FCC plans total repeal of net neutrality rules

utterly false. This isnt about censorship. Its about internet access being controlled by a government sanctioned monopoly.

 

I don't follow you here could you explain that further, or if I missed the explanation elsewhere point me to the post where you explained it?

 

Government is monopoly. This is about the FCC declaring the internet is a communication service instead of what it really is, an information service. There is question whether the FCC even has the constitutional right to declare that and if NN is not overturned, will end up in the courts. The corporation giants now filter the information you receive and they are the real problem.

 

How is it an information service and not a communication service? How is it not both? I am literally asking, not trying to be smart.

 

Applying 1934 Title II to the internet is the same as what was regulated before where the government basically dictated every aspect of telephone communication even down to the type of phone in your house. Once that was lifted came the innovations like the answering machine. Central control oppresses innovation and trying to use a one size fits all to a very innovative platform like the internet is not really a good thing.

 

Basically Hoosier8 keeps trying to deflect the issue away from the ISPs and onto the Private Companies who use the ISPs and falsely conflating the two.

The issue at hand is the ISPs and their desire to start creating 'tiered lanes' so if you want video streaming, you have to pay extra. Or possibly pay for website packages akin to Cable Channel packages you see today. Net Neutrality is the term used to describe what we have now, where you pay one price for the internet speed that you purchase.

 

Mainly because that is the propaganda used to sell NN to the useful idiots when it was never a real problem.

 

But how is it it an information service vs a communication service though?

 

Except that I've showed you (and another member linked it above again) that it was a problem previously to this. Yet you run away from it everytime.

Also, Title 2 didn't go away (as you stated above). It was in place until 1991 when the Clintons changed it to the Content vs Technological standard. If that is kept along side the FCC decision, then your issue with lack of competition won't be an issue.

 

It's both. We use it to receive information, but we also use it to Communicate (VOIP for one)

 

It is a warehouse of information and information sharing. It is not a 1934 communication service.

 

So the governement sanctioned monopoly BVWC was pointing to would be an ISP with a monopoly being able to pipeline stuff w/out NN to protect consumers? That makes sense thanks for splainin' it.

 

LOL, you showed me links from 2013 that proved it was not a problem that required new regulations in 2015.

 

I can agree that its not a 1934 communication service, but since we are communicating right now across it, how is it not a communication service?

 

Perhaps you simply don't understand the issue here. ISPs are going to provide a better service if you pay for it. Kind of like going to Whole Foods instead of Walmart. I know, egalitarianism doesn't allow for the option of having better stuff, huh? If I want to improve the streaming of a service to me, I should be able to pay for it. I have those options for improved service already if I choose to pay for them via my ISP up/download service rate. If I wanted to be able to produce improved traffic for streaming, why can't I choose that?

 

BBWC? I'm sorry but I'm not sure what you mean lol.

I showed you many links. 1 of which was a Story written in 2013 about the issues that have occurred in the past. I then explained the history showing you why your notion was wrong, and you ignored it (as you have consistently done in this thread whenever proven wrong)

The original NN rules came into play around 2010. Then the lawsuit from Verizon happened and the Govt lost due to the FCCs inability to institute said rules. So Title 2 was applied and new regs were put in. Like, Jesus man, is it that hard to read the whole posts rather then just whatever is necessary to fulfill your worldview?

 

I read those same links and concluded differently, the trend Cubed shows via those links was leading to a very disturbing place and NN put a kibosh on it. What are you referring to specifically that leads you to conclude otherwise? Again, if you already explained I'd appreciate a post number since I clearly missed it.

 

Sorry I should have said BVWC- Best Viewed With Cable

 

Uh...what?

No. Right now you pay your ISP for a certain speeds. I pay extra to get 150MB download speed. You can as well (depending what your on and what is offered by your ISP). This issue isn't about paying more for better service, it's about having to pay extra for services you already enjoy now.

 

Ah, yeah basically. There are only a few major ISPs in the US (same in Canada) who've basically agreed to work together to keep prices at a certain level. Also there are a ton of areas in teh US that only have access to 1 ISP, negating any consumer choice.

without NN, you'd have to pay extra to access a place like Facebook, or Instagram, etc..

Just imagine your cable packages, but online. Want to access social media? an extra 5 bucks a month? Video streaming? Well that's 10 bucks a month. 13$ if you want 4K. Etc. etc..

right now you simply pay one price for your upload/download speed, and that's it.

 

That's what's so confusing about Hoosier8's arguments. He is disagreeing with the obvious and I am really trying to figure out how he's coming to those conclusions. I can't seem to follow his logic.

 

That's my understanding too, I was taken aback by "government sanctioned monopoly", but without NN, that is essentially what we would have in undeserved "digital deserts".

Government needs to step in with NN for now, and push to promote more ISP competition for all Americans. Once that happens we can move away from NN and reap the benefits Hoosier8 speaks of.

 

All of them previous to 2015. Creating new law is the purview of Congress, not some un-elected bureaucracy.

 

Like you mean the current law in 2013 stopped them from doing what the law in 2015 claims to do. Did you really read the links?

 

Once all traffic became IP traffic, the older rules applying to voice and data networks had to be modified to fit the new networks. In the past, voice traffic had been regulated separately for decades, data traffic was regulated as well but only in terms of speeds and compliance with funding requirements for subsidized networks such as you find everywhere in rural America. The rules governing inter-carrier traffic and compensation are very complex, most local carriers get most of their money from other carriers for terminating traffic within their service areas. Once you throw in cable companies, mobile providers and even satellite providers the issue becomes even more complex. The government will subsidize one carrier per region where the existing services are not up to standards, not two or three or four. In urban areas, services are usually very good since it is more cost effective to overbuild a densely populated area and there is no need for subsidies. In terms of NN, the model is not quite a dumb pipe but it is very close to it. In our business, a dumb pipe is just that, a pipe that only carries traffic at a certain speed and provides the minimum level of performance required by the market (urban) or the FCC (rural). In a dumb pipe model, the last mile is managed not by content but by content type. Voice traffic usually has the highest priority, data is down the list in the queues in each router along the way. At the edge of a carriers network is a meet point with another carrier for upstream/downstream traffic to the internet. That point is always a big router and most networks have at least one path to the internet for a given service area. That router can easily be configured to slow down any traffic the carrier is allowed to throttle. This means they can do deep packet inspection to prioritize traffic from NBC over CNN if they want. NN forbids that type of traffic management. Once they get rid of NN, the carrier can do whatever they want at that router. Since most of the big boys are buying up content, they will want to make sure their content is better then someone elses content so you go to their sites. Google, Apple, Facebook, etc all oppose this because they ride for free over the internet. If they start getting charged by carriers to use the network, all of us will start seeing fees from them to use their services. Remember this folks, if the service is free, you are the product. That is our model today. Do you want to change it?