Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Net Neutrality thread of this shit is too political for the reg lounge

Net Neutrality thread of this shit is too political for the reg lounge (Page 4)
Thread Tools
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2015, 08:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
All of this is a FUD campaign designed to scare some voters into compliance.
So? Is it a YES, or NO?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2015, 12:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Now I'm confused, is it available for the public to read or not?
Ok, I'll stop being a dick. The proposed internet regulations are the FCC's, or Chairman Wheeler's if you like. The FCC is an independent agency that Obama has no direct input in.

While there is a possibility that the plan was unduly influenced by Obama, there is no evidence of this at this time, so labeling it as such on speculation is poor journalism, if not an outright lie. However, I'm sure in this case it's more for two reasons: Clicks, as it sounds scarier; Giving your viewers what they want in demonizing Obama.


Now, does the FCC usually release the explicit text of its proposals to the public? I don't know. Should it? Sure, I'm for transparency, particularly when said action is so drastic.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2015, 12:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
So? Is it a YES, or NO?
YES, it's a FUD campaign. How can you trust anything these shills say? They try to connect this to Obama's name simply to taint the proposed regulations. Let's call it Obamacare for the internet. It doesn't matter what's in it, just making this link makes them seem nefarious to some. It's a cheap parlor trick, and you shouldn't fall for it.

Will the new regulations be perfect? Nope. Will they contain loopholes that are in the interest of Comcast et al? Yep, most likely. But will they be an improvement? Yes, most certainly.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2015, 01:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
YES, it's a FUD campaign. How can you trust anything these shills say?
That's quite literally everyone associated with federal government at this point. Nearly everyone is associated with this is getting paid right now, on both sides of the matter. In fact, I'd hazard to guess the telcos/ISPs have created more new American millionaires in the last 6 months than legitimate business, all to try and make the Title II issue go away.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2015, 01:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
That's quite literally everyone associated with federal government at this point. Nearly everyone is associated with this is getting paid right now, on both sides of the matter. In fact, I'd hazard to guess the telcos/ISPs have created more new American millionaires in the last 6 months than legitimate business, all to try and make the Title II issue go away.
Should we let the discussion devolve into a generic rant about money in American politics? I don't think we'd disagree there. But we are talking about something more specific: are the Title 2 regulations which have been proposed making things better or worse? I think it's a step in the right direction, even if some of the rules and regulations are weakened to lessen their practical impact on the industry.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2015, 03:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Should we let the discussion devolve into a generic rant about money in American politics?
When it fits? Sure. It's what will ultimately kill or blunt the FCC initiative to reclassify, so why not?

I don't think we'd disagree there. But we are talking about something more specific: are the Title 2 regulations which have been proposed making things better or worse? I think it's a step in the right direction, even if some of the rules and regulations are weakened to lessen their practical impact on the industry.
Make things better? In the short term, but a set of utility laws established in the 1930s isn't the correct legislative tool for the job, IMO.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2015, 04:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Make things better? In the short term, but a set of utility laws established in the 1930s isn't the correct legislative tool for the job, IMO.
We have little choice. Half of Congress seems to be in the telecoms pockets, so we'll only see bad proposals there. Title II is the least bad choice available.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2015, 04:13 PM
 
Yeah, no one disagrees on the legislative point, but we also know shit isn't getting done in Congress unless its veto proof.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2015, 04:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
We have little choice. Half of Congress seems to be in the telecoms pockets, so we'll only see bad proposals there. Title II is the least bad choice available.
Correct, which is why I tentatively support Title II (with a buttload of forbearance) at this point, it's the least crappy choice.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2015, 06:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Correct, which is why I tentatively support Title II (with a buttload of forbearance) at this point, it's the least crappy choice.
So what are we arguing about then? That's pretty much what I wrote before. We can argue until we are blue in the face what we would like in a world where unicorns roam and politics wasn't as corrupt as it is now. But I think the biggest problem in tackling these issues is not to find a solution, but an implementation (which includes the crappy system that exists now).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2015, 01:44 AM
 
You call this arguing? For the PWL it's downright cordial. I can support Title II without having to like it. To me it's as bad as choosing to be mauled by wolves instead of tigers, but there's no other alternative for the next 2 years.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2015, 12:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
You call this arguing? For the PWL it's downright cordial. I can support Title II without having to like it. To me it's as bad as choosing to be mauled by wolves instead of tigers, but there's no other alternative for the next 2 years.
This is where you're wrong: there is no alternative for the foreseeable future. Both parties get plenty of campaign contributions from Comcast et al, and deluding yourself into thinking that a president with an (R) behind his or her name will make a difference is really part of the problem.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2015, 02:07 PM
 
Wrong, eh? I didn't say anything about a president with an (R) beside his or her name. In fact, I'm much more likely to vote for a Democrat while Repubs control congress, and vice versa, just to keep things unbalanced on a federal level. We only need a less arrogant person in the White House, someone who will actually negotiate and be "presidential", instead of a bozo trying to rule like a banana republic dictator. I flat-out guarantee Hillary would have gotten more traction than the current administration, in virtually everything, while blunting the more socially conservative elements in congress in the process.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2015, 03:25 PM
 
FCC Republicans launch last-ditch effort to sink net neutrality plan | Ars Technica
With the Federal Communications Commission scheduled to vote on net neutrality rules Thursday, the commission's two Republicans want to delay the vote by at least 30 days.

Republican Commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly want the commission to break with past practice by releasing the entire proposal before the vote. Typically, the FCC releases a summary of the proposal but not the entire document until after it votes on it.
Transparency and good process shouldn’t be a partisan issue. In 2003, for example, Democratic Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein called for a delay of the vote on reforming the Commission’s media ownership rules and a public airing of the Commission’s proposal. Their words then echo now: “A public airing would make for better policies. It would make for better buy-in from the American people.”
The Republican majority in 2003 went ahead with that vote despite the objection.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2015, 04:58 PM
 
Not surprising on its face, but justifications are LOL-worthy.
Dear Conservative,

Big government can’t seem to keep its hands off of anything.

The latest insult: President Obama and the Federal Communications Commission are going to take over the Internet on February 26th if we don’t do everything we can do to stop them right now.

A plan deceivingly referred to as “Net Neutrality,” involves declaring the Internet a “public utility” and gives the FCC the power to decide what Internet service providers can charge and how they operate. This is not only a direct attack on the free market, but it will also result in an increase in Internet access fees for millions of consumers in America. It’s a massive tax on the middle class, plain and simple.

The details are complicated but here’s the truth: If "Net Neutrality" is passed, for the first time ever, the Internet will be under the rule of an antiquated regulation designed for land line telephones. President Obama wants to take something that’s working just fine, and tie it up in red tape--sound familiar? We've seen this movie before--it's called ObamaCare.

The FCC plans to vote on Feb. 26th on whether or not the government should take their usual heavy handed approach to controlling the Internet or do the right thing and leave it alone.

I need your help to tell President Obama and the FCC: "Don't mess with the Internet!"

An unregulated Internet has been the single greatest catalyst in history for individual liberty and free markets on the planet. It has created the greatest revolution since Henry Ford invented the Model T.

Let's get this straight--technology has progressed because it has been driven by a free and open Internet--not because of DC bureaucrats. This latest attempt to regulate the web threatens to interrupt that positive innovation, set the market back, and kill jobs.

A free, flourishing Internet is as important as anything man has ever created. But those freedoms are under assault.

Please, stand with me and help protect Internet freedom by signing this petition today.

These attempts to regulate the Internet are a direct attack on the freedom of information and an innovative market. The government needs to stay out of the way.

Free markets are worth protecting. Please tell your friends, your families, that there’s nothing neutral about net neutrality. We have to stop this aggressive, invasive, and harmful regulation and we need all the help we can get to do it.

Sincerely,

Senator Rand Paul
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2015, 11:09 AM
 
Obama's regs will make Internet slow as in Europe, warn FCC, FEC commissioners | WashingtonExaminer.com

tampering and regulating CONTENT??? I told you guys this was gonna happen. Goodbye PWL?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2015, 11:15 AM
 
I don't see how it can get much slower, the ISPs haven't substantially invested in infrastructure in over a decade.

Oh, and the heightened fear-mongering? That just makes me more determined that this is the right thing to do, at least for now. When those particular companies start to squirm and squeal, I can't help but chuckle with glee.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2015, 11:19 AM
 
Which part of Europe will we be slower than?
Download Speed by Country | Net Index from Ookla

I see they're still going with the titles with factual errors in them.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2015, 11:57 AM
 
Read this! I guess looking at the internet as a phone company is OK? You still refuse to address the content restrictions, so you can't discuss politics (Especially when is embarrasses liberals)

L. Gordon Crovitz: From Internet to Obamanet - WSJ
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2015, 12:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Which part of Europe will we be slower than?
Download Speed by Country | Net Index from Ookla

I see they're still going with the titles with factual errors in them.
You are assuming too much.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2015, 12:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
You are assuming too much.
What am I assuming? You're the one assuming Title II will be the death knell of the internet in the US.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2015, 12:44 PM
 
ANY regulations will be the beginning of all kinds of idiot regulations. Price maybe. Content NEVER!!!
You can say you've read the proposed FCC regulations?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2015, 12:47 PM
 
Edit: You didn't answer: What am I assuming?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2015, 12:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
ANY regulations will be the beginning of all kinds of idiot regulations. Price maybe. Content NEVER!!!
You can say you've read the proposed FCC regulations?
Regulations have worked wonders in Europe, they opened pathways for competitors and made internet a lot cheaper than in Canada or the US. Compared to Japan or Korea, Europe is still pathetic, but still, the situation is much better. (I remember a Japanese friend of mine got symmetric 100 MBit/s fiber internet in 2003!)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2015, 01:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
ANY regulations will be the beginning of all kinds of idiot regulations. Price maybe. Content NEVER!!!
You can say you've read the proposed FCC regulations?
Federal agencies already have all the legislation they need to do anything they want, that horse has already left the barn, don't for a moment think they can't. This is all about the ISPs and their profits. With the change to Title II they'll be forced to hold up their end of the 1996 and 2006 Telecommunications Acts and upgrade their infrastructure and customer broadband availability, and if they don't they'll have to pay back all the money they've been given in federal grants and tax breaks, to the tune of ~$140B over the last decade. Yeah, billion. Plus they'll receive no additional tax breaks at all. That's taxpayer money they've taken and not used for what it was intended. As a conservative, you should be so pissed off you can't see straight over this, that's your money that's being mishandled, used to buy up their competition instead of providing the services they promised. When I think about it I become livid.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2015, 03:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
This is all about the ISPs and their profits. With the change to Title II they'll be forced to hold up their end of the 1996 and 2006 Telecommunications Acts and upgrade their infrastructure and customer broadband availability, and if they don't they'll have to pay back all the money they've been given in federal grants and tax breaks, to the tune of ~$140B over the last decade. Yeah, billion.
Just curious: Do you have a source for that? There are certain industries which are getting tax breaks (e. g. Boeing) so that they continue to exist, but why give out tax breaks to companies who make money hand over fist?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2015, 07:50 PM
 
WaPost article on IPTV being part of the reason for rule changes.
How the FCC could use an obscure Internet power to change the pay-TV market - The Washington Post

In a few days, the Federal Communications Commission will vote on the government's strict new net neutrality rules for Internet providers. And while the proposed regulations are mainly focused on whether companies like Comcast can block or slow Web sites, a small piece of the rules could give the government wider authority over television programming — and by extension, your TV experience. Here's how.
45/47
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2015, 01:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Just curious: Do you have a source for that? There are certain industries which are getting tax breaks (e. g. Boeing) so that they continue to exist, but why give out tax breaks to companies who make money hand over fist?
I, Cringely . The Pulpit . The $200 Billion Rip-Off | PBS

It wasn't $200B, it's $140B, so far, but that's still a large chunk of money.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2015, 10:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
WaPost article on IPTV being part of the reason for rule changes.
How the FCC could use an obscure Internet power to change the pay-TV market - The Washington Post
It's believable, but it's worth noting its more of a legal argument, and one I don't think the FCC would be looking into doing. More likely, the broadband companies would sue.

Also, I thought this would be about regulating content, or censorship, but its not.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2015, 12:30 PM
 
Net neutrality order could get last-minute change on peering disputes | Ars Technica
A Democrat on the Federal Communications Commission reportedly objects to a portion of the FCC's net neutrality order, potentially paving the way for a last-minute change to preserve the Democratic majority expected to vote in favor of the plan.

According to The Hill's sources, Commissioner Mignon Clyburn objects to part of the order covering the relationship between Internet service providers like Comcast and "edge providers," companies that build websites or deliver content and applications over the Internet. Clyburn apparently shares the legal concerns of Google, advocacy groups such as Free Press and the Open Technology Institute, and even AT&T.
Although The Hill report says Clyburn's objection could make it harder for the FCC to regulate interconnection disputes, that isn't necessarily the case. If interconnection disputes harm service to Internet users, as happened when Netflix fought ISPs over interconnection payments, the FCC could take action by virtue of having classified retail Internet service as common carriage, both Google and Free Press argued.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2015, 01:12 PM
 
First presumed potential presidential candidate makes their view known regarding NN and Title II
Hillary Clinton lends support to the FCC's net neutrality plan days before vote | The Verge
"I think that for the FCC to do what they want to do -- to try to create net neutrality as the norm -- they have to have a hook to hang it on," Clinton said to Swisher. "So, they're hanging it on Title II." When asked whether she agreed with that "hook," Clinton replied that "it's the only one the've got." She went on to say that "I think that if there were another hook, it would come out of a modern 21st century teleocom act. And that hasn't happened, and it's not likely to happen."
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2015, 02:36 PM
 
Despite FCC vote, Republicans in Congress not conceding on net neutrality | Ars Technica
If anything comes from this, it'll be the only thing more shocking than Title II actually passing.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2015, 04:11 PM
 
The Transparent Obama Admin.....

National Review
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2015, 04:26 PM
 
ISPs and Repubs in full panic mode now.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2015, 04:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
The Transparent Obama Admin.....

National Review
That's the FCC not the Obama admin. It's an independent agency. Keep grinding that axe.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2015, 07:52 PM
 
You must not be a DC local. Obama has his DEMOCRAT MINIONS tampering in many places they should not.

http://reason.com/archives/2015/02/2...lity-a-soluti/
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2015, 10:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
You must not be a DC local. Obama has his DEMOCRAT MINIONS tampering in many places they should not.

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai: Net Neutrality is a "Solution That Won't Work to a Problem That Doesn't Exist" - Reason.com
Command-F "Obama": He made his opinion of what should be done known publicly. The horror!
( Last edited by The Final Dakar; Feb 26, 2015 at 12:13 PM. Reason: Edited for freshness)
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2015, 12:12 PM
 
Live | FCC.gov

Guy currently going all in against municipal broadband.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2015, 12:41 PM
 
FCC overturns state laws that protect ISPs from local competition | Ars Technica
The vote was split 3-2 along party lines, with Wheeler joined by fellow Democrats Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel.
quote]“You can’t say you’re for broadband and then turn around and endorse limits on who can offer it,” Wheeler said today. “You can’t say, ‘I want to follow the explicit instructions of Congress to remove barriers to infrastructure investment,' but endorse barriers on infrastructure investment. You can’t say you’re for competition but deny local elected officials the right to offer competitive choices."[/quote]
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2015, 02:11 PM
 
45/47
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2015, 02:13 PM
 
Meh. FCC was never Department of Telephone
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2015, 02:22 PM
 
Listening to Mark Cuban talk about technology is a lot like hearing Dennis Rodman critique fashion (I imagine), re. he knows practically f*ck all about it.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2015, 02:27 PM
 
Isn't that how Cuban made his fortune?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2015, 02:36 PM
 
Alright, the ars article
FCC votes for net neutrality, a ban on paid fast lanes, and Title II | Ars Technica
The core net neutrality provisions are bans on blocking and throttling traffic, a ban on paid prioritization, and a requirement to disclose network management practices. Broadband providers will not be allowed to block or degrade access to legal content, applications, services, and non-harmful devices or favor some traffic over others in exchange for payment. There are exceptions for "reasonable network management" and certain data services that don't use the "public Internet." Those include heart monitoring services and the Voice over Internet Protocol services offered by home Internet providers.

The reasonable network management exception applies to blocking and throttling but not paid prioritization.
If you have problems with this, elucidate me as to how (bad because government need not apply)

There are provisions to investigate consumer complaints, privacy rules, and protections for people with disabilities. Content providers and network operators who connect to ISPs' networks can complain to the FCC about "unjust and unreasonable" interconnection rates and practices. There are also rules guaranteeing ISPs access to poles and other infrastructure controlled by utilities, potentially making it easier to enter new markets. (Republican commissioner Ajit Pai argued that the new rules will actually make cable companies and new providers like Google Fiber pay higher fees for access to utility poles.)
---

The FCC could have tried to use Title II to require last-mile unbundling, in which Internet providers would have to sell wholesale access to their networks. This would allow new competitors to enter local markets without having to build their own infrastructure. But the FCC decided not to impose unbundling. As such, the vote does little to boost Internet service competition in cities or towns.
A pretty big missed opportunity.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2015, 02:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Isn't that how Cuban made his fortune?
He knows lots about money/business management but substantially less about how technology actually works (re. knows far less than he thinks he knows).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2015, 03:30 PM
 
Oh, and I'll remind everyone this wouldn't have happened if, when the agency used a lighter touch back in 2010, Verizon hadn't sued and won. The industry brought it on itself. (And the FCC is taking the SCOTUS advice)
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2015, 05:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Oh, and I'll remind everyone this wouldn't have happened if, when the agency used a lighter touch back in 2010, Verizon hadn't sued and won. The industry brought it on itself. (And the FCC is taking the SCOTUS advice)
Bingo!

OAW
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2015, 05:28 PM
 
ars spittin' truth
Verizon issues furious response to FCC, in Morse code, dated 1934 | Ars Technica
It's strange to think that rules passed by Congress in 1934 are too old to apply to the Internet but Constitutional Amendments from 1791 must, but that's the wacky world Verizon's legal and PR teams live in.
Also:
"Just as a newspaper is entitled to decide which content to publish and where, broadband providers may feature some content over others," Verizon further said.
Or how the electric company chooses which appliances should get powered over others.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2015, 06:34 PM
 
Ahh, so they're saying they're "publishers" now? Do they realize what that would open them up to? Are they really this stupid?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2015, 07:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Ahh, so they're saying they're "publishers" now? Do they realize what that would open them up to? Are they really this stupid?
That, in a nutshell, is why we need net neutrality.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:34 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,