a service and Verizon as a ISP but how does this affect the customers regarding prices since prices were the actual issue here (Verizon basically demanded more pay from Netflix). If it doesn't it seems to be a cover for company wars that doesn't really affect customers directly and merely use the whole "discrimination" thing to make it look like customers will want this.

Also, in the verge report they mentioned that changing to Title 2 means subject to very strong regulations. In a long term scenario that may actually be worse. Less discrimination in the market yes but more from the state.
Post edited February 27, 2015 by Nirth
Posted February 27, 2015
avatar
Elmofongo: Basically another SOPA like bullshit is no longer a threat....for now?
SOPA is something different. That was initiated by a US representative and support by media companies. It would add a whole bunch of laws for copyright protection. It could lead to payment processors and advertising networks being forced to stop doing business with sites, search engines to stop showing search results for sites, etc. It could even lead to the blocking of an entire domain because 1 page on that domain contains something infringing.
avatar
Nirth: For the sake of argument, I understand what this mean to let's say Netflix as a service and Verizon as a ISP but how does this affect the customers regarding prices since prices were the actual issue here (Verizon basically demanded more pay from Netflix). If it doesn't it seems to be a cover for company wars that doesn't really affect customers directly and merely use the whole "discrimination" thing to make it look like customers will want this.

Also, in the verge report they mentioned that changing to Title 2 means subject to very strong regulations. In a long term scenario that may actually be worse. Less discrimination in the market yes but more from the state.
Verizon managed to get money from Netflix. Others providers started to do the same. That's not possible now. It means the only source of income for providers is their customer base. Make them unhappy, they'll move to the competition. That's assuming there's competition with an equal service available. Not sure how that is in the US. Here in The Netherlands we have a large choice in providers, though some share networks. Due to the net neutrality law, the provider which owns the network can't suddently reduce the bandwith of the other providers on the network. More competition usually means the customer wins.

Utility services are subjected by strict regulation. Both in the US and in other countries. Look at Europe, not that long ago most utility companies in Western Europe were state owned. There's still strong regulation. For instance here in The Netherlands gas companies aren't allowed to disconnect customers who are behind with their payments when it's freezing. Strict regulation isn't always a bad thing.
Posted February 27, 2015
avatar
HertogJan: Verizon managed to get money from Netflix. Others providers started to do the same. That's not possible now. It means the only source of income for providers is their customer base. Make them unhappy, they'll move to the competition. That's assuming there's competition with an equal service available. Not sure how that is in the US. Here in The Netherlands we have a large choice in providers, though some share networks. Due to the net neutrality law, the provider which owns the network can't suddently reduce the bandwith of the other providers on the network. More competition usually means the customer wins.

Utility services are subjected by strict regulation. Both in the US and in other countries. Look at Europe, not that long ago most utility companies in Western Europe were state owned. There's still strong regulation. For instance here in The Netherlands gas companies aren't allowed to disconnect customers who are behind with their payments when it's freezing. Strict regulation isn't always a bad thing.
Most places in the US have only 1 ISP. I've lived in places with 2, but those are rare.

ISPs have long-standing gentlemens' agreements about where they'll go. It's to avoid competition, much like how book publishers in the US used to collaborate on when to release bestsellers. The DOJ lawsuit stopped book publishers from doing it, and it looks like the FCC is taking a stand against this also.

Previously, some states had stopped cities from setting up municipal broadband internet. The FCC has given those cities the go-ahead.

The proposed merger between Comcast and Time Warner Cable is also being held up, which is a thumb in the eye of those companies and very good for consumers. They're some of the most hated companies in America, with terrible customer service and high prices. If they merge, it will be an effective monopoly for most of the country.
Posted February 28, 2015
avatar
HertogJan: Verizon managed to get money from Netflix. Others providers started to do the same. That's not possible now. It means the only source of income for providers is their customer base. Make them unhappy, they'll move to the competition. That's assuming there's competition with an equal service available. Not sure how that is in the US. Here in The Netherlands we have a large choice in providers, though some share networks. Due to the net neutrality law, the provider which owns the network can't suddently reduce the bandwith of the other providers on the network. More competition usually means the customer wins.

Utility services are subjected by strict regulation. Both in the US and in other countries. Look at Europe, not that long ago most utility companies in Western Europe were state owned. There's still strong regulation. For instance here in The Netherlands gas companies aren't allowed to disconnect customers who are behind with their payments when it's freezing. Strict regulation isn't always a bad thing.
avatar
Gilozard: Most places in the US have only 1 ISP. I've lived in places with 2, but those are rare.

ISPs have long-standing gentlemens' agreements about where they'll go. It's to avoid competition, much like how book publishers in the US used to collaborate on when to release bestsellers. The DOJ lawsuit stopped book publishers from doing it, and it looks like the FCC is taking a stand against this also.

Previously, some states had stopped cities from setting up municipal broadband internet. The FCC has given those cities the go-ahead.

The proposed merger between Comcast and Time Warner Cable is also being held up, which is a thumb in the eye of those companies and very good for consumers. They're some of the most hated companies in America, with terrible customer service and high prices. If they merge, it will be an effective monopoly for most of the country.
Well I am lucky my ISP is not Comcast or Time Warner.

(Schafer and Brown to be precise, and so far they served my internet needs well, much better then Hughes Net. If only I had Choice which is direct cable internet)
Posted February 28, 2015
avatar
Gilozard: Comcast
Quite a key ingredient in why I choose not to have internet at home. :)
Posted February 28, 2015
avatar
Elmofongo: But basically all I know from the articles is that congress voted against the whole "fast lanes" proposal from the FCC,
That isn't a really accurate statement, I don't think. In brief, the FCC decided to classify broadband as a utility. Sort of like how water and electricity are considered important enough that the federal government decided to disallow local governments and companies from setting their own rules and fees, the FCC has now decided that broadband internet needs similar categorization and regulation. [url=It's worth noting that telephones have long been classified as utilities; that was one of the most important details in convincing the FCC to move ahead with this classification for broadband. Because analog telephony is almost completely phased out in most major population centers, it's all just digital data.][/url]

Despite a lot of protesting over the last year or so, this is a case of a federal agency working to normalize service to american citizens - helping out the average person, as it were. A large publication of rules and regulation shouldn't be a surprise - in order to create a definition that can apply to 400 million people, a lot of details have to be considered.

Incidentally, the ruling also made my already fabulous internet access liable to get even better (I've got no-cap gigabit fiber for under $60 a month) since it freed up municipal broadband from the threats of lawsuits that the big companies were trying to use to prevent cities from offering competition.

It'll take a while to see how it all sorts out, and no doubt there'll be a bump or two, but basically this is a good thing for everyone who consumes broadband internet in the USA.
Posted February 28, 2015
Congress did not vote on anything, the FCC ruled to reclassify broadband as a common carrier service, something ISPs and Republicans in Congress oppose to. They also want to limit FCC's power to regulate ISPs, so the battle is not over yet.
Posted February 28, 2015
Here's hoping the FCC wins.
Posted February 28, 2015
avatar
Sabin_Stargem: Here's hoping the FCC wins.
Ive never heard anyone say that before!
Posted February 28, 2015
low rated
avatar
Elmofongo: I am not posting a link to any specific website about this because I know that some of you are gonna criticize the article for being biased and had no idea what really just happened. But basically all I know from the articles is that congress voted against the whole "fast lanes" proposal from the FCC, but of course there is more things going on like the government introdducing a 300+ page manuscript/book whatever regarding this issue with people regarding as a series of regulations for the internet.

I apoligize if this is wrong and you know what I change my mind I am gonna post a bunch of websites talking about this and try to get out a general consensus:

http://www.pcgamer.com/fcc-approves-net-neutrality-everyone-rejoices/

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.871369-FCC-Votes-Approves-Net-Neutrality-Rules-For-Broadband

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-vote-internet-utility.html

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/26/net-neutrality-fcc-vote-new-rules-future-of-broadband

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/26/fcc-net-neutrality-ruling_n_6761174.html
Hopefully Congress will real in this rogue agency. It was done to tax the I-net and to control content that the executive branch doesn't like. It's an old trick; get your foot into the door with something that sounds good to those who just read the headlines then use it for nefarious purposes.
Posted February 28, 2015
Don't forget that the major utility providers have been getting federal funding to upgrade and replace infrastructure for over a decade and have freakishly little to show for it.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionSo what just happened with the FCC Net Neutrality issue today? (please read OP)(51 posts)(51 posts)
(51 posts)