dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2010-12-21 12:44:27: As predicted, the FCC today voted 3-2 along party lines to enact network neutrality rules. ..


OneEye

join:2006-04-15
Peachtree City, GA

1 recommendation

FCC Voting...

Most citizens can offer many reasons to be proud of America, but the government keeps offering up many reasons to be ashamed.

The betrayal by Congress and the Obama Administration to allow ISP, Cable, and Wireless lobbyist to write Net Neutrality civil law that pisses on the civil rights of all citizens is an act of treason against the people and government of the United States.

Is net neutrality the freedom of speech and freedom of choice issue for the 21st century?

Merry Christmas form the U.S. Government.
pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:2
Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Comcast
·Future Nine Corp..

1 recommendation

Re: FCC Voting...

I totally agree.

All the FCC needed to do was mandate neutrality, authorize some 3rd party arbitration in the event there is a peering dispute, prohibit any cap less than 20 times normal customer use, and allow discrimination against high use customers during periods of network congestion.

It would have taken a single page, and would have resolved most issues.

Instead, we are going to litigate a loop hole ridden piece of nonsense. Even if it survives litigation, it won't resolve any important issue.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

Re: FCC Voting...

the FCC can mandate all they want. The fact is the FCC doesn't have much power. They lost that when the Internet was defined as an Information service and NOT a telecommuniations service. That's their own fault. You can't call it both. if it was a Telecom service it would be taxed as one and you'd have a HUGE ass bill in just taxes and fees. Instead its pretty much a set price across the board with each company.

As far as Neutrality- there is no such problems. And if you keep thinking so; bother pointing one out- and Comcast vs L3 doesn't count. Show actual proof of where a content provider has to pay Comcast or ATT extra to get to the customers. And when actually they will never have that problem as they can always get to those customers by peering with someone else that the ISP does.

The FCC can NOT but their self into a private business either with limiting caps. They have no legal power to do that as they only create RULES NOT Law. the FCC is useless at their current state and businesses know this. Their about as useful as the AAFCO (NO LEGAL POWER).
pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:2
Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Comcast
·Future Nine Corp..

Re: FCC Voting...

I agree mostly with what you have said. The folks who should write real network neutrality in stone sit in Congress, not on the FCC.

Nobody but politicians want to see internet taxed.

Neutrality isn't a problem today, but could become one over time, it seems that legislation that assures neutrality, and allows quick arbitration of any peering dispute should be implemented.

To the best of my understanding the current FCC regulation will result in a lot of litigation, which will enrich many lawyers, and at best will result in weak rules with many loopholes written into it by AT&T. This is not my idea about how to regulate anything.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

Re: FCC Voting...

very true. The problem is the FCC has no legal power at all. They're create and regulate the Airwaves; which was and still is their primary job. NOT the Internet. Regardless on who crafted the rules that now current- is moot. It's the fact that the FCC thinks they have the power to enforce them. The new Congress needs to come back from break early and smack the FCC and maybe issue vote to stop giving them money. They'll wake up then and go back to their actual job.

And as far as NN being a problem over time; then it needs to be addressed THEN not today when the problem does NOT happen. As far as peering? the Gov't can't step in for that and will/would be sued. The backbone is a private operation by the companies that own and maintain it. the Gov't can't say who those companies can and can not peer with nor the fees. When the Gov't thinks they can then the Gov't needs to start lighting up the fiber that is unused for those companies to have access to.

Gbcue
Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
said by OneEye:

Most citizens can offer many reasons to be proud of America, but the government keeps offering up many reasons to be ashamed.

The betrayal by Congress and the Obama Administration to allow ISP, Cable, and Wireless lobbyist to write Net Neutrality civil law that pisses on the civil rights of all citizens is an act of treason against the people and government of the United States.

Is net neutrality the freedom of speech and freedom of choice issue for the 21st century?

Merry Christmas form the U.S. Government.

Would you rather live in China where the Great Firewall exists and not even a vote took place?

Like to have this wall placed upon your freedoms on the 'net?
--
My Blog 2.0
Pv8man

join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN

Re: FCC Voting...

He never said anything about wanting to "Live in china"

He is upset like me over the gradual loss of the open internet as we know it.

Just because we still have a so called "vote" does not mean that everything find and dandy. If the vote is heavily influenced and censorship still does occur ( and it will )

Why should we be thankful that we don't have a "great firewall" like china when our politicians like Lieberman will guarantee that we will eventually?
amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

Re: FCC Voting...

said by Pv8man:

He is upset like me over the gradual loss of the open internet as we know it.

How is the internet "open" when it's essentially a monopoly, or at best a duopoly in most areas? How is it better for monopolistic practices to control the internet instead of governmental/totalitarian practices?

That's what seems to me like the pro- and anti- sides are talking past each other about.

The pro- side insists ISPs should never manage traffic (even though it's a shared service and, absent management in the interest of the majority, it would become more expensive and possess more capacity than the majority needs).

The anti- side couches it in libertarian free-market terms, when ISPs aren't even remotely like a free market (benefiting from public rights of ways instead of negotiating private property rights like most businesses would).

The whole "free-market" thing is an obfuscation anyway, as pointed out to "zero." We socialize markets all day long. And people like "zero" who complain the most about it are usually quite comfortable with it -- as they enjoy the immediate and palpable benefits of things like zoning laws (which is probably one of the greatest "transfers of wealth" society has every instituted, if you really want to embrace libertarian philosophy.).

IMO, local ISPs should be under local public utility oversight. Maybe demarcate the municipal infrastructure and allow dozens of ISPs to compete for each resident (like the good old days of dial up).
Pv8man

join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN

Re: FCC Voting...

My apologies,
I should have clarified what I meant by "Open"

I am not saying that network management is unreasonable, but ISP's could do all types of controversial anti-competitive things and justify it as "reasonable network management".

I would say there has to be a limit, but I also realize that trying to limit an ISP is hopeless, as they have more money and power.

But yes, competition is the only answer for that. It's unfortunate that the major ISP's do anything to hinder competition though.

I remember back in 2004 when I was 18, when I had a (at the time I thought was a good idea) to start a local wi-fi based WISP for about a mile within my city of Hammond. ( yes I know now that wi-fi cantennas is not a good idea, but that's besides the point)

I actually got a hold of the mayor McDermott about the idea and if I could do it. He actually admitted at the time that it would not be possible to let me do because he said that they have an "agreement with Comcast" that would be in conflict with something like this. I was not sure exactly what he was talking about because he never really gave any details, and was very vague about it.
amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

Re: FCC Voting...

said by Pv8man:

But yes, competition is the only answer for that.

Competition is one answer.

The question is to how to have competition when, evidently, it's not profitable for dozens of companies to lay the equivalent of duplicate sewers and water pipes to every house.

Do we demarcate municipal broadband differently so, like the good old days of dial-up/landlines, customers could chose from dozens of ISPs competing at a higher level?

If we can't do that, then it seems like the only answer is to admit competition isn't happening, isn't feasible, and broadband should be subject to public-utility oversight like other uncompetitive businesses that rely upon public rights of way to reach an essentially captive market.

Like you said, ISPs (as they exist today) have a legitimate interest in managing traffic. Something most pro-neutrality advocates vehemently deny. If there were competing ISPs, that would ensure they manage traffic effectively (cost vs. customer requirements). But, without competition, the only way to ensure it's being done fairly is for the community to oversee rates, traffic patterns, profits, capital expenditures, etc. That the business is operating in the public interest.

I think that can best happen locally, not by the FCC.

So, it seems like there are a couple answers. The question is which one is feasible? I see pro- and anti- people arguing about things that seem tangential. "Big business sucks!" or "nobody should get anything free! It's a free market!"

I don't see those two thought processes leading to anything except continued ineffective solutions.

S_engineer
Premium
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL

Re: FCC Voting...

Communitees overseeing rates would be the equivalent of a PUC. Not to mention, we just went through a decade of ATT and others spending big money at the state level in order to change local franchise laws. So whatever is being done, should be a federal structure (not by this FCC) administered at a local level to accomodate for regional differences, network differences, etc., etc..
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
You want Utility status? Well are you going to be paying for those taxes as well? USF? State, County, City and Federal sales taxes? and anything else that the local and federal gov't thinks should be added? The Internet would cost MORE than having a landline by the time the gov't was done taxing it. And what is Utility oversight? From what I've seen the State and Local's don't have any more control. The companies go in and show what they wanna do and BOOM! They get what they want.

ATT doesn't even have MTS anymore on telephone if you bundle your services on your landline in Ohio and more states ATT does business in are following. Bundling is define as having calling plans with LD included or calling features, Internet Service and anything else- U-Verse and DirecTV. Even landline repair services DO NOT have a set repair time frame anymore here. Gotta love the utility oversight eh? Kiss the PUCs good bye.

And compete? Local ISPs had that right and chance; They had their chance to build out their last mile network but instead DECIDED to sit on their ass and milk the ILEC's network until they were kicked off slowly over the last few years. And when Copper is finished rotting and more and more people get put on RTs kiss all the Indie ISPs good bye; expect those that decided to build out their own network- Sonic.net . You'll have people on here (DSLX GM) posting more than he'll work for reviews. Instead he'll be posting "i work for ATT"
amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

Re: FCC Voting...

said by hottboiinnc:

The companies go in and show what they wanna do and BOOM! They get what they want.

Not in my area. Utilities have been denied rate increases and have been required to devote more to capital expenditures.

I agree with you that the past 30 years of deregulatory politics have made utilities more "free enterprise" (at the public's expense).

But, I wouldn't toss the baby with the bathwater. We're still going to have electric, water, gas, sewer, telephone companies that are monopolies and are subject to greater oversight. The only question is whether ISPs fall into that category, or if the line of demarcation can be changed to encourage competition at a different level.

And, speaking of price increases. I don't think ISP cramming (or, "network neutrality") is going to be a walk in the park. It's going to be more like requiring telephone companies to support peak demand rather than average. Someone has to pay for that.

said by hottboiinnc:

And compete? Local ISPs had that right and chance; They had their chance to build out their last mile network but instead DECIDED to sit on their ass and milk the ILEC's network ...

I think we're talking about two different things. ISPs did what you described because they could. There were no competitors entering the market with better products and services.

IMO, that's the root of the problem. Forcing ISPs to handle all the bloated content anyone wants (without metered billing to put the consumer in the driver's seat) is just as bad an idea as opponents to so-called "neutrality" who say ISPs should be able to charge content providers. (That wouldn't work well because ISPs are a monopoly. There would be no competition in content-rate negotiation.).

It's strange to watch such heated passions on both sides, seemingly talking past each other. You're both talking about the same problem -- while vehemently trying not to.
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

Re: FCC Voting...

Being denied rate increases in one state doesn't prove anything. The fact is utility rates across the country are on the rise. Especially electric rates. Gas is the only one that is declining on average.

Electric and Gas are regulated but NOT monopolies- in most states across the country have market companies that you can elect to get your actual product from. The only thing the local utility does is meter reading, billing and maintain the lines, etc. That is NOT a monopoly as you have a choice for the actual product. Water is different as many areas have Muni water departments. Telephone companies are not monopolies anymore either as you have a choice for who you want; VoIP and many resellers that do actual landline services. I'm sure i can go to the AZ PUC's website and obtain a list of providers that you can purchase from. The only thing they do is resell Qwest products but still makes them a competitor and threat to Qwest as they're able to undercut due to not having to have the same staff as they do.

You can NOT support telcos to keep up with peak demand. That's the part the FCC is over stepping and will always. They have NO real control over them. You can't force a private business to support something that they do NOT have to. As long as they upgrade their backbones and they're running fine; the FCC can and will be told to take a hike. It's that easy. The FCC- was NOT put into place to regulate anything beyond the public airwaves. And for someone to pay for the up keep. Yah someone will; the CONSUMER. You want it; you pay for it. That's the WHOLE thing behind metered billing and will always be. If someone is using XXTB per month compared to Grandma at 2gigs per month sharing pictures and video conferences with her grandchildren should NOT have to pay the same and Gma ending up in the end paying for the BW Hog. The BW Hog should be REQUIRED to pay for what they use. That's the way it works. You don't go to your gas company and say; well my neighbor uses less than I do so i'm not going to pay more than what they do; you make enough off them on their regulated minm. usage. Utilities don't work that way. You use it- you pay for it.

ISPs are NOT monopolies; you have choices. How do you figure you don't? Verizon Wireless, ATT Wireless, TMO-USA, Sprint, Clear, cable companies, local telephone companies, 3rd party resellers of DSL. The list goes on and on. You can select to have one or another. If you don't; that's not the provider's problem. that becomes a problem for the customer not electing to move providers; because this country was NOT built on change and people ARE afraid of change. ISPs that did NOT build out created their own problems and should NOT get a free ride on something they DID NOT build. That comes back to the VZ FiOS agreement with DSLX. I for one was GLAD to see VZ kick DSLX off that network. They did NOT build it NOR give any money to VZ for it. They just simply wanted a FREE ride to go on. And they STILL want that. And now they're doing what the telco providers are doing to raise their rates; doing bottom line BS to make more money.
amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

Re: FCC Voting...

said by hottboiinnc:

Electric and Gas are regulated but NOT monopolies-

Anywhere I've lived, there were exactly one choice for electric and gas.

If you wanted to have propane trucked in, there may have been two choices. Same for heating oil.
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

Re: FCC Voting...

its called Deregulation. And most people DO NOT know they have a choice. The electric and gas companies NEVER tell you anything about it. Ohio makes a point at doing it only because they're slowly pulling the licenses from the actual line owners and making them wholesale providers of the line..

»www.quantumgas.com/list_of_energ···tes.html

AZ has options too.
lesopp

join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
In this case how is a vote by an appointed bureaucrat any different that a vote by the central planning committee in China? Personally I look forward to the discussion of how to fix the unintended consequences of this buffoonery.
amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

Re: FCC Voting...

said by lesopp:

Personally I look forward to the discussion of how to fix the unintended consequences of this buffoonery.

Personally, I think that's exactly the intent of this buffoonery.

Someone who's followed this can chime in, but I thought so-called neutrality was dead a few months ago. Then, came back to life after the Republican sweep around Nov. 2. And now passes under bizzare circumstances days before Rs take control of the House (and more control of the Senate).

This is a perfect way to put the topic on the R's agenda. Take up their time on this instead of other topics. And, make them responsible for the broader topic of the FCC, consumer protection against broadband monopolies, etc.

It's easy to complain "this is bad.... harrumph!" But, actually owning the problem and proposing a solution is something else. The devils are in the details and could bog down the R agenda. Or, come back to haunt them.

This isn't a shot at Rs or Ds. I think Rs do the same thing to Ds.
decifal

join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
kudos:1
said by Gbcue:

said by OneEye:

Most citizens can offer many reasons to be proud of America, but the government keeps offering up many reasons to be ashamed.

The betrayal by Congress and the Obama Administration to allow ISP, Cable, and Wireless lobbyist to write Net Neutrality civil law that pisses on the civil rights of all citizens is an act of treason against the people and government of the United States.

Is net neutrality the freedom of speech and freedom of choice issue for the 21st century?

Merry Christmas form the U.S. Government.

Would you rather live in China where the Great Firewall exists and not even a vote took place?

Like to have this wall placed upon your freedoms on the 'net?

I don't even consider this "vote" to really be real being it was bought and paid for from the start.. Its all cloak and dagger

rchandra
Stargate Universe fan
Premium
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105
The very point the poster is making is we slowly seem to be moving in that direction....and that we don't WANT to be headed in China's direction.
gorehound

join:2009-06-19
Portland, ME
This was a dark day indeed.Once again our government has sold us all out.It would of been a one pager that anyone could of wrote instead it is a piece of toilet paper that will probably screw us all unless you have tons and tons of cash.

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
said by OneEye:

Most citizens can offer many reasons to be proud of America, but the government keeps offering up many reasons to be ashamed.

The betrayal by Congress and the Obama Administration to allow ISP, Cable, and Wireless lobbyist to write Net Neutrality civil law that pisses on the civil rights of all citizens is an act of treason against the people and government of the United States.

Is net neutrality the freedom of speech and freedom of choice issue for the 21st century?

Merry Christmas form the U.S. Government.

Yes yes udner McCain/Plain this never would have passed. Please. Enough of the anti-Obama stuff. I don't come to a site called BROADBANDREPORTS to read that kind of crap.

old_dawg
"I Know Noting..."

join:2001-09-22
Westminster, MD
said by OneEye:

Most citizens can offer many reasons to be proud of America, but the government keeps offering up many reasons to be ashamed.

The betrayal by Congress and the Obama Administration to allow ISP, Cable, and Wireless lobbyist to write Net Neutrality civil law that pisses on the civil rights of all citizens is an act of treason against the people and government of the United States.

Is net neutrality the freedom of speech and freedom of choice issue for the 21st century?

Merry Christmas form the U.S. Government.

How's that fro HOPE and CHANGE ?
--
"Our network engineers are aware of the problem..."

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
This law actually seems to sanction censorship if the appropriate excuses are given.

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

2 recommendations

McDowell, before voting no blasted FCC leadership

Before voting no, Commissioner McDowell blasted the FCC leadership in the process of crafting these net neutrality rules:

The big one is that Genachowski didn't even make the final draft of the rules available to the Commissioners and their staffs until 10 minutes to Midnight last night. Yet he expects them to vote on these rules without the staffs even having read them yet.

The 2nd one is that the courts have already ruled that the FCC doesn't have the power to even issue these rules. Guess a lawsuit will be filed quickly by someone against these rules.

The 3rd is that the FCC still reserves the right to regulate broadband prices. Again w/o legal authority.

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Re: McDowell, before voting no blasted FCC leadership

And reactions come quickly with a threat to invalidate the rules thru an order by the US Senate:

»www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/12/21/coup-fcc/

Congress must make it a top priority to overturn these regulations early in 2011, preferably with a Congressional Review Act Resolution of Disapproval that can avoid filibuster and cleanly invalidate the order. The resolution can be forced onto the Senate floor with as few as 30 senators signing a discharge petition.

Two letters from Senate Republicans show that even before the cavalry of new conservative senators arrive to join their ranks, there are already more than the 30 required to force a vote. The main letter was led by Senator John Ensign and had 29 signatures

Congress must do its job and stop the FCC.

Phil Kerpen is vice president for policy at Americans for Prosperity, which is fighting this FCC power grab at »www.NoInternetTakeover.com .

AlfredNewman

join:2010-03-25
Columbus, OH

Re: McDowell, before voting no blasted FCC leadership

said by FFH:

And reactions come quickly with a threat to invalidate the rules thru an order by the US Senate:

»www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/12/21/coup-fcc/

Congress must make it a top priority to overturn these regulations early in 2011, preferably with a Congressional Review Act Resolution of Disapproval that can avoid filibuster and cleanly invalidate the order. The resolution can be forced onto the Senate floor with as few as 30 senators signing a discharge petition.

Two letters from Senate Republicans show that even before the cavalry of new conservative senators arrive to join their ranks, there are already more than the 30 required to force a vote. The main letter was led by Senator John Ensign and had 29 signatures

Congress must do its job and stop the FCC.

Phil Kerpen is vice president for policy at Americans for Prosperity, which is fighting this FCC power grab at »www.NoInternetTakeover.com .

One can only hope

fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
I am a conservative but I don't understand what exactly is the opposition to net neutrality. Why exactly are you against it? Why is Phil Kerpen and AFP against it?

Michael C

join:2009-06-26
Cedar Park, TX

1 edit

3 recommendations

Re: McDowell, before voting no blasted FCC leadership

You ask this question because you are a smart conservative who is actually thinking for yourself rather than taking at face-value the BS being put out there. The truth is Net Neutrality IS a conservative position. It seeks to preserve the status quo of how the Internet operates today which has allowed it to become what it is.

Some are against Net Neutrality because they don't understand the concept, some are against it because they blindly believe the untruths being propagated in some media outlets, and some are against it because they're paid to be against it. You seem to like to think for yourself, so do a little digging on Phil Kerpen and AFP and follow the money trail if you want to know their real motives.
pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:2
Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Comcast
·Future Nine Corp..

Re: McDowell, before voting no blasted FCC leadership

I too am a conservative and strongly favor network neutrality.

Though I was saddened to read a WSJ poll regarding support for network neutrality at - »online.wsj.com/community/groups/···utrality

Astoundingly 70% opposed the FCC mandating network neutrality. I wonder if readers are opposed to the current FCC action, which may be beyond their authority and is loop hole ridden, or if they are really against network neutrality.

We can't let internet get balkanized ... I don't view that as a conservative or liberal position. At the same time, whatever the FCC is doing in this rule, it seems to be drafted to make AT&T happy, and may be beyond their authority.

Maybe it's time for Congress to step in, hold hearings, and assure in law network neutrality.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
jcremin

join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2

1 recommendation

Re: McDowell, before voting no blasted FCC leadership

Who the hell really gives the FCC or other Government entity ANY right to tell a privately owned ISP how to run their business?

If I want to open up a shoe store with my own money, nobody has the right to tell me that I have to sell every color shoe (not discriminating against different types of traffic) or tell me that I have to charge the same price for big shoes or little shoes (metered billing/caps) or tell me that I don't have the right to not stock every shoe that might be needed (minimum speeds).

If I used government funding or got huge tax breaks to build or expand my business, then I can see regulation being perfectly fine, as long it was understood that I was giving them that right as part of the process.. Otherwise it just isn't right for them to tell me how I can and can't run my business as long as I follow the rest of the laws like paying taxes and obtaining permits, etc...

••••••
mworks

join:2006-06-13
Faison, NC

1 recommendation

AFP is against it because part of their funding comes from telecom. The first thing anyone should do when asking why someone voted the way they did is look at who funds them.

Look at the voting on the FCC proposal , the 2 who voted against it have worked for and received money from telecom.

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
said by fifty nine:

I am a conservative but I don't understand what exactly is the opposition to net neutrality. Why exactly are you against it? Why is Phil Kerpen and AFP against it?

How about because it is a barely disguised attempt to tilt the playing field in favor of the content companies? The rules aren't really about preserving net neutrality, but in favoring the content companies over the distribution companies. And like another poster says - follow the money. The Dems are in Hollywood's pockets big time and owe them for all the money that flows to those contributing to Dem election campaigns.

••••••
SuperWISP

join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

1 recommendation

That the FCC passed the regulations on a date when it knew Congress would be out of town, and didn't give all of the Commissioners time to read the rules before the vote, are just two reasons why these onerous, illegal regulations must not stand.

Gbcue
Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
said by FFH:

The 2nd one is that the courts have already ruled that the FCC doesn't have the power to even issue these rules. Guess a lawsuit will be filed quickly by someone against these rules.

The 3rd is that the FCC still reserves the right to regulate broadband prices. Again w/o legal authority.

So you want more laws on the books? I thought you were all about freedom and less regulation, less laws, more lawlessness.
--
My Blog 2.0

•••
vinnie97
Premium
join:2003-12-05
US
kudos:1

Fall From Grace

What was once heralded as the savior of the Internet has now become a loathed juggernaut of epic proportions.

TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium
join:2002-01-25
Gibsonton, FL

1 recommendation

The Force is strong with this one...

The anti-capitalism, anti-business sentiment is strong here.

The Telcos etc are the ones footing the lion share of the costs of maintaining our LUXURY called the INTERNET.

I am not willing to pay for anyone's else luxury and I don't expect others to pay for mine.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

firephoto
We the people
Premium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA

Party lines

It's like a fairy tale. The vote on party lines gives both sides what they want. Self praise on one side and to decry it publicly while fist pumping with the boys on the other side.

Breaking News! Democrats love big media and big telecom and Republicans love them too but only enough to not get noticed for loving a similar thing to the Democrats. These are American elitists that have no real grasp on real people and real living and probably honestly believe that you have to give special help to largest companies or else they couldn't even exist.

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Re: Party lines

said by firephoto:

Breaking News! Democrats love big media and big telecom and Republicans love them too but only enough to not get noticed for loving a similar thing to the Democrats.

This is all about the Dems(thru the current FCC leadership) still paying off Hollywood for campaign contributions. And until Hollywood starts giving equal amounts of money to Republican candidates, the votes will be partisan.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

Re: Party lines

I'm sure the GOP supporters will lay this all at the feet of the Democrats, no doubt. However what the Republicans refuse to tell you is the only reason they were opposed is because it wasn't EVEN WORSE and more what their lobbyists wanted.

Don't worry, however, as noted this is largely for show, will do nothing for consumers, and will actually set precedents allowing censorship and other anti-competitive practices "For network management" purposes (and others.)
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
jus10

join:2009-08-04
Sterling, VA

Odd

Honestly I think we've all known for some time the FCC was completely useless. But the part of this that I really find troublesome is that they've voted to pass a new "order" which hasn't been seen by the public. How can you even do that?

Michael C

join:2009-06-26
Cedar Park, TX

The FCC voted on something today...

..and I want to know what it is. There must have been a "thing" that existed today that they voted 3-2 on. I want to see it. Not something that is subject to post-vote manipulation. Sounds a little like Monday morning quarterbacking

•••
nOv1c3

join:2006-11-08
Whitney, TX
kudos:1

Fcc vote

I hope you whiny little liberals are happy with screaming and crying about net neutrality , This well Kill the internet as we know it .Pat your selfs on the back Fools

This Bill has nothing to do with net neutrality, Has everything to do with this Administration and the liberal left wing nut jobs in the FCC
Doing a power grab ,

These People should terrify you , The FCC Commissioner has already said he Wants to Control the Content of Broadcast Media , The more research you do into what these people have said and what they think should wake you up but i doubt it

•••••••
rdmiller

join:2005-09-23
Richmond, VA

No basis in law

The bottom line is there is nothing in the 1996 law that gives the FCC authority to do any of this. Back in the days of the Intertubes, dial-up was how we got access to our email and bulletin boards.
sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

Re: No basis in law

What about Title II?
SuperWISP

join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

Ruling is slanted against WISPs

The FCC regulations are slanted against WISPs - and, hence, against rural Internet users. The regs release mobile broadband providers from the most overbearing restrictions, but explicitly burden fixed wireless providers, even though they face even greater challenges than mobile providers (see »fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/···20922707). This is just one reason why the regulations must be overturned ASAP by a court or nullified by Congress.

firephoto
We the people
Premium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA

Re: Ruling is slanted against WISPs

said by SuperWISP:

The FCC regulations are slanted against WISPs - and, hence, against rural Internet users. The regs release mobile broadband providers from the most overbearing restrictions, but explicitly burden fixed wireless providers, even though they face even greater challenges than mobile providers (see »fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/···20922707). This is just one reason why the regulations must be overturned ASAP by a court or nullified by Congress.

What really needs to happen is better cooperation between wisps and to create connected networks. It's obvious the rules will try to squeeze you out but in the end you might be the only answer for an open network but that itself might not be what most wisps want. To have any say in these matters there has to be cooperation and unity within the sector itself.

Data is data and I'll predict the first ones to accept that will ultimately come out on top with only short gains for those who want to only provide popular content.
--
Say no to JAMS!
gunther_01
Premium
join:2004-03-29
Saybrook, IL

Re: Ruling is slanted against WISPs

Most WISP's are very considerate of our customers and having "open" networks without blocking any form of content. We do however have a harder time managing our networks compared to Wired or Mobile systems.

Some of those things include. Expensive broadband access at our head ends. License free spectrum that is cluttered with interference. A lack of more license free spectrum. Lower incomes compared to the big Telco's. Smaller deployments/less customers per tower site.

Some of those are inherent simply because we serve people who have not been served by others due to costs and or locations. The reality is that WISP's get over looked all the time. And most of us provide a better value compared to the other providers. And serve our rural customers better then the big providers.

GlennAllen
Sunny with highs in the 80s
Premium
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon FiOS

When you can't do something right,

just go ahead and do anything at all... to try to make it look like you're doing something useful [for everyone except the consumers/citizens you supposedly represent]. ( = new/old FCC motto)

More and more I'm becoming convinced that Internet access will have less and less value for me and only have value for those that sell the access--as it becomes more and more filtered and inspected and locked down and over-charged for [with no accompanying value].

rit56

join:2000-12-01
New York, NY

1 recommendation

FCC

I see Fox News or Faux News has accomplished it's primary objective and mis informing, brain washing a lot of people here. Reading the comments here is unbelievable. You are all sad zealots doing the bidding of billionaires and you're not smart enough to see you are nothing to them, pawns to abuse and discard. In these times, this New Gilded Age we live, that you are so dismissive of your own countrymen is sickening. Our problems are due to the affluent, corporations and banks stealing from everyone and here you are cheering this on. People will not be able to afford what cell phone bills will now become due to this failure. The internet is a utility that has until now made the lives of average citizens better and now it becomes a luxury item. A disgrace. America spiralling down the toilet for profit and share holder greed. The more you mention party or ideology the more ridiculous you look. Go ahead and dismantle the government. Who will you blame next? All your problems are Government, Immigrants, nonwhites, Municipal Employees. How I wish we all could be as perfect as you.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••

yougodsl

@verizon.net

thank you, thank you ,thank you dslreports

i will say it 10 years ago someone asked where will the internet be 10 years from now thru your archive's, the questions is listed and i stated under government control.
But the real hero here is dslreports they have for years been blazing this battle to bring common user to this site and in other forums. the message that.
people wake up your under threat of loosing your rights on the internet!!!.
It has come to pass now is the time for everyone to pick up a pen and write to that Washington machine to give us back our internet and not let these lobbies take away our right to net neutrality.
I have never been a good poster here and have had my moments with dslreports but this is one fight i join and support even if you guys do not like me. Thank you Dslreports.
You did more for this than any lobby could have done in Washington., By being on top of it from the start.

••••

fred33

@sprintbbd.net

Doesn't this sound familiar?

"Several Commissioners complained they only received the finalized rules at nearly midnight last night."

same bs pulled in the healthcare sham where "you have to pass it to find out what's in it"

and same thing in the recent bloated trillion dollar omnibus fraud where they unload a 1000+ page bill a few hours before they're supposed to vote on it.

=========================================
are the democrats on here proud of their crooked party?
vinnie97
Premium
join:2003-12-05
US
kudos:1

1 edit

Re: Doesn't this sound familiar?

All party hacks are apologists for their parties...on both the R & D side. Both parties need to go up in flames...the D's are simply the most hideous at the moment. Luckily, that omnibus bill was halted, but it looks like the Food Safety Bill went through last night, criminalizing home farms.

Bill Neilson
Premium
join:2009-07-08
Arlington, VA

Yippie, we are just a few lucky years away

from being charged to access several "Company Approved" sites and then 5.99 monthly to access "Sports Sites" like ESPN, CNNSI, etc...and 5.99 monthly for Entertainment sites....

And a few more bucks for Facebook and YouTube

Hurr Alley

@cox.net

Take a deep breath

I am not well versed in what was passed today, though I do understand the issue. With that said, it does not take any specific knowledge to see that a lot of the comments here are knee jerk over reactions. The internet is without a doubt as some have asserted become a de facto utility. While I am no government or regulation fan, it is unreasonable to assume that the Internet can continue operating like the Wild, Wild West. It has become too intertwined with nearly every human activity (and polluted with every human vice). In fact, having lived through the loss of Power, Phone, and Internet Service for extended periods, many of us would choose internet over the others if a Faustian bargain need be made. This is not the end this debate, not even the end of the beginning; it will take another decade to figure all of this out (assuming we survive that long).

trainwreck6

join:2010-09-21
off track

Karl...

Your last sentence is wrong.

It should be "make DO", not "make due".