Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

TG: Net neutrality advocates to protest against 'hybrid' FCC solution in dozens of cities


JMS

Recommended Posts

So the FCC is back at it.   They were looking at allowing internet companies to control access speeds for different sites.   This would change the face of the internet.   It would take the innovation away from the software providers like google, reddit,  youtube, facebook and Netflix..  and allow the cable companies to degrade the access speeds of competitors to their own offerings in various lucrative internet niche markets.  

 

So the consumer wouldn't decide who has the best search engine.   AT&T,  Comcast and Sprint would.    They would be in a position to throttle down any offering they prefer and hold their huge userbases captive for their own financial gain. Userbases these Internet Service Providers didn't earn but rather were granted by governments edict in order to attract these companies to create their networks as a public service.

 

When the FCC first proposed these game changing alterations to the rules of the internet  A record 3.7m comments were sent to the regulator crashing the FCC’s systems. The Sunlight Foundation analysed[/url] the first 800,000 and found that fewer than 1% were opposed to net neutrality enforcement.

Now the FCC currently headed by a former Cable industry lobbyist is back at it..

 

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/05/net-neutrality-protest-hybrid-fcc-solution

 

Net neutrality advocates to protest against 'hybrid' FCC solution in dozens of cities

 

Protesters will gather outside the White House and in a dozen US cities on Thursday to demonstrate against a “hybrid” solution now being considered to end a stalemate over regulating the internet.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is currently redrawing its rulesfor regulating the internet after a series of court defeats at the hands of cable and telecoms companies that effectively hamstrung its ability to oversee the industry.

Protests are planned in San Francisco’s Civic Center Plaza, on Las Vegas’s boulevard, Federal Plaza in Chicago and at the headquarters of Comcast, the largest cable company, in Philadelphia.

“What President Obama’s FCC chair is reportedly pushing is not a compromise, it’s a sham. Nearly four million internet users submitted comments to the FCC against having fast and slow lanes on the internet, but this proposal explicitly opens the door for them. Worse, it’s based in overly complicated and untested legal theories that are likely to fail in court,” said Evan Greer, campaign director for Fight for the Future which is organising the campaign alongside Popular Resistance, Free Press and Reddit.

Cable and telecoms companies are pushing for the ability to be able to create “fast lanes” for high volume customers, like Netflix, that would charge more money for the bandwidth they consume. But opponents fear such a move would effectively kill “net neutrality” – the principle that all traffic online should be treated equally.

The FCC has been inundated with comments as it has weighed its options. A record 3.7m were sent to the regulator, at one point crashing the FCC’s systems.The Sunlight Foundation analysed the first 800,000 and found that fewer than 1% were opposed to net neutrality enforcement.

The “hybrid” proposal now under consideration has not been finalised but according to media leaks and discussions with interested parties they would expand the FCC’s powers to regulate broadband while also allowing a carve out for cable providers to charge more money for fast lanes.

Net neutrality’s defenders want the internet to be regulated under Title IIof the Communications Act – a move that would classify the service as a “common carrier” and give the FCC the power to stop cable companies introducing “unreasonable discrimination” and ensure they work “in the public interest”. Cable companies argue such a move would hamper innovation by tying the industry in red tape.

The FCC has also considered using Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which is less stringent in its language and enforces the regulator’s powers to “promote competition” and “remove barriers” to investment. In January Verizon successfully challenged the FCC’s power to use Section 706 to justify anti-discrimination rules in a ruling that led to the current regulatory malaise.

The hybrid solution, which may be presented to the FCC at a meeting on 11 December, is likely to use both pieces of legislation as the regulator struggles to reconcile the powerful telecom and cable industry lobby and its numerous and vociferous opponents.

The picture has become more complicated now that the Republicans have taken control of Congress after the midterm elections. Proposals for more regulation will face tougher opposition come January when the Republicans take control.

Craig Aaron, president of Free Press, a consumer advocacy group that has called for full Title II reclassification of the internet, said: “This proposal divides up the internet in a way that is highly theoretical and not based in the law.”

“We are very skeptical that it would work. It’s troubling in a lot of ways: it’s bad politics, bad policy and bad law,” he said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't expect non-neutrality to affect search engines.

The big targets in the war will be things like Netflix and Skype.

You know. People who compete with cable and phone companies.

Those might be first, but when companies like Microsoft figure out they can pay Comcast to throttle Google, the floodgates will open (or I guess close in the case of internet traffic)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be the death of Hulu. HBO is also considering releasing an online stream service for HBO-GO similar to Netflix, independent of owning an account with a cable company or not.

 

Corporations are going to try to screw other corporations and the losers will be the rest of us who really want to have as little to do as possible with companies like Comcast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corporations are going to try to screw other corporations and the losers will be the rest of us who really want to have as little to do as possible with companies like Comcast.

That's my problem with the whole idea.

If Company X could compete against Company Y by offering to deliver a better Internet, I'd be all in favor of that. Love the idea of competition.

But I don;t think it's physically possible for companies to do that. (Because, once the packet leaves your ISP, he has no control over it, from there on out.)

Instead, the only way I can see them "competing" is to intentionally downgrade their service, and then offer to stop downgrading it, for a fee.

 

Like I said, I think the first phase of this will be when, say, Comcast goes to Netflix and says "we want 5% of your company's gross revenues, or else every Comcast customer will start dropping one packet from Netflix, every 3 seconds." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Score 1 for the consumer.

 

(unless the GOP screws it up...which they might)

 

http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality/
 

 

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality
  • By Tom Wheeler  
tom-wheeler-ft-660x440.jpg

Federal Communication Commission(FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler waits for a hearing at the FCC December 11, 2014 in Washington, DC. gallery-cam@2x.png Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

After more than a decade of debate and a record-setting proceeding that attracted nearly 4 million public comments, the time to settle the Net Neutrality question has arrived. This week, I will circulate to the members of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed new rules to preserve the internet as an open platform for innovation and free expression. This proposal is rooted in long-standing regulatory principles, marketplace experience, and public input received over the last several months.

 

 

...

 

That is why I am proposing that the FCC use its Title II authority to implement and enforce open internet protections.

 

Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone’s permission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.wsj.com/articles/fcc-to-propose-strong-net-neutrality-rules-1422911055

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agency Would Regulate Broadband Providers Tightly Like Telecommunications Firms

The Federal Communications Commission is about to fundamentally change the way it oversees high-speed Internet service, proposing to regulate it as a public utility.

Chairman Tom Wheeler is reaching for a significant expansion of the agency’s authority to regulate broadband providers, according to multiple people familiar with the matter.

The move would fully embrace the principle known as net neutrality, and if enacted, would bring a new definition to the economics of the Internet industry: Rather than regulating broadband firms lightly, as has been its practice so far, the FCC would treat them like telecommunications companies and subject them to more intrusive regulation, especially in areas relating to how they manage traffic on their networks.

 

 

 

*Click Link For More* 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny, I just read an article that said pretty much the opposite. 

 

Near as I can tell, I must have read an article from the WSJ, that won't let me read it on my desktop unless I subscribe.  (I read it a while ago, on my phone.) 

 

Apparently, the proposal that they're rumored to be leaning towards, would be a set of rules that says they can't screw with content providers' communications, (and then offer to stop screwing with them, for a fee).  But they will be allowed to do it to consumers

 

(Insert comment about them not being allowed to screw corporations, but they can do it to people.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. I rarely take major stands on political happenings, but this one would be bad for everyone.

 

MLB, WWE, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime Instant Video would all suffer horrendously. As would other streaming products. Video games that are played online would be ridiculously effected.

 

Having said that, the cable companies may hurt themselves here. If my prices go too high, I'll get rid of TV before I get rid of the internet. Which means I may pay more for my internet service so that I can stream Netflix/WWE/Hudl (film for football) and totally cut off my cable bill.

 

In essence, I see a lot of people keeping their internet before their television. And that would actually wind up hurting the companies more than helping them I think. It's a bad move for everyone, if you ask me. Especially consumers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This crap makes me so angry.

 

Is that the pro-net neutrality crap, or the anti?

 

Yeah. I rarely take major stands on political happenings, but this one would be bad for everyone.

 

MLB, WWE, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime Instant Video would all suffer horrendously. As would other streaming products. Video games that are played online would be ridiculously effected.

 

Having said that, the cable companies may hurt themselves here. If my prices go too high, I'll get rid of TV before I get rid of the internet. Which means I may pay more for my internet service so that I can stream Netflix/WWE/Hudl (film for football) and totally cut off my cable bill.

 

In essence, I see a lot of people keeping their internet before their television. And that would actually wind up hurting the companies more than helping them I think. It's a bad move for everyone, if you ask me. Especially consumers.

 

you too.  Are you saying it would be bad for everyone if this idea goes through or if it doesn't? IMO the lack of net neutrality is what has been horrendous (or potentially horrendous) for those companies so far, but it's not clear to me which outcome you think will lead us to that parade of horribles.

 

The problem is that, without net neutrality, when it comes time to renegotiate the deal, instead of dropping a press release or running a bar across your tv telling you that so and so is going to pull their channels and call them to complain, this happens:

 

comcastfiosa.jpg

 

Data released by Netflix shows the steep drop in connection speeds for both Comcast and Verizon in recent months.

 

Or maybe when Fox is demanding too much from Verizon for their channels on the tv side, or has a talking head who is saying bad things about Verizon's service, or Rupert Murdoch insults some Verizon exec at a party, they simply throttle foxnews.com in retaliation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I

 

you too.  Are you saying it would be bad for everyone if this idea goes through or if it doesn't? IMO the lack of net neutrality is what has been horrendous(or potentially horrendous) for those companies so far, but it's not clear to me which outcome you think will lead us to that parade of horribles.

 

The problem is that, without net neutrality, when it comes time to renegotiate the deal, instead of dropping a press release or running a bar across your tv telling you that so and so is going to pull their channels and call them to complain, this happens:

 

Data released by Netflix shows the steep drop in connection speeds for both Comcast and Verizon in recent months.

 

Or maybe when Fox is demanding too much from Verizon for their channels on the tv side, or has a talking head who is saying bad things about Verizon's service, or Rupert Murdoch insults some Verizon exec at a party, they simply throttle foxnews.com in retaliation.

 

I'm against the FCC allowing cable companies to screw with our speeds/bandwidth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that the ISP's have rallied the conservatives behind them under the guise of "this is government takeover of the internet!"

 

completely ignoring the actual issue and the history of ISP's and the internet.

 

like how the FCC tried to enforce this without making them a utility, and the ISP's fought it. They literally put the FCC in a position where making them a utility is their only option. now they're pissed. they had their chance to meet reasonable demands without the rest of what is required when classified as a utility - they declined to cooperate.

 

if you don't understand what the ISP's are trying to do look no further than how our phone and tv system works. ask yourself - is that how you want the internet to work?

 

do you want people that control the most important parts of the internet to be able to artificially slow down competing services in an effort to corral people towards the ISP's services? Gone will be the days of the best product winning - enter will be how everything else works: the people with the power get to pick winners and losers, the rest of us are stuck with their choice.

 

do you think it's good that Verizon and AT&T blocked Google Wallet 3 years ago because they were coming out with a competing product themselves? 3 years later and google wallet is still blocked, the whole technology has been essentially run into the ground, and where is AT&T and Verizon's competing products? No where to be found.

 

Is this what we want the internet to turn into?

 

this isn't a "government takeover" of private industry issue. it's a very serious issue about what the american people want the internet to be. who (if anyone) they want to control the most important parts of it by treating traffic differently - solely up to them as to who gets slowed down or not.

 

i turn on the TV  and listen to Foxnews, MSNBC, and CNN report on the story. I read articles from various news outlest on the internet and I just want to rip someones head off.

 

The people reporting on this stuff have ZERO CLUE what the real issue issues are or how to convey it. It's become another political football and it's just absolutely ****ing depressing.

 

Our entire political system, from how politicians work to the discourse to the way the media presents information to us, is COMPLETELY BROKEN AND SAD. I can't help but wonder what experts in other fields think when they watch the news report on issues in their field, then come to their favorite message board or twitter or facebook and see what people are saying and what they have 'learned' from our media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me?  I still stick with the position I expressed to my dad (a retired FCC engineer, who was one of the numerous people who wrote the Carterphone decision), when he asked me what the Internet is. 

 

The Internet is a telephone. 

 

It connects person X to person Y.  And that's all it does.  It provides the connection. 

 

To me, it should be treated like the telephone.  There's a vast network (It's called the PSTN:  Public Switched Telephone Network.)  And it is a compelling government interest to see to it that said network exists.  As such, if you want to connect to it, you are required to comply with standards that are designed to prevent you from breaking the network. 

 

But, like the telephone, the phone company is not responsible for whet person X says to person Y.  Their role, their mission, is to provide a reliable, unfiltered, connection.  (And not to alter that connection in any way.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm for net neutrality. What I wrote earlier saying this stuff makes me angry, is that I know the government doesn't give a rip about making it a fair market. So the FCC Chairman's letter falls on deaf ears to me, until I see something substantial happening. You want me to really believe you're trying to create an unfiltered internet, while at the same time you're trying to make it illegal for there to be any encryptions that you don't have a backdoor to? In this matter, I don't trust the government to do what's best for the consumers or fair market practices. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Cable/Satellite industries know that ala carte programming is likely the future, so they are trying to get in and get laws made now that will allow them to charge for bandwidth.

 

They know that when people start cutting the cord, and go from $200 bills, to only paying maybe the $30-75 for the channels they actually want, it is going to cost them revenue, so the way for them to maintain gouging the customer is to make them pay outrageous fees for the bandwidth itself.  That is why you see all these asterix when it comes to language on your bills about "Top content users" and how that definition can be changed at any time without notice.

 

10 years ago, I am sure it was true that only the top 2% of internet users would be using a certain amout of data, but the more content that goes through the internet instead of a cable/satellite dish, the more bandwidth users will rack up without realizing it.

 

These companies want policies in place to take advantage so that your $200 bill will remain intact.  That is all this is, a way to maintain the gouging of the consumer.  How much effort is being made to improve infrastructure and get speeds faster for less money? Why is our country so behind in not only speed but value for what you pay?  It isn't by accident. This stuff wouldn't be tolerated elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm for net neutrality. What I wrote earlier saying this stuff makes me angry, is that I know the government doesn't give a rip about making it a fair market. So the FCC Chairman's letter falls on deaf ears to me, until I see something substantial happening. You want me to really believe you're trying to create an unfiltered internet, while at the same time you're trying to make it illegal for there to be any encryptions that you don't have a backdoor to? In this matter, I don't trust the government to do what's best for the consumers or fair market practices. 

 

Generally speaking - you're right. SOPA/PIPA were attempts by the government to gain root control of the internet and implement a Kill Switch (they're still trying to do this...), there are attempts by the federal government to ban encryption... and a host of other issues that go against the idea that the government wants to protect our rights to use the internet as we please.

 

The problem with your point is that you have to take these initiatives posed by different parts of the government, and conflate them all to come away with thinking what the FCC is doing is somehow disingenuous.

 

The real issue is that the FCC has tried, multiple ways, to get net neutrality enforced. The ISP's have sued and been successful in blocking them - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast_Corp._v._FCC

 

The ISP's are not interested in net neutrality. They've fought it every step of the way. They've corned the FCC (the only governing body we can hope to fight for us on this) on the issue. The FCC has been reduced to reclassifying them as a utility. This isn't what the FCC wants to do. It's what the ISP's have forced them to do.

 

Try not to buy into the spin from the ISPs and certain political parties/figures/ideals into the idea that this is the government trying to take over. The ISP's are SOLELY to blame for this. They had the opportunity to stop all of this, years ago, they chose to fight it. This is the FCC's last hand to play, and it's the fault of the ISPs. If they don't like it - good. You had your chance, you rolled the dice, and now I hope you lose.

 

Two other points, not related to your post:

Was discussing this with my boss at lunch today. He brought up an interesting point - by reclassifying ISP's and internet service as a utility, you now are committing a federal felony by sharing your internet with your neighbors. Whether they would enforce it (and how they could, even if they wanted to) is an interesting issue...

 

We also came to the conclusion that people that work in the higher ups of foreign policy, and the CIA/NSA, military, and other organizations where people are sworn to secrecy less they be jailed or lose their job, probably can't even watch the news. They probably can't tolerate the discussions the rest of us have based purely on the amount of completely inaccurate (or at best, incomplete) arguments we all make :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We also came to the conclusion that people that work in the higher ups of foreign policy, and the CIA/NSA, military, and other organizations where people are sworn to secrecy less they be jailed or lose their job, probably can't even watch the news. They probably can't tolerate the discussions the rest of us have based purely on the amount of completely inaccurate (or at best, incomplete) arguments we all make :)

 

My dad was in Iraq during the first Gulf War when Saddam implemented his human shield program. I got a briefing from the company  (which had big DoD ties) on what was actually happening in advance of anything being on the news, as well as ongoing status and guidance on what not to say so as to avoid attention from the media.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...