JCC Goodbye Net Neutrality and Open Internet?

​

From NPR

​

Should I panic now? ​

 

The FCC is committed to net neutrality. They still have options. I wouldn't panic yet.

 

NPR already gave you the answer with their key quote.

​

All they have to do is reclassify it in a manner where those powers apply.

 

I struggle a bit with this, in the way I do with medicine. Admittedly my country's healthcare isn't a giant turd like yours, so it's a bit different, but I pay for private coverage yet there's a free public system which lacks really the convenience of the public system but doesn't mean I'm not screwed but public consumers are.

Same, I feel, should apply here. Allowing me to chose to spend more to receive more makes sense economically to me, and from a fairness perspective - what's the point of disposable income if you can't spend it appropriately? But the problem I think is the baseline "good" system with the paid-for "better" doesn't always pan out, and the baseline model tends to be neglected and manifestly inferior.

Just sayin'

 

So when I said I'd like it to be that a good baseline service exists, and people could choose to spend income at their discretion for better service... how did you arrive at that conclusion?

We're saying the same thing. I noted it probably would never occur like this, and the baseline access would inevitably suffer and fall behind.

 

What are you talking about Ender? There is no "baseline" service. This doesn't just allow companies to open up faster access channels for websites that pay a premium while keeping all others at a guaranteed speed. Without these rules, they are capable of actively interfering with the delivery of content from other websites by putting them on slower than average connections or outright blocking them.

To use your healthcare analogy (which really doesn't work very well), it would be as if private networks were allowed to give flat tires to the ambulances that serviced the public system, break the hands of their surgeons, and cut the power lines to their hospitals. It just gives a green light to wildly anti-competitive practices in ways that don't begin to make sense or be economically justifiable, save for the greed of the internet service providers who want to make more money by doing this.

 

Wocky,

The healthcare only doesn't work in a country that had the lack of foresight to break away from the British Empire in its early days and has used a nationalist fig leaf to cover their shame ever since.

The fig leaf looks like this:

Until you have experienced Australian health care, you cannot say that the analogy doesn't work unless you want the stereotype of arrogant, insular Americans to remain firmly in place (though, um, FATCA doesn't help the cause there...).

In any event, since you also fail to have read my post, can I ask you go back and re-read it? Then, if you're still confused and angry, I suggest you differentiate between what I'd like to see happen, and what I acknowledged would likely happen.

YAY CONSENSHUS.

I know it's not spelled that way Wocky. Don't worry.

 

Glad that there are still options available to the FCC. I think people might be overreacting at this point. Do we know why the FCC decided to not have ISPs as common carriers?

 

Your mother said something similar before I gave her a handful of coins and sent her home.

 

#wrekt

 

I understand that you were talking about a difference between intent/ideal and reality, Ender. But your example is still fundamentally dissimilar from what is being proposed here. However terrible the public healthcare system is, it at least exists. Absent net neutrality, no baseline service will exist to disappoint by failing to live up to expectations. It just won't be there to begin with. Period.

I am proposing that "something" is too different than "nothing" for your analogy to make any sense. I mean I guess if you still agree that there should be Net Neutrality, fine. But I'm just saying, the consequences of not having it would be far more severe than even you are letting on right now.

 

since it hasnt been pointed out yet... more like net JEWtrality

 

Likely because ISPs didn't exist or at least didn't exist as they are now when those rules were written, i.e., AOL and Yahoo and the like were king back then and the Cable and Phone companies hadn't gotten into the Internet business back then.

 

And why is the FCC on the side of these telecoms?

Why because they all have ties to said telecoms.

 

John Oliver Helps Rally 45,000 Net Neutrality Comments To FCC


On Sunday night, he went on a13-minute rant about net neutrality, ending with a plea to Internet commenters of the troll variety to "for once in your lives, focus your indiscriminate rage in a useful direction. Seize your moment, my lovely trolls!"

It appears they have. The FCC has received more than 45,000 comments on the net neutrality proposals since May 15.
Those just account for the comments filed to the official electronic commenting system. Separately, the FCC says it's received 300,000 emails in a special inbox it set up in late April for the public to weigh in on its open Internet proposal. For context, the next highest number of formal comments on an FCC measure is just under 2,000.
How did we get here? Well, the FCC opened up its initial open commenting periodon how it should enforce net neutrality, or the principle that data on the Internet should be served on a level playing field, without prejudice for certain companies who can pay to get content to you faster.
On the table is a proposal that opens the door for Internet service providers like Comcast and Time Warner to charge for "fast lanes" to the Internet, which, critics argue, could leave out startups who can't afford to pay for a fast lane. Not just startups but major tech companies like Google, Facebook and others have spoken out against this proposal, arguing for more protections for the free Internet.

 

Hahahaha, oh man. You're a moron.


...oh.

 

The big vote was today. From what I've gathered via npr talk radio, the FCC will be regulating Internet traffic but, I think, won't allow for Comcast and friends to create slow/segregated "lanes."

So I think it's a win, but it seems too early to find more elaborate information.

 

Results are now published. It was a very close vote, but open Internet continues on. The new regulations do not, however, address the everlasting problem with broadband Internet in America (ie. borderline monopolies keeping the country with the most expensive and slowest broadband service among advanced nations). But at least things didn't get worse.