FCC Turns Around On Net Neutrality With "Faster Lane" Rules - Update

[odolwa99]

Sorry for the double post. I'm a little short on sleep.

Meep Meep!!

Translation: Goodnight!!

 

[Tsukuyomi]

Ugh...bloody hell I hope this gets enough exposure to stop it before the vote. It probably won't, but people will get very pissy indeed when they can't stream netflix and whatever else they want. All the rest of us have to do is be there to tell them the short and simple version of: "if you don't like it, tell the feds to bring back Net Neutrality."

Their eyes will glaze over if you give them too much detail, but I think if we keep it simple like that, they'll get the idea. We fought off shit like this before, we may just be able to do it again.

 

[RvLeshrac]

You pay your ISP for a plan based on speeds. If they intentionally throttle certain sites to a speed lower than what you're paying them for, then you get together for a class-action suit.

No, you don't. Not only is there no legal requirement that they provide the advertised speed, they don't guarantee the advertised speed.

 

[william12123]

You pay your ISP for a plan based on speeds. If they intentionally throttle certain sites to a speed lower than what you're paying them for, then you get together for a class-action suit.

No, you don't. Not only is there no legal requirement that they provide the advertised speed, they don't guarantee the advertised speed.

Unfortunate but true. All plans say "up to X speed". It's fairly misleading, because they could be giving you dial-up speeds and you would have no recourse beyond consumer protection services (and even then).

This is stressing me out. Though technically it's been legal in Canada since 2011, it hasnt affected much yet. We already have crappy, price-gouging providers, so I get the feeling they didnt feel like they needed to do more... (the info is from the wiki article for "net neutrality in Canada)

 

[Vareoth]

Ha, the feds truly are a source of never ending entertainment, corruption and retardation. If this is some plot to make me thankful for living in the EU it is working.

Good luck to those who live in the US. At least you have enough guns to pose a threat if things go even further down the drain (no sarcasm intended).

 

[Techno Squidgy]

America: Where freedom isn't free.

I really hate how far my nation as fallen.

We USED to be great.
We USED to be the moral standard.
We USED to be free.

Hey you're finally catching on! Now we don't have to hate Americans any more, and you can all join us in hating your shitty useless evil fucking government and share the hatred most of us have for our own governments. Welcome to the real world Americans, you're being shat on from just as high a place as the rest of us.

 

[RoonMian]

Not in the EU. They saw it coming and stopped it in its tracks before the idea could even hatch.

I live in the Netherlands and we had net neutrality laws even before it became a eu law, even so this does worry me since whatever happens in America has a huge impact on the rest of the world.

I?m guessing the law will probably pass, I just hope that one internet provider doesn?t start screwing their customers and as a result gets all of the money.

I really hate to burst your bubble but the EU is doing pretty much the same just using nicer words right now. There has recently been a proposal by Neelie Kroes (EU commissar for digital agenda from the Dutch libertarians) that pretty much says "WE HAVE TO SAVE NET NEUTRALITY!!!" but in the fine print it says "... but ISPs can charge content providers and customers extra for bandwidth intensive 'specialised services'".

It has yet to be ratified by the European Parliament after the election late next month but if the conservative/libertarian block stays the strongest power there (which it very likely will) then it will be just waved through.

In the EU there's just the same happening right now. The only difference is they're doing it sneakier here and nobody's giving a shit.


EDIT:

Ha, the feds truly are a source of never ending entertainment, corruption and retardation. If this is some plot to make me thankful for living in the EU it is working.

Good luck to those who live in the US. At least you have enough guns to pose a threat if things go even further down the drain (no sarcasm intended).

Just edited you in for relevance.

 

[Vareoth]

Not in the EU. They saw it coming and stopped it in its tracks before the idea could even hatch.

I live in the Netherlands and we had net neutrality laws even before it became a eu law, even so this does worry me since whatever happens in America has a huge impact on the rest of the world.

I?m guessing the law will probably pass, I just hope that one internet provider doesn?t start screwing their customers and as a result gets all of the money.

I really hate to burst your bubble but the EU is doing pretty much the same just using nicer words right now. There has recently been a proposal by Neelie Kroes (EU commissar for digital agenda from the Dutch libertarians) that pretty much says "WE HAVE TO SAVE NET NEUTRALITY!!!" but in the fine print it says "... but ISPs can charge content providers and customers extra for bandwidth intensive 'specialised services'".

It has yet to be ratified by the European Parliament after the election late next month but if the conservative/libertarian block stays the strongest power there (which it very likely will) then it will be just waved through.

In the EU there's just the same happening right now. The only difference is they're doing it sneakier here and nobody's giving a shit.


EDIT:

Ha, the feds truly are a source of never ending entertainment, corruption and retardation. If this is some plot to make me thankful for living in the EU it is working.

Good luck to those who live in the US. At least you have enough guns to pose a threat if things go even further down the drain (no sarcasm intended).

Just edited you in for relevance.

I did not know that. But I had a quick look around and found these two amendments:

"?Specialised service? means an electronic communications service optimised for specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, provided over logically distinct capacity, relying on strict admission control, offering functionality requiring enhanced quality from end to end, and that is not marketed or usable as a substitute for internet access service."

and:

"Providers of internet access, of electronic communications to the public and providers of content, applications and services shall be free to offer specialised services to end-users. Such services shall only be offered if the network capacity is sufficient to provide them in addition to internet access services and they are not to the detriment of the availability or quality of internet access services. Providers of internet access to end-users shall not discriminate between functionally equivalent services and applications."

This means that this is still somewhat of a loophole, albeit a very limited one (theoretically).

 

[RoonMian]

I really hate to burst your bubble but the EU is doing pretty much the same just using nicer words right now. There has recently been a proposal by Neelie Kroes (EU commissar for digital agenda from the Dutch libertarians) that pretty much says "WE HAVE TO SAVE NET NEUTRALITY!!!" but in the fine print it says "... but ISPs can charge content providers and customers extra for bandwidth intensive 'specialised services'".

It has yet to be ratified by the European Parliament after the election late next month but if the conservative/libertarian block stays the strongest power there (which it very likely will) then it will be just waved through.

In the EU there's just the same happening right now. The only difference is they're doing it sneakier here and nobody's giving a shit.

I did not know that. But I had a quick look around and found these two amendments:

"?Specialised service? means an electronic communications service optimised for specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, provided over logically distinct capacity, relying on strict admission control, offering functionality requiring enhanced quality from end to end, and that is not marketed or usable as a substitute for internet access service."

and:

"Providers of internet access, of electronic communications to the public and providers of content, applications and services shall be free to offer specialised services to end-users. Such services shall only be offered if the network capacity is sufficient to provide them in addition to internet access services and they are not to the detriment of the availability or quality of internet access services. Providers of internet access to end-users shall not discriminate between functionally equivalent services and applications."

This means that this is still somewhat of a loophole, albeit a very limited one (theoretically).

You just very accurately described video on demand, online gaming, online medical monitoring, possibly video conferences, loads of other stuff I can't think of right now and stuff that might not even be invented yet. With the same people who actually came up with this broad, undefined, vague concoction in chare of interpretating it, those "internet access services" that aren't allowed to be impaired are: Opening a browser and visiting a website. And that's it. For the rest: Open your wallet.

Edit: I forgot digital distribution of software. In light of how much bandwidth that can swallow you can bet your ass that's gonna be a "specialised service".

Editedit: After taking a few more moments to think about it I came up with even more. Internet assisted GPS navigation. Car-To-Car communication for traffic applications (I'm an automotive engineer, that's gonna get huge in a few years, trust me). There's soooooo much stuff they're gonna be able to charge extra for if this gouging of net neutrality actually makes it through.

 

[Double A]

You know what the really sad thing is? These guys are able to make these decisions because we all agree they can. It is hypothetically possible for everyone to just decide at once to make Wheeler and people like him homeless and penniless where they belong. Unlikely, but possible. Instead, we continue to agree to let them have this effect on our lives.

And how do we do this, exactly? A lot of people know as much about the Internet as Congress does, which is to say, jack shit. Sure, some of them are learning and others are dying, but we don't have the logistics or clout to get them to all understand. If you have an idea, I would seriously love to hear it, but I can't think of anything cheap and feasible myself.

 

[Vareoth]

I did not know that. But I had a quick look around and found these two amendments:

"?Specialised service? means an electronic communications service optimised for specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, provided over logically distinct capacity, relying on strict admission control, offering functionality requiring enhanced quality from end to end, and that is not marketed or usable as a substitute for internet access service."

and:

"Providers of internet access, of electronic communications to the public and providers of content, applications and services shall be free to offer specialised services to end-users. Such services shall only be offered if the network capacity is sufficient to provide them in addition to internet access services and they are not to the detriment of the availability or quality of internet access services. Providers of internet access to end-users shall not discriminate between functionally equivalent services and applications."

This means that this is still somewhat of a loophole, albeit a very limited one (theoretically).

You just very accurately described video on demand, online gaming, online medical monitoring, possibly video conferences, loads of other stuff I can't think of right now and stuff that might not even be invented yet. With the same people who actually came up with this broad, undefined, vague concoction in chare of interpretating it, those "internet access services" that aren't allowed to be impaired are: Opening a browser and visiting a website. And that's it. For the rest: Open your wallet.

I don't think I did. The services they are referring to are things which are not compatible with standard networking and thus are classified as "specialised services". Video streaming and gaming are very much compatible with our current systems. An actual example of a special service would be IPTV because it needs special equipment to function as it does.

I suppose that if they somehow found a valid reason to, for example, put up a special service for gaming they could classify it as such (but only if it would be incompatible with basic internet). I just don't see that happening so easily.

But I can't look into the future. We shall have to see what the practical implications of this law will be. But I don't think that it will be as bad as you expect (famous last words?).

 

[RoonMian]

snip

Yeah. The hope dies last.

 

[Something Amyss]

So the theory is that the ISP corporations will design, create and install a super-fast service for those companies willing to pay extra to have their content stream quicker, which will presumably run seamlessly on top of the current infastructure already present across the country?

You've basically described our entire operating business theory.

 

[tangoprime]

Prior to his appointment as head of the FCC, Wheeler was a lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry and held positions including president of the National Cable Television Association and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association.

This says it all. Thanks for appointing this guy last year Obama. I'm sure the check's in the mail.
http://www.fcc.gov/leadership/tom-wheeler

 

[RJ Dalton]

Prior to his appointment as head of the FCC, Wheeler was a lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry and held positions including president of the National Cable Television Association and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association. The final vote on the proposal will take place on May 15.

Anybody else noticing the conflict of interests there? The man clearly has interests in the cable industry, which is directly behind the move to get rid of net neutrality in favor of options that support them while crushing opposition.

 

[Erttheking]

On the update, yeah yeah, you SAY that it won't harm consumers, but you'll forgive me if my hopes aren't that high.

 

[dalek sec]

If anyone's seen the show "Continuum" will get what I'm about to say: Maybe Liber8 was right....

OT: I don't trust any of these bastards any farther than I can throw them. They will abuse the hell out of this as fast as they for as long as they can.