FCC approves Net Neutrality
- Thread starter iNotorious
- Start date
FreakensteinAG
Active member
iNotorious
Active member
Awards
They're mad though, always throttling me while watching netflix, bankruptcy 4 verizon let go! ^_^
Ah, the death bell of liberty sounds once again.
Tell me, children, what is so great about "Net Neutrality?"
Do you know why hardly anyone bothers to have a phone line, these days? It's because there was a "Phone Neutrality" passed years and years ago, before your parents were but a sperm.
From MSNBC, for God's sakes:
"All sides agree that broadband competition can only benefit consumers. But how can government best foster entry into the Internet market? Reducing burdens on Internet providers is the better approach. Making it cheaper and easier for companies to wire neighborhoods with fiber-optic lines – or build new wireless towers – should be a no-brainer for Congress and the FCC. Conversely, more regulation means more barriers to entry, as evinced by Google’s decision not to offer voice to Google Fiber subscribers because of “special rules” that would apply to the service.
What about fears of providers blocking or throttling lawful traffic? Again, FCC intervention is unnecessary – this time thanks to another federal agency, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Tasked with pursuing companies that employ “unfair or deceptive” business practices, the FTC has gone after Internet providers before. Unlike the FCC – which is best known for censoring the airwaves and safeguarding the Ma Bell telephone monopoly – the FTC specializes in policing competitive markets, like broadband. If a provider touts its service as access to the full Internet but then blocks access to legal sites, it’s arguably in violation of federal law.
Net neutrality supporters tout it as a solution to the alleged problem of “paid prioritization” – shorthand for an Internet provider giving preferential treatment to certain traffic in exchange for money. But paid prioritization is a feature, not a bug. What exactly is the problem with an online gaming or telemedicine service that wants to pay Comcast for faster access to its subscribers?"
"Concerning taxes, FCC Title II regulation authorizes the imposition of billions of dollars in new federal and state taxes and fees in direct conflict with Congress’ longstanding Internet tax moratorium.
Higher FCC broadband taxes and fees make broadband less affordable, prompting the need for more universal service taxes and subsidies, which in turn again makes broadband less affordable, fueling an ongoing perverse tax and fee increase spiral.
Concerning competition, the FCC’s assertion of 1934 Title II price regulation authority is at war with current law. The purpose of the 1996 Telecom Act was “to promote competition and reduce regulation.” Congress also put into law a statement of policy for an Internet “unfettered by federal or state regulation.”
This policy U-turn incentivizes the FCC to define away the existence of obvious broadband competition in order to justify the assertion of more FCC regulatory authority, further reducing competition to promote regulation. Litigation will predictably flow.
Concerning innovation, FCC Title II regulation is inherently hostile to the Internet’s “innovation without permission” dynamic, because it centralizes innovation approval authority with the FCC to decide if any new contested IP communications product or service is “just or reasonable.”
The FCC’s new Title II case by case enforcement will be based on new, vague, and untested “general conduct” standards."
.
.
.
The United States government position, that there should be no government or UN control of the Internet’s political governance process, is in complete conflict with President Obama’s call in November for the FCC to impose the “strongest possible” economic control of America’s Internet via Title II utility regulation.
Hypocritically telling China, Russia, the EU, Brazil, and the Arab states to “do as we say, but not as we do,” gives political cover for national “GoverNets” that seek to engage in censorship or protectionism.
This hypocrisy also accelerates foreign adoption of the UN International Telecommunications Union’s “sending party pays” economic model where countries can legally impose protectionist per-megabyte import tariffs on America’s asymmetric Internet downstream traffic from Silicon Valley.
.
.
.
Concerning cloud computing, the FCC’s assertion of end to end regulatory jurisdiction over the Internet protocol layer necessarily puts cloud providers on the slippery slope of Title II common carrier obligations for the first time.
When the FCC redefines Internet protocol packet transmissions to be “telecommunications” in order to gain Title II authority over ISPs, the agency’s functional definition naturally could capture cloud providers, which communicate via the same Internet protocol packet transmissions.
Think of the packet transmitting functions of large cloud providers as a mirror image of an ISP’s packet transmitting functions. It could take years for the courts to settle this legally."
That last one is absolutely huge and quite literally destroys several emerging markets.
This is precisely why the "smart phone" market exploded the way it did. There were very few FCC regulations on wireless -data- . Data capabilities for phones has increased hand-over-fist at a rapid pace for the past ten years. More time is now spent browsing youtube and the like from phones than it is from computers - and not just because the phone is conveniently located in the pocket.
My phone's 4G connection is faster than our corporate broadband. I disconnect my wi-fi capability when I'm near it, because it will kill any video streams.
Download streams are about as fast using my 4G as they are using my cable modem - granted, that is largely a function of the streaming server... but still.
Cable TV was regulated under TitleII - and look at how that got slammed to a halt.
Who here watches Cable TV?
Most of us get our shows from the internet.
Why?
There are a number of things that could be done that would make Cable TV competitive with Internet TV programming... but Title II more or less prohibits that through its "neutral licensing" requirements. I can't pay for just the channels I want, because they can't prioritize their network for their market.
It's not that Cable is "a completely dead and outdated service" - it is that Cable has not been able to innovate and advance within the market place because of the regulations put in place to "protect us."
The Internet has done just fine for 20 years without the Government sticking its nose in.
Tell me, children, what is so great about "Net Neutrality?"
Do you know why hardly anyone bothers to have a phone line, these days? It's because there was a "Phone Neutrality" passed years and years ago, before your parents were but a sperm.
You must be registered for see links
From MSNBC, for God's sakes:
"All sides agree that broadband competition can only benefit consumers. But how can government best foster entry into the Internet market? Reducing burdens on Internet providers is the better approach. Making it cheaper and easier for companies to wire neighborhoods with fiber-optic lines – or build new wireless towers – should be a no-brainer for Congress and the FCC. Conversely, more regulation means more barriers to entry, as evinced by Google’s decision not to offer voice to Google Fiber subscribers because of “special rules” that would apply to the service.
What about fears of providers blocking or throttling lawful traffic? Again, FCC intervention is unnecessary – this time thanks to another federal agency, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Tasked with pursuing companies that employ “unfair or deceptive” business practices, the FTC has gone after Internet providers before. Unlike the FCC – which is best known for censoring the airwaves and safeguarding the Ma Bell telephone monopoly – the FTC specializes in policing competitive markets, like broadband. If a provider touts its service as access to the full Internet but then blocks access to legal sites, it’s arguably in violation of federal law.
Net neutrality supporters tout it as a solution to the alleged problem of “paid prioritization” – shorthand for an Internet provider giving preferential treatment to certain traffic in exchange for money. But paid prioritization is a feature, not a bug. What exactly is the problem with an online gaming or telemedicine service that wants to pay Comcast for faster access to its subscribers?"
You must be registered for see links
"Concerning taxes, FCC Title II regulation authorizes the imposition of billions of dollars in new federal and state taxes and fees in direct conflict with Congress’ longstanding Internet tax moratorium.
Higher FCC broadband taxes and fees make broadband less affordable, prompting the need for more universal service taxes and subsidies, which in turn again makes broadband less affordable, fueling an ongoing perverse tax and fee increase spiral.
Concerning competition, the FCC’s assertion of 1934 Title II price regulation authority is at war with current law. The purpose of the 1996 Telecom Act was “to promote competition and reduce regulation.” Congress also put into law a statement of policy for an Internet “unfettered by federal or state regulation.”
This policy U-turn incentivizes the FCC to define away the existence of obvious broadband competition in order to justify the assertion of more FCC regulatory authority, further reducing competition to promote regulation. Litigation will predictably flow.
Concerning innovation, FCC Title II regulation is inherently hostile to the Internet’s “innovation without permission” dynamic, because it centralizes innovation approval authority with the FCC to decide if any new contested IP communications product or service is “just or reasonable.”
The FCC’s new Title II case by case enforcement will be based on new, vague, and untested “general conduct” standards."
.
.
.
The United States government position, that there should be no government or UN control of the Internet’s political governance process, is in complete conflict with President Obama’s call in November for the FCC to impose the “strongest possible” economic control of America’s Internet via Title II utility regulation.
Hypocritically telling China, Russia, the EU, Brazil, and the Arab states to “do as we say, but not as we do,” gives political cover for national “GoverNets” that seek to engage in censorship or protectionism.
This hypocrisy also accelerates foreign adoption of the UN International Telecommunications Union’s “sending party pays” economic model where countries can legally impose protectionist per-megabyte import tariffs on America’s asymmetric Internet downstream traffic from Silicon Valley.
.
.
.
Concerning cloud computing, the FCC’s assertion of end to end regulatory jurisdiction over the Internet protocol layer necessarily puts cloud providers on the slippery slope of Title II common carrier obligations for the first time.
When the FCC redefines Internet protocol packet transmissions to be “telecommunications” in order to gain Title II authority over ISPs, the agency’s functional definition naturally could capture cloud providers, which communicate via the same Internet protocol packet transmissions.
Think of the packet transmitting functions of large cloud providers as a mirror image of an ISP’s packet transmitting functions. It could take years for the courts to settle this legally."
That last one is absolutely huge and quite literally destroys several emerging markets.
This is precisely why the "smart phone" market exploded the way it did. There were very few FCC regulations on wireless -data- . Data capabilities for phones has increased hand-over-fist at a rapid pace for the past ten years. More time is now spent browsing youtube and the like from phones than it is from computers - and not just because the phone is conveniently located in the pocket.
My phone's 4G connection is faster than our corporate broadband. I disconnect my wi-fi capability when I'm near it, because it will kill any video streams.
Download streams are about as fast using my 4G as they are using my cable modem - granted, that is largely a function of the streaming server... but still.
Cable TV was regulated under TitleII - and look at how that got slammed to a halt.
Who here watches Cable TV?
Most of us get our shows from the internet.
Why?
There are a number of things that could be done that would make Cable TV competitive with Internet TV programming... but Title II more or less prohibits that through its "neutral licensing" requirements. I can't pay for just the channels I want, because they can't prioritize their network for their market.
It's not that Cable is "a completely dead and outdated service" - it is that Cable has not been able to innovate and advance within the market place because of the regulations put in place to "protect us."
The Internet has done just fine for 20 years without the Government sticking its nose in.