At this point, I think it's a stretch, but I won't say he's wrong either. Just because the FCC is stepping in here doesn't mean they're going to step in at another place. He makes a common mistake that people opposed to government regulation sometimes do: that the government will actually have any rhyme or reason for applying it when they do. The telecoms and the content providers have a pretty decent thing going and I can't imagine too many on either side will line up behind applying these rules to cable, which means it'll never get done. There was a LOT of corporate interest at work on both sides of this discussion and it looks as though Google and Yahoo won this round at the expense of Comcast and AT&T... they probably won't lose again.

 

Thanks Getslow.

 

And when I tell people I have some really smart friends you are one of the people I am talking about. @Getslow

Bottom line: If the government gets it's foot in the door they will do as they please.. No hyperbole. History has proved this several times.

Bottom line: If the government gets it's foot in the door they will do as they please.. No hyperbole. History has proved this several times.

 

I see very little difference between big government and big business in this age. It's about choosing which foot you want up your backside on any particular day.

 

One of the original links bluegrasscard put up spelled out nicely what happened here, Netflix (as one example of one side) and Comcast (as an example of the other) know that the boom in downloading, streaming and other online content mean that we're constantly going to need bigger and better networks. Netflix and the other providers believe that no matter how expensive it is, the modern world demands that you have internet, so that no matter how expensive it is, you'll find a way to get access to it; they're probably right. On the other hand, if Netflix or Hulu or whatever get too expensive, you'll just cancel it. They NEEDED the expense of new bandwidth to stay with the ISPs and not with content providers; they got it.

 

Doesn't just waking up every morning give you that sinking feeling that you're part of a game that you're not actually playing?

I see very little difference between big government and big business in this age. It's about choosing which foot you want up your backside on any particular day.

 

One of the original links bluegrasscard put up spelled out nicely what happened here, Netflix (as one example of one side) and Comcast (as an example of the other) know that the boom in downloading, streaming and other online content mean that we're constantly going to need bigger and better networks. Netflix and the other providers believe that no matter how expensive it is, the modern world demands that you have internet, so that no matter how expensive it is, you'll find a way to get access to it; they're probably right. On the other hand, if Netflix or Hulu or whatever get too expensive, you'll just cancel it. They NEEDED the expense of new bandwidth to stay with the ISPs and not with content providers; they got it.

 

Doesn't just waking up every morning give you that sinking feeling that you're part of a game that you're not actually playing?

 

Yes!

I see very little difference between big government and big business in this age. It's about choosing which foot you want up your backside on any particular day.

 

One of the original links bluegrasscard put up spelled out nicely what happened here, Netflix (as one example of one side) and Comcast (as an example of the other) know that the boom in downloading, streaming and other online content mean that we're constantly going to need bigger and better networks. Netflix and the other providers believe that no matter how expensive it is, the modern world demands that you have internet, so that no matter how expensive it is, you'll find a way to get access to it; they're probably right. On the other hand, if Netflix or Hulu or whatever get too expensive, you'll just cancel it. They NEEDED the expense of new bandwidth to stay with the ISPs and not with content providers; they got it.

 

Doesn't just waking up every morning give you that sinking feeling that you're part of a game that you're not actually playing?

No truer words have ever been spoken. Like Paul Brown said a long time ago to his players..."you are just interchangeable drill bits"...

As I understand it internet providers will not be allowed to offer differing levels of service at different costs. Does this mean that we will no longer have te option of paying more or less or faster or slower service?

 

Seems kind of like Obamacare where the government has deemed that one size fits all.

Thanks Getslow. And when I tell people I have some really smart friends you are one of the people I am talking about. @Getslow

 

 

Word

Can someone explain this in English please? :lol2: I read the various links and didn't understand a lick of it.

Can someone explain this in English please? :lol2: I read the various links and didn't understand a lick of it.

 

Click on the USA Today link and listen to the audio.

Someone please tell me if I'm wrong (because I very well might be), but what this net neutrality law is doing is essentially regulating my use of the internet? As far as I know, I am now unable to purchase faster internet if I am unhappy with the speed of my current one? I hope I'm at least in the ballpark.

 

Also, who knew we could tag people with the "@" sign on BGP!?

Here's my go to information video:

 

So here is what I'm getting: It is not okay for a business to step between me and my internet and charge me in the most profitable way for them, but it is okay for government to step between a business and its services?

As I understand it internet providers will not be allowed to offer differing levels of service at different costs. Does this mean that we will no longer have te option of paying more or less or faster or slower service?

 

Seems kind of like Obamacare where the government has deemed that one size fits all.

 

No.

 

"Going forward, the FCC's net neutrality rules would cover consumers however they access the Web: PC, phone, tablet, etc. and all Internet service providers (cable, satellite, wireless) would have to adhere to three basic rules: no blocking, no throttling specific apps or content, and no paid prioritization."

 

That has nothing to do with general bandwidth provisions.

 

It's simply saying that ISPs cannot block or slow down (throttle back) traffic from certain content providers. like Netflicks, unless the provider pays the ISP for access to their network.

 

The ruling also means that Vontage or Magic Jack cannot be blocked in favor of the ISP's own IP phone system.

 

ISPs have always and will continue to offer faster bandwidth packages that cost more than the minimum bandwidth mandated by the FCC.

I have not been able to follow this. Thus, why I opened the thread.

 

BTW, this 'thing' passed. Getslow indicated its 8 pages - I have not seen those 8 pages.

 

Here are some links since this passed:

 

AT&T, Verizon lash out at FCC after Net Neutrality ruling | ZDNet

 

FCC vote: Net neutrality saved, ISPs will be reclassified as utilities | BGR

 

FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules For 'Open Internet' : The Two-Way : NPR

BTW, this 'thing' passed. Getslow indicated its 8 pages - I have not seen those 8 pages.

 

Eight pages of rules according to Ajit Pai, one of the FCC board members who said ahead of today's vote that he was against the proposal.

 

HOWEVER, those eight pages reference countless pages of other regulations and are, undoubtedly, woefully insufficient to be a real framework for ISPs to follow. Nothing that's eight pages will tell you everything that's going to have to happen, especially given the Title II incorporation.

 

I'll try to find the interview I read with him yesterday. I'm fairly certain it was Reason magazine.

 

I still maintain that the basics of net neutrality are a good thing... reclassifying ISPs as a Title II utility has the potential to be horrible for everyone.

Anything thing that brings the FCC involved is bad for the common American. This stinks the more I learn about it.