Screw you, FCC

[PaloAltoCougar]

Can someone explain what is net neutrality really means to me? I see my liberal friends popping champagne on FB and my conservative friends warning of the end of America. Seems both are probably overreactions.

Here's a very brief and somewhat helpful video on the subject.

[Omaha 680]

Here's a very brief and somewhat helpful video on the subject.

Thanks. Sounds like a reasonable idea in theory. I hear opponents saying it will result in slower internet speeds "like in Europe."

Is the internet that slow in Europe and what about net neutrality rules will supposedly slow things down?

[Moliere]

Can someone explain what is net neutrality really means to me? I see my liberal friends popping champagne on FB and my conservative friends warning of the end of America. Seems both are probably overreactions.

It means that Obama is going to take from the haves (lebowski in Provo with his fiber) and give to the havenots.

[Shaka]

I'd like to hear Goatnapper's take on this.

[UVACoug]

...

[Sleeping in EQ]

I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the FCC is citizen centered, and that it is the only federal office with which the Lord is well pleased (speaking collectively, and not individually).

The FCC ushered in an effective No-Call list, held ISP's responsible for lying about Internet speeds, has made cell phone use less chaotic, and is now preserving an open Internet, in these, the fullness of times.

http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adop...-open-internet

[byu71]

I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the FCC is citizen centered, and that it is the only federal office with which the Lord is well pleased (speaking collectively, and not individually).

The FCC ushered in an effective No-Call list, held ISP's responsible for lying about Internet speeds, has made cell phone use less chaotic, and is now preserving an open Internet, in these, the fullness of times.

http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adop...-open-internet

Awesome I am not one who thinks the government never does something good for the citizen's as a whole.

I do have a question. I thought I read earlier in this thread that Congress had voted to not let it go neutral. Has the FCC gone around Congress?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Awesome I am not one who thinks the government never does something good for the citizen's as a whole.

I do have a question. I thought I read earlier in this thread that Congress had voted to not let it go neutral. Has the FCC gone around Congress?

My understanding is that Congress, which oversees the FCC per the Communications Act of 1934, will not even take up a vote at this time, as the Republicans don't think it will get through. I'm sure there will be additional legal wrangling, but then the AT&T's of the world always stand in the way when the government tries to act on behalf of those created in God's image.

[byu71]

My understanding is that Congress, which oversees the FCC per the Communications Act of 1934, will not even take up a vote at this time, as the Republicans don't think it will get through. I'm sure there will be additional legal wrangling, but then the AT&T's of the world always stand in the way when the government tries to act on behalf of those created in God's image.

From my vantage point there are good regulations and there are some real piss poor ones. WE have beaurocrats who regulate industries for which they are clueless as to how things work. It all sounds good with the "we are protecting the public" bull crap, but truly sometimes they really end up hurting the public in general.

In this situation I have no idea whether this is helping or will hurt, so I will just listen to the arguments, except it seems the arguing is done.

Just curious. Do you work in an industry that is heavily regulated?

[Moliere]

I've worked in heavily regulated industries (FERC) and still have some feet in that arena. I think this move by the FCC is good for the consumer and smaller businesses. It won't be good for the really big telecoms/cable companies, which I think is a good thing.

Internet service is something that should be regulated like gas or electrical infrastructure. That regulation works well enough.

[Paperback Writer]

It will mean less choice for consumers. For instance, a business that relies heavily on video conferencing may be willing to pay extra for a "fast lane". Or a gaming company will not be able to offer "high speed" through use of a "fast lane" for hard core gamers willing to pay for it. Or a service provider cannot negotiate a deal with a high-use content provider like Netflix to ensure some level of network performance. Instead everyone drives at the same speed whether streaming re-runs of Laverne and Shirley or doing something important on the internet like posting to CS.

The thinking of many in favor of net neutrality is that government regulation is needed of a fixed commodity. But a reality is that service providers now have less incentive to innovate and are scaling back on investments to their networks. So the internet will become slower for everyone as more drivers merge on to the internet highway which will be slower to expand. It isn't so much carving "fast lanes" out of existing internet bandwith as it is of making additional investment to network infrastructure and creating those "fast lanes" which are now far less likely to occur.

Full disclosure: I work for the man - one of those large service providers - a snake in SIEQ's FCC regulated Garden of Eden.

[Uncle Ted]

I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the FCC is citizen centered, and that it is the only federal office with which the Lord is well pleased (speaking collectively, and not individually).

The FCC ushered in an effective No-Call list, held ISP's responsible for lying about Internet speeds, has made cell phone use less chaotic, and is now preserving an open Internet, in these, the fullness of times.

http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adop...-open-internet

I am not sure how effective the national do not call has been. It seems the robots may win in the end. Especially those representing the politicians around campaign season. Maybe the FCC would be better off in not allowing anonymous caller id and thus enabling phone customers to provide their own robotic defense.

As for open internet it seems that ISP's will all eventually all go to some sort of metered service as their "plan b" just like with cell phone data plans. Comcast, for example, already limits transfer for their customers to something like 250GB/mo or 300GB/mo. I am sure the same will be true for TimeWarner after the two merge.

I think the Lord would have been more pleased with last mile deregulation (i.e. increase competition and agency). If comcast/timewarner had to compete for that $50/mo you give them they would most likely be irrelevant in 10 years given how well their customers love them. Nevertheless, we'll take what we can get.

[byu71]

But a reality is that service providers now have less incentive to innovate and are scaling back on investments to their networks. So the internet will become slower for everyone as more drivers merge on to the internet highway which will be slower to expand.

That does sound like the government as envisioned by Barak and Harry and Nanci. I know in my industry they claim to be doing something for the public to protect them. They will protect the 2-3% that deal with the maybe 2-3% of crooks in my business. Meanwhile you are lessening the service and quality the other 97-98% were receiving.

I think though it does help trial lawyers though and we have to hire more lawyers to fight them, so I guess there is some good that comes out of it.

[Uncle Ted]

It will mean less choice for consumers. For instance, a business that relies heavily on video conferencing may be willing to pay extra for a "fast lane". Or a gaming company will not be able to offer "high speed" through use of a "fast lane" for hard core gamers willing to pay for it. Or a service provider cannot negotiate a deal with a high-use content provider like Netflix to ensure some level of network performance. Instead everyone drives at the same speed whether streaming re-runs of Laverne and Shirley or doing something important on the internet like posting to CS.

The thinking of many in favor of net neutrality is that government regulation is needed of a fixed commodity. But a reality is that service providers now have less incentive to innovate and are scaling back on investments to their networks. So the internet will become slower for everyone as more drivers merge on to the internet highway which will be slower to expand. It isn't so much carving "fast lanes" out of existing internet bandwith as it is of making additional investment to network infrastructure and creating those "fast lanes" which are now far less likely to occur.

Full disclosure: I work for the man - one of those large service providers - a snake in SIEQ's FCC regulated Garden of Eden.

I am happy, I guess, that I got my FTTH connection (from "the man") before this bomb dropped. I don't know what I would if I couldn't post on CS because the kid next door is in the middle of his "Tour of Duty".

[Moliere]

It will mean less choice for consumers. For instance, a business that relies heavily on video conferencing may be willing to pay extra for a "fast lane". Or a gaming company will not be able to offer "high speed" through use of a "fast lane" for hard core gamers willing to pay for it. Or a service provider cannot negotiate a deal with a high-use content provider like Netflix to ensure some level of network performance. Instead everyone drives at the same speed whether streaming re-runs of Laverne and Shirley or doing something important on the internet like posting to CS.

The thinking of many in favor of net neutrality is that government regulation is needed of a fixed commodity. But a reality is that service providers now have less incentive to innovate and are scaling back on investments to their networks. So the internet will become slower for everyone as more drivers merge on to the internet highway which will be slower to expand. It isn't so much carving "fast lanes" out of existing internet bandwith as it is of making additional investment to network infrastructure and creating those "fast lanes" which are now far less likely to occur.

Full disclosure: I work for the man - one of those large service providers - a snake in SIEQ's FCC regulated Garden of Eden.

What incentive is there for Comcast to innovate today? They are the only broadband provider in my area. The barrier to entry for anyone else is enormous. They not only have very limited competition that cant match their speeds (DSL, over the air providers, etc.) but they also can throttle the content of other companies thus squeezing out video streamers that they don't like.

The internet is a commodity, it's no longer a luxury. Given the enormous costs of infrastructure it certainly should be regulated and be open access in the same way the electrical and gas grids and even the oil pipelines are governed. Companies will still invest in infrastructure and they'll still make a decent return, but they just have to compete on the same playing field with their content as other content providers.