dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1892

Cartel
Intel inside Your sensitive data outside
Premium Member
join:2006-09-13
Chilliwack, BC

Cartel

Premium Member

FCC Passes Net Neutrality: Internet Iron Curtain?

I noticed some sites are going absolutly bonkers saying the internet is over.

1 site even makes you click a contract before you can access it.
quote:
Membership Contract:
You are attempting to enter a private internet forum.

Entrance to this private establishment requires membership but not an account.

Membership Contract:

• You Contractually Agree that you are at least 18 years of age and that you are accessing this website for personal use only.
• You Contractually Agree that you wish to join as a member to this private establishment and that any communication taking place here is considered private communication between members and is not publicly disseminated information.
• You are responsible for all activity that occurs under your IP Address on this website, including your conduct and any User Content you provide or that you allow others to provide under your IP Address.
• You will not use this website to harass, threaten, impersonate or intimidate another person, government, or legal entity.
• You will not use this website to promote, recruit for, or organize any real life group, political or otherwise.
• You will not provide, submit or otherwise make available any content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, or otherwise illegal.
• You will not provide, submit or otherwise make available any unsolicited or unauthorized advertising, promotional materials, "junk mail," "spam," "chain letters," "pyramid schemes," "affiliate links" or any other form of solicitation.
• You will not violate any local laws in your jurisdiction (including, but not limited to, intellectual property laws).
• You will not use our Site for any illegal or unauthorized purpose.
• You will not access, "hack," alter or otherwise use any part of the Site in any unauthorized manner.
• You will not utilize any bugs, robots or other technological device to access or extract any data or information contained on the Site.
• You understand and agree that your membership to this private establishment can be revoked by this website's staff at any time for any reason whatsoever or no reason at all.
• You Contractually Agree to abide by and be bound by the additional terms of service, disclaimer, and copyright agreement found in the footer of this website.
• You Contractually Agree that: (i) this Website shall be deemed solely based in the country of Jersey; and (ii) this Website shall be deemed a passive website that does not give rise to personal jurisdiction over this website, either specific or general, in jurisdictions other than the country of Jersey. Unless prohibited by local law, these Terms of Service shall be governed by the internal substantive laws of the Country of Jersey, without respect to its conflict of laws principles. Unless prohibited by local law, any claim or dispute between you and this website that arises in whole or in part from this Website shall be decided exclusively by a court of competent jurisdiction located in the country of Jersey.

I Agree to The Terms of This Membership Contract. (LET ME IN)

I Do Not Agree to The Terms.
Whats going on?

Commissioner Ajit Pai said that it was “sad to witness” the FCC replacing Internet freedom with “government control.” Pai continued, saying that the FCC only voted on the rules that it did due to intrusion into the agency’s processes by President Barack Obama.

President Obama's plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the internet.' — Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai.

»techcrunch.com/2015/02/2 ··· -2-vote/
»www.dailymail.co.uk/scie ··· eed.html
Cartel

5 recommendations

Cartel

Premium Member


chachazz
Premium Member
join:2003-12-14

4 recommendations

chachazz to Cartel

Premium Member

to Cartel
The BBC
quote:
The main changes for broadband providers are as follows:
•Broadband access is being reclassified as a telecommunications service, meaning it will be subject to much heavier regulation
• Broadband providers cannot block or speed up connections for a fee
• Internet providers cannot strike deals with content firms, known as paid prioritisation, for smoother delivery of traffic to consumers
• Interconnection deals, where content companies pay broadband providers to connect to their networks, will also be regulated
• Firms which feel that unjust fees have been levied can complain to the FCC. Each one will be dealt with on a case by case basis
• All of the rules will also apply to mobile providers as well as fixed line providers
• The FCC won't apply some sections of the new rules, including price controls

chachazz

1 recommendation

chachazz to Cartel

Premium Member

to Cartel
Dear FCC: Thanks for Listening to Team Internet!
quote:
Today the FCC voted three to two to reclassify broadband Internet access as a common carrier service under Title II of the Communications Act, and forbear from the parts of the Act that aren’t necessary for net neutrality rules. This reclassification gives the FCC the authority to enact (and enforce) narrow, clear rules which will help keep the Internet the open platform it is today.

As expected, the FCC's new rules forbid ISPs from charging Internet users for special treatment on their networks. It will also reach interconnection between ISPs and transit providers or edge services, allowing the FCC to ensure that ISPs don't abuse their gatekeeper authority to favor some services over others.

That's great for making sure websites and services can reach ISP customers, but what about making sure customers can choose for themselves how to use their Internet connections without interference from their ISPs? To accomplish this, the FCC has banned ISPs from blocking or throttling their customers' traffic based on content, applications or services - which means users, hackers, tinkerers, artists, and knowledge seekers can continue to innovate and experiment on the Internet, using any app or service they please, without having to get their ISP's permission first.

Even better, the rules will apply to wireless and wired broadband in the same way, so you don't have to worry that your phone switching from Wi-Fi to a 4G network will suddenly cause apps not to work or websites to become inaccessible. Lots of people use mobile devices as their primary way of accessing the Internet, so applying net neutrality rules to both equally will help make sure there is "one Internet" for all.
19579823 (banned)
An Awesome Dude
join:2003-08-04

19579823 (banned) to Cartel

Member

to Cartel

What site is that you got that message?? (About entering a pirvate site)

chachazz
Premium Member
join:2003-12-14

3 recommendations

chachazz to Cartel

Premium Member

to Cartel

Re: FCC Passes Net Neutrality: Internet Iron Curtain?

Terms of a forum membership or website rules have nothing to do with the new Net Neutrality rules.
Expand your moderator at work
redwolfe_98
Premium Member
join:2001-06-11

redwolfe_98 to Cartel

Premium Member

to Cartel

Re: FCC Passes Net Neutrality: Internet Iron Curtain?

i hope it stands.. i don't think it will..

carpetshark3
Premium Member
join:2004-02-12
Idledale, CO

1 recommendation

carpetshark3 to chachazz

Premium Member

to chachazz
said by chachazz:

Terms of a forum membership or website rules have nothing to do with the new Net Neutrality rules.

That won't deter a shyster lawyer. Look what a mess patent troll lawyers can make.
carpetshark3

1 recommendation

carpetshark3 to Cartel

Premium Member

to Cartel
I hope it stands. I don't use cable, I do some streaming, but most is OTA. None of the streaming is a main movie channel. MLB and PBS. MLB runs close to being a major channel but is probably outnumbered by the sites that do movies.

Neither MLB or PBS do commercials. MLB blocks the national ads. You will hear an announcer do a local ad at the start of an inning at times. PBS does credits before and after program.

I don't want what I watch subject to all those who like movies just so more ads can be crammed down throats.

MLB is subscription and we contribute to PBS.

StuartMW
Premium Member
join:2000-08-06

2 recommendations

StuartMW to Cartel

Premium Member

to Cartel
Coming soon... Taxes on internet use and online shopping.

I'm surprised the intertoobs have remained relatively regulation free for so long.

CylonRed
MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County

3 recommendations

CylonRed

MVM

Easy to fix (though in most states legally you have to declare online purchases so the state can tax you) by passing the current ban on taxes in the Internet tax Freedom Act.

Personally I hate legalized extortion more than any tax.

Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium Member
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN

1 recommendation

Blackbird to Cartel

Premium Member

to Cartel
However meritorious (or not) the arguments over net neutrality, with 'official' regulation now beginning, so also will begin its "mission creep". To deny that is to deny the last 200 years of Federal mission creep in every sphere into which the government has been injected. Whether that will result in the Draconian censorship or over-regulated stifling of growth feared by opponents remains to be seen. But creep, it will... and neither opponents nor proponents can accurately know the end effects. Hand someone a hammer and don't be surprised about what he sees as being a nail.
dave
Premium Member
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio

4 recommendations

dave

Premium Member

The choice offered, I think, is whether you want to be shafted by the government or shafted by giant telcos operating in an effectively no-competition market.

I'll take the one that at least pretends to have a democratic process.
bennor
Premium Member
join:2006-07-22
New Haven, CT

1 edit

bennor to Blackbird

Premium Member

to Blackbird
said by Blackbird:

However meritorious (or not) the arguments over net neutrality, with 'official' regulation now beginning, so also will begin its "mission creep".

Yep now the mission creep begins. Chances are in 1, 5 or 10 years from now the same people championing and cheering the FCC decision yesterday will be clamoring for the FCC to once again pass "net neutrality" because what was passed by the FCC yesterday isn't really what they thought it "would" be.

What the FCC announced yesterday was simply the broad strokes, once we see the actual language and text for the rules/regulations is when we find out what will or has already been enacted.

One issue that isn't widely mentioned is the USF fee (currently at 16.8%) may still end up applying to broadband even though the FCC said yesterday that it wouldn't apply to broadband and that they were working separately on the USF fee. Rumor is they've already finished working on it and will announce it at a later time and it may not exempt broadband.
Nanaki (banned)
aka novaflare. pull punches? Na
join:2002-01-24
Akron, OH

1 recommendation

Nanaki (banned) to chachazz

Member

to chachazz
I don't know what point was trying to be made in the op but for the most part that "contract" looks typical of forums. I am on or have been on dozens of forums and they all have sim worded tos agreements.

neochu
join:2008-12-12
Windsor, ON

neochu

Member

said by Nanaki:

I don't know what point was trying to be made in the op but for the most part that "contract" looks typical of forums. I am on or have been on dozens of forums and they all have sim worded tos agreements.

That those rules will become the law of the land for ALL websites.

IE the old idea of requiring a "9000 dollar liscence" to use the internet under thousands of pages of rules more complex to the tax code.
Nanaki (banned)
aka novaflare. pull punches? Na
join:2002-01-24
Akron, OH

2 recommendations

Nanaki (banned)

Member

In theory those rules aka tos have always been legally binding. I have ran many a web site and forum. And legally i could file a law suit against a troll who i banned who then used a proxy to bypass the ban.

As for the old idea comment i remember that sort of fud over the years. Lots of fear mongering like that has always been par for the course every time some new regulation etc hits regarding the internet. Fact is no one could afford the net with something like that. Meaning it wont ever happen. The gov would never get tax money with a tax like that. The old saying you can't get blood from a turnip applies here. No matter how much some one must have the net and it is all but a must have now no one could pay such a fee. What would really happen is this. Do to a extreme fee like that people would have to give up the net. Meaning employers would be left with no choice but to go back to paper ob applications etc. Paperless billing would be going by by as well. Every thing that makes the net a must have also relies on the net to be workable. Meaning none of the mega corps would ever allow such a thing to pass. The amount of money utilities etc save on postage alone is in to the billions a year if not pushing toward a trillion a year.

But again i can not quite see what any of this has to do with net neutrality.

Cartel
Intel inside Your sensitive data outside
Premium Member
join:2006-09-13
Chilliwack, BC

Cartel

Premium Member

said by Nanaki:

In theory those rules aka tos have always been legally binding. I have ran many a web site and forum. And legally i could file a law suit against a troll who i banned who then used a proxy to bypass the ban.

As for the old idea comment i remember that sort of fud over the years. Lots of fear mongering like that has always been par for the course every time some new regulation etc hits regarding the internet. Fact is no one could afford the net with something like that. Meaning it wont ever happen. The gov would never get tax money with a tax like that. The old saying you can't get blood from a turnip applies here. No matter how much some one must have the net and it is all but a must have now no one could pay such a fee. What would really happen is this. Do to a extreme fee like that people would have to give up the net. Meaning employers would be left with no choice but to go back to paper ob applications etc. Paperless billing would be going by by as well. Every thing that makes the net a must have also relies on the net to be workable. Meaning none of the mega corps would ever allow such a thing to pass. The amount of money utilities etc save on postage alone is in to the billions a year if not pushing toward a trillion a year.

But again i can not quite see what any of this has to do with net neutrality.

quote:
now it will be much harder to f**k with us via the new FCC laws
private communication is much more strongly protected than public communication
you must join a private club to even view the website now

apparently this
Nanaki (banned)
aka novaflare. pull punches? Na
join:2002-01-24
Akron, OH

3 recommendations

Nanaki (banned)

Member

And what is this site that forces one to join a "private club" I have yet to see a link to it. And what does this site focus on? What are their politics like? Maybe they are trying to just spread fud because they do not like the way the new rules were passed so they are trying to make a point by making one join this "private club".
dave
Premium Member
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio

1 edit

1 recommendation

dave

Premium Member

Forgotten how to use Google?

It's likely 'godlikeproductions', home of conspiracy nuts, ufo-spotters, and woo-happy people.

However, the general tone of the 'disclaimer' has been copied and pasted all over the net. Cut'n'paste orgy.

You'll notice the particular example quoted about refers to the island of Jersey, a well-known tax haven and popular spot for the headquarters of banks that want to avoid paying the applicable taxes in the country they really operate in.
Nanaki (banned)
aka novaflare. pull punches? Na
join:2002-01-24
Akron, OH

Nanaki (banned)

Member

Well just wanting to see if the op would decide to post the where this was spotted on his own or if some one would have to do it for him. Obviously he doesn't want to post the url as it would show that it is a site of fud with a political agenda who are against net neutrality. Im for real net neutrality. And im with holding judgment on this bill till i see the damn thing. Personally i think all the fear of it is pointless. We can speculate all we want and it is pointless till we see what it even is.

you know me well enough to know that i am about as conservative as it gets. But i don't buy fud from any side of the fence.
Nanaki

Nanaki (banned) to dave

Member

to dave
And yep lol that is where it is from check out some of these topics

The concept of a Flat Earth is a very interesting one indeed I've Got a Secret O.P. 5 54
(2) today
3:35 PM today
3:51 PM
I have found that barely knowing anyone and staying in the house makes life better.
Page 1, 2, 3, 4 Anonymous Coward 101 3,349
(34) 02/25/15
11:33 PM today
3:51 PM
Time for a CHEMTRAIL CHECK in your part of the world. Judethz 9 169
(4) today
7:01 AM today
3:51 PM
OMG!! the 'contards' are right! It is just water vapor!

Oh damn i better not post those im breaking their law!! ...
OZO
Premium Member
join:2003-01-17

1 recommendation

OZO to Cartel

Premium Member

to Cartel
The Internet should always be neutral. I have no doubt about that. But I don't think that government (and particularly, FCC) should regulate it. Bureaucracy always means new taxes (for them doing the job), extreme slowness in adjusting to a new reality, and ... even more taxes (did I mentioned it?)

Then how to make sure that Internet will always be neutral? I think the approach should be a bit different. We need a law, that requires exactly that (no prioritization of Internet traffic for profit purposes). In this case, it will bring no taxation, no any bureaucracy involvements. The Internet will all remain as it always being before. What about enforcement, you ask? It should be done via courts, no FCC needed. Expenses are covered by violators of the law.

Disclaimer, I'm always against new laws. But there are cases, when it seems that there is no better solution...

CylonRed
MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
·Metronet

CylonRed

MVM

There is already a law to not tax internet service. It just has to be renewed or made permanent. The only real way to fix the issue is to have real competition for internet services and god knows when that will happen.

It is also likely that Comcast had not gotten dumb and throttled service from Netflix among others, net neutrality would either be much farther in the future or not even mentioned yet (provided no other isp would get as stupid either).

I also believe ths t nothing will be done as the right is going to try and sue as often as they can.
Nanaki (banned)
aka novaflare. pull punches? Na
join:2002-01-24
Akron, OH

1 recommendation

Nanaki (banned) to OZO

Member

to OZO
So which is better 2.50 in taxes on your bill or the in some cases 20+ in bogus fees all hidden under the line and never quoted at time of sign up?

who gives a crap if the fcc mandates add 2.5 bucks in taxes if you save 18.50 as a result. If no one regulates the way isps do business we will only see our bills going up and up and up and our service quality going down and down and down. We will pay more for less untill we get next to nothing for 200 per month. Hell some people already have that. And don't give me the vote with your wallet nonsense because you have no choice between isps even where you do have a choice it is between crap for $100 or worse crap for $90. For me to get true broad band ay thing around 25 mb a sec i would have to pay at a min 80+

Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium Member
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN

Blackbird to Cartel

Premium Member

to Cartel
I'm looking at my landline phone bill at this moment, and there are 5 Federal taxes, "recovery charges", "line charges", and surcharges listed on it. Additionally, there are 8 state charges, taxes, and surcharges for a total of 13. Not one of these is for anything those governmental units do except "regulate". Is there any single thing that government "regulates" for which it doesn't also extract fees, charges, taxes, and/or surcharges? And in very many cases, revenues from those assessments don't even support the service to which they're applied, but instead go into general revenue coffers. Any human being who thinks this regulation process will somehow be otherwise is living a life disconnected from reality.
dave
Premium Member
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio

3 recommendations

dave

Premium Member

I'm looking at mine, from Verizon.

Voice
Federal excise tax - honest-to-goodness government tax
MA state sales tax - ok
MA state sales tax - yes, they list and charge it twice
911 access tax - VZ charges me for their costs in providing 911
Federal universal service fee - VZ charges me for their costs in providing universal access
Property tax recover charge - VZ charges me because they have buildings

TV
MA state sales tax - ok
PEG grant fee - VZ charges me because my town makes them pay for community access
PEG grant fee - yes, listed and charged twice
Regulatory recovery fee - VZ charges me because they have to pay for the FCC
Franchise related costs - VZ charges me because my town makes them pay for the franchise

So, out of that, I see two genuine charges that the government makes me pay on telecomms: federal excise tax and MA sales tax. The rest is all bullshit from VZ, who pass all their costs of doing business on to me. I'm aware that all businesses do that (any store factors the cost of rent into their prices) but this from VZ is tantamount to charging explicit fees on top of their existing profit margin. They are another business that prefers to piss on its customer base rather than serve them.

StuartMW
Premium Member
join:2000-08-06

StuartMW to Blackbird

Premium Member

to Blackbird
said by Blackbird:

...is living a life disconnected from reality.

There's a lot of that going around these days

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

CylonRed
MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County

1 recommendation

CylonRed to dave

MVM

to dave
Don't forget they want to legally extort money from places like Netflix - just because...