Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
FCC set to approve Net Neutrality rules today (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Fensalk
- Start date
Abraham
Footballguy
It's a big deal. NN prohibits providers and he government from regulating web content. Without it, Comcast (for example) could decide they want to block all porn to their customers....or all news sites with a liberal perspective...or all Muslim religious discussion boards....or Christian discussion boards, etc.
Sure, but what do you think about it with respect to the non-content related issues?
Rayderr
Footballguy
or more likely... Comcast really slows down the connection to the DirecTv, Verizon Fios, Dish Network websites.
Kenny Blankenship
Footballguy
Drunken Cowboy
Footballguy
But the internet is a series of tubes and this will wreck it.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
Large fonts & webdings have already had a negative effect and this bill does nothing to help widen the tubes.
Schlzm
Footballguy
You forgot to add flashing/scrolling tags.Schlzm
pantagrapher
Footballguy
That's what I've heard as well. This is fake net neutrality.Everything I have read about the final writeup is that it will be nothing more than bs feelgood legislation with no real bite.Schlzm
Time Kibitzer
Footballguy
So net neutrality keeps things as is, correct? If so, I'm 100% for net neutrality, and have no clue why most of the people in here are against it.
pantagrapher
Footballguy
ISPs waged a very expensive, hard fought campaign against net neutrality, claiming in part that it was a government take over of the internet. Some people bought into it.
Schlzm
Footballguy
Don't let this slip to /b/, the fallout could be disastrous!SchlzmSo the Internet is now like Switzerland, and we don't have to worry about going to war with it?That sounds like a good idea to me.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Some people are against portions of what the FCC and others claim is net neutrality. "Net Neutrality" is all about how it's defined, and different people define it differently.For example, in the current Comcast vs. Level3 dispute, some people are characterizing it as a net neutrality issue. Personally, I don't consider it a net neutrality issue at all. It's an old-fashioned peering dispute, same as there have been for more than a decade. Level3 is attempting to frame it as net neutrality by invoking the Netflix stuff, but the issue has nothing to do with Netflix and everything to do with total amounts of traffic.
Insein
Footballguy
Things are "as is" right now. Why would we need the FCC involved to make them more "as is?" Don't be fooled by the bs. This is the laying of the foundation to regulate the internet in the government's (US or UN) image.
Last edited by a moderator:
Schlzm
Footballguy
So you would be fine with a pay-per-bit structure not outline in your originating service agreement with your carrier after crossing some nebulous usage line defined by them? Also, really the UN is going to take over the internet? They wouldn't know what to do with it much like everything else they pretend to have any control over. Schlzm
Time Kibitzer
Footballguy
So did the FCC have absolutely nothing to do with the internet before these net neutrality rules were passed? and now they all of a sudden claim that the internet is under their jurisdiction of power?
Schlzm
Footballguy
According to this article;
Schlzm
ETA: That article covers the outline to the resolution, prevents traffic shaping on the backend by providers while giving them the option to offer "priority" service to those willing to pay for it. Sounds like a win/win to me.
Last edited by a moderator:
Insein
Footballguy
What I don't like, that the article mentions, is that this has never been a problem before and hasnt been voiced by people as a complaint. Yet the FCC is stepping in to assert itself as the righteous force to protect people from these big bad telecomms.
That sounds reasonable right? Those Terrible telecom companies. How dare they do that to people! But wait...
So they are fixing a problem that doesn't exist? That doesn't sound like a government run agency. Why would they do something like that?
So the framework is laid. The foot is in the proverbial door for more intrusion later on. Thank god the FCC is there to save us from the interwebs.
Insein
Footballguy
Exactly. Setting precedent.
pantagrapher
Footballguy
The quote you cite says the problem exists now, but claims there have been "few" complaints. Few isn't a number. It can mean pretty much anything. And the talk about stifling investments in broadband is rich considering ISPs received huge subsidies to build their networks.
Schlzm
Footballguy
Actually it has been a problem before, as seen here, here, and here. Also don't you think you are sounding a little "sky is falling" on this one? Oh no some on the fringe left aren't happy that the government doesn't have total control over the internet! What's new. Also the claims about this resolution stifling innovation is laughable on its face.Schlzm
Insein
Footballguy
Thats not the fringe left. Those are the 3 people on the FCC board out of 5 that voted for this. They felt it needed to go further but settled on what they could get.As far as the sky is falling, if you look at any government take over that has occurred in the last cenutry, a problem or crisis had to be created to slip in basic powers. Then later on the expansion of those powers occured. Income tax, Social Security, Medicare, etc. Sure it seems like we're making a mountain out of molehill but that molehill turns into a mountain a few decades down the road.
Last edited by a moderator:
Schlzm
Footballguy
Actually it's two people who happen to sit on the council right now and were counteracted by the two republicans who thought any regulation what-so-ever was far too sweeping and unnecessary. Luckily these types of commissions are seated in such a way that one ideology doesn't go too far, as we see in this ruling. It is a solid medium providing both consumer and corporate protections and options without hindering or harming either party. Schlzm
Insein
Footballguy
I think you're being naive here. A "fringe" problem is enough excuse for the FCC to step in to establish precedent that they can dictate to private companies how much or how little broadband they can provide to their customers. Small step but once established, it only makes the step to regulating content that much shorter.
Schlzm
Footballguy
I think you are chasing a ghost here in the regard of all things to be concerned about when it comes to government intervention. Think of this as being similar to anti-monopoly laws in that it protects consumers from unfair actions taken by the providers without notice or even a clear mandate on what provokes those unfair actions. How would you feel if your utilities provider decided you were using too much electricity and cut you off halfway through the month? Even though this was never outlined in your original service agreement and the amount they determined too much could be shifted at will?Schlzm
Rich Conway
Footballguy
How are any of the issues noted in your three linked articles related to net neutrality? Those are simple contract disputes between company and customer, all of which are already covered by existing laws and regulations.ETA: Actually, this is a great example of my point above; that lots of people define net neutrality differently. Personally, I define the topic of net neutrality as whether or not carriers can treat different types of traffic differently based on content and/or source. Whether carriers charge more for those who use more is absolutely not part of net neutrality; it's simply those who use the most bandwidth trying to get everyone else to pay for their use.
Last edited by a moderator:
Schlzm
Footballguy
If I recall correctly the argument being put forth by the providers was that since the lines and bandwidth was their property they could do as they pleased with them, including traffic shaping, bandwidth throttling and disconnect and there was no recourse from the customer other than cut their losses and try to locate another provider which didn't impose the restrictions. Hence the FCC ruling to disallow providers from these actions unless specifically outlined in the originating service agreement.ETA: Saw your edit and I have to disagree with your description. Not very neutral if you categorize every bit of traffic and treat it differently. That would be more like net discrimination.
Schlzm
Last edited by a moderator:
Rick James
Footballguy
In a free market, Comcast would never, ever, get away with slowing down the speed of a rival's site. This is a needless bill.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
I edited my edit above to make it more clear what I was trying to say.My point with the whole "unlimited" thing was that we're still talking about a simple contract dispute. If the terms of use say X, don't complain if you don't abide by X and get in trouble for it. If the terms say that Y is allowed and the carrier cuts you off for doing Y, our existing laws and court system are more than capable of dealing with the matter.
pantagrapher
Footballguy
Your two statements seem to be at odds.
Last edited by a moderator:
Schlzm
Footballguy
Edited edit makes more sense and under standard contractual rules you are correct, though there were cases where this wasn't happening. In my above link pertaining to Comcast cutting off customers this was actively occurring back in the spring of 2007. Here is their service amendment, effective 01OCT2008, stating they are implementing a 250GB/month restriction. I had not seen any successful legal action regarding the cases that had occurred prior to the FCC taking action. Schlzm
Sam Quentin
Footballguy
We've been swindled. both sides of the debate have been wrong, but have sold us the premise the internet needs to be controlled and/or regulated
Control over the internet has now been decided
Control over the internet has now been decided
ffldrew
Footballguy
Comcast won't slow traffic down - what they want to do is charge more for better speeds. So they want to charge ESPN more money if ESPN wants 360 to run faster. If you have a competitor to ESPN - you will be at a disadvantage to compete with ESPN. This is why net neutrality is needed IMO - when a new company or service wants to get started they aren't starting at disadvantage. It protects the big boys that have already made their mark. In effect Comcast wants to charge you for access at certain speeds and wants to charge providers to bring content to you at certain speeds.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Just because people didn't sue, or didn't sue successfully, doesn't mean that existing laws aren't/weren't working. In the one article, the guy they quoted specifically said he didn't sue because he didn't think he could afford the lawyers. I don't think the FCC should be stepping in for such a case.Back to "net neutrality", I just don't see how a carrier telling its customers how much data they can use under their terms of service has anything to do with net neutrality. Ditto for AT&T getting rid of "unlimited" wireless data plans; how does that have anything to do with net neutrality?
Rich Conway
Footballguy
When has Comcast, or any other provider, tried to do such a thing?
Can Comcast just say that they're treating all their subscriber's bandwidth equally now, and tell Netflix to take a hike with their streaming? I mean, if they're supposed to carve up the bandwidth equally between Netflix, which uses a ton, and those that use smaller amounts, such as Hotmail, Google, Yahoo, ESPN, etc., streaming wouldn't work, right?Kenny Blankenship said:
ffldrew
Footballguy
They haven't - yet(technology is there - and to some effects you see it with espn360) - that's why they want a "neutrality" law that allows them the right to do it. It's what McConnell and his supporters want to do - by not having any "neutrality" Comcast can do what they want.
Insein
Footballguy
Yes because we need laws against things that havent happened just because they may do it. I like the sound of the government doing that.
ffldrew
Footballguy
It's a protection of access to markets - if there is no "neutrality" then the internet providers(Comcast, Verizion, etc) can dictate the market and cost to access to their users - in many cases/markets they have a near monopoly on broadband access. Those with more money will be able to pay for that access - new companies that are start ups(the old jobs engine argument - small companies add more jobs right?) will not be able to do this.Yes because we need laws against things that havent happened just because they may do it. I like the sound of the government doing that.
Thunderlips
Footballguy
So people are complaining because their internet service provider wants to regulate what internet it provides?
ffldrew
Footballguy
People are also complaining that internet service providers want to regulate how people/businesses can access the providers customers.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
And yet I imagine the same people arguing for this are against the Supreme Court's decision in Raich (where they basically said the feds can restrict your ability to grow marijuana because you *might* sell it across state lines if you were allowed to grow it). Seems like the same argument to me.
