Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > Chatter > General Discussion


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 04-06-2010, 12:59 PM   #1 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Court says FCC cannot enforce Net Neutrality

Quote:
F.C.C. Rules for Broadband Fairness Set Aside by Court

By EDWARD WYATT

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court on Tuesday dealt a sharp blow to the efforts of the Federal Communications Commission to set the rules of the road for the Internet, ruling that the agency lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks.
The decision, by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, specifically concerned the efforts of Comcast, the nation’s largest cable provider, to slow down customers’ access to a service called BitTorrent, which is used to exchange large video files, most often pirated copies of movies.
After Comcast’s blocking was exposed, the F.C.C. told Comcast to stop discriminating against BitTorrent traffic and in 2008 issued broader rules for the industry regarding “net neutrality,” the principle that all Internet content should be treated equally by network providers. Comcast challenged the F.C.C.’s authority to issue such rules and argued that its throttling of BitTorrent was necessary to ensure that a few customers did not unfairly hog the capacity of the network, slowing down Internet access for all of its customers.
But Tuesday’s court ruling has far larger implications than just the Comcast case.
The ruling would allow Comcast and other Internet service providers to restrict consumers’ ability to access certain kinds of Internet content, such as video sites like Hulu.com or Google’s YouTube service, or charge certain heavy users of their networks more money for access.
Google, Microsoft and other big producers of Web content have argued that such controls or pricing policies would thwart innovation and customer choice.
Consumer advocates said the ruling, one of several that have challenged the F.C.C.’s regulatory reach, could also undermine all of the F.C.C.’s efforts to regulate Internet service providers and establish its authority over the Internet, including its recently released national broadband plan.
“This decision destroys the F.C.C.’s authority to build broadband policy on the legal theory established by the Bush administration,” said Ben Scott, the policy director for Free Press, a nonprofit organization that advocates broad media ownership and access.
The decision could reinvigorate dormant efforts in Congress to pass a federal law specifically governing net neutrality, a principle generally supported by the Obama administration.
While the decision is a victory for Comcast, it also has the potential to affect the company’s pending acquisition of a majority stake in NBC Universal.
Members of Congress have expressed concern that the acquisition could give Comcast the power to favor the content of its own cable and broadcast channels over those of competitors, something that Comcast has said it does not intend to do. Now, members of Congress could also fret that Comcast will also block or slow down customers’ access to the Web sites of competing television and telecommunications companies.
In a statement, the F.C.C. said it remained “firmly committed to promoting an open Internet.” While the court decision invalidated its current approach to that goal, the agency said, “the court in no way disagreed with the importance of providing a free and open Internet, nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end.”
It looks like the FCC needs some updating as to it's responsibilities.

I was very disappointed to read this today, but I understand the reasoning and process.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 04-06-2010, 02:07 PM   #2 (permalink)
Junkie
 
I have never understood the big bruhaha over this. What's wrong with charging someone more money if they use more bandwidth and/or server space? I see it no differently than charging different rates for local and long-distance phonecalls, or charging more for data transfer than voice transmission on cellphones.

Seriously, will someone please explain why charging someone more when they use more of your product is so horrible? If they charge -too- much, customers will switch providers, just like they do now. In areas with only one ISP, such a situation opens up a substantial opportunity for entrepreneurship and competition, which would keep (or drive) prices lower.

This doesn't seem any different than different cellphone companies charging different rates for voice, data, etc....and then turning those prices into points of competition. Some companies compete on price, some on services, some on price -for- certain services, etc. Why would ISPs be any different?
The_Dunedan is offline  
Old 04-06-2010, 02:13 PM   #3 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
I don't know where you live but many I know don't have the ability to switch ISPs when it comes to cable, they have 1 cable company to pick from. I'm lucky, I have 3 to pick from in my building, Time Warner, RCN, and Verizon. Many do not have such a luxury and are stuck with their cable provider.

Show me one example where someone can become an MSO as a brand new entrepenuer....

Here's a wired.com snippet that shows more nefarious reasons to worry.

Quote:
A broadband company could, for instance, ink a deal with Microsoft to transfer all attempts to reach Google.com to Bing.com. The only recourse a user would have, under the ruling, would be to switch to a different provider — assuming, of course, they had an alternative to switch to.

Companies can also now prohibit you from using a wireless router you bought at the store, forcing you to use one they rent out — just as they do with cable boxes. They could also decide to charge you a fee every time you upgrade your computer, or even block you from using certain models, just as the nation’s mobile phone carriers do today.

Read More Court Drives FCC Towards Nuclear Option to Regulate Broadband | Epicenter | Wired.com
So, if Comcast decided it no longer wanted to stream ANY CBS.com video it could easily do so as part of their ability to decide how to throttle or limit bandwidth. They could say to you,"Watch it on your TV instead of on your PC."
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 04-06-2010, 02:22 PM   #4 (permalink)
Human
 
SecretMethod70's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
There's a difference between charging someone for using more bandwidth (OK) and charging someone for using bandwidth in a particular manner (not OK). What Comcast was doing was the equivalent of a phone company charging you more to call homes than to call stores.
__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling
SecretMethod70 is offline  
Old 04-06-2010, 02:32 PM   #5 (permalink)
Baltimoron
 
djtestudo's Avatar
 
Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70 View Post
There's a difference between charging someone for using more bandwidth (OK) and charging someone for using bandwidth in a particular manner (not OK). What Comcast was doing was the equivalent of a phone company charging you more to call homes than to call stores.
And the real fear is more along the lines of a phone company over-charging or completely refusing to let you call someone who uses a different phone company.

If Comcast can regulate the type of traffic on their system, why couldn't they refuse to allow video from sites not affiliated with Comcast or NBC? Or force you to your local Comcast SportsNet channel's website for sports news instead of ESPN?

These types of decisions have the chance to radically affect how the Internet looks both in the short-term and in the long-term in regards to things like the ability to share information freely.
__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun
djtestudo is offline  
Old 04-06-2010, 05:49 PM   #6 (permalink)
Invisible
 
yournamehere's Avatar
 
Location: tentative, at best
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan View Post
I have never understood the big bruhaha over this. . . . I see it no differently than charging different rates for local and long-distance phonecalls . . . .
I still haven't understood that one - and unlike many younger people, I grew up with the status quo being different rates for local, intrastate, and long distance rates. Why should it cost more just because the signal crosses a state line or travels further? It's all the same wires.

Back on topic, though, this doesn't surprise me. Big Business runs this country. Don't expect fairness; learn to expect whatever result puts more money into the pockets of our larger corporations. I mean, the Supreme Court has officially given corporations the right to sponsor political ads. And we all know Americans do what the TV tells 'em to.
__________________
If you want to avoid 95% of internet spelling errors:
"If your ridiculous pants are too loose, you're definitely going to lose them. Tell your two loser friends over there that they're going to lose theirs, too."
It won't hurt your fashion sense, either.
yournamehere is offline  
Old 04-06-2010, 05:59 PM   #7 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70 View Post
There's a difference between charging someone for using more bandwidth (OK) and charging someone for using bandwidth in a particular manner (not OK). What Comcast was doing was the equivalent of a phone company charging you more to call homes than to call stores.
This is it in a nutshell. Net neutrality is essentially the belief that all Internet traffic should be treated equally, byte by byte.

This brings up a good point. I always feel a bit put out by the fact that I can't use Google.com. I can only use Google Canada.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 04-06-2010, 06:21 PM   #8 (permalink)
The Reforms
 
Jetée's Avatar
 
Location: Rarely, if ever, here or there, but always in transition
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
This brings up a good point. I always feel a bit put out by the fact that I can't use Google.com. I can only use Google Canada.
So you can't access Google Thailand, Google Denmark, or even Google Argentina?

You must lead a sad, lonlely existence, encased in your Google Canadian bubble. I feel it (empathetically).

The one thing I despise is that the fact that FCC took control of free speech before it could even be deemed that way in the media scope of developing enterprises and technologies available to the American audience at large.

The government got in bed with a dictorial adminstration at the behest of only a small minority of advocates for "common decency". I'm glad the FCC has no "firm" hand in what is comprised of on the net.
__________________
As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world (that is the myth of the Atomic Age) as in being able to remake ourselves.
Mohandas K. Gandhi
Jetée is offline  
Old 04-06-2010, 06:26 PM   #9 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetée View Post
So you can't access Google Thailand, Google Denmark, or even Google Argentina?
No, I can access those just fine. I just can't use www.google.com.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 04-06-2010, 06:54 PM   #10 (permalink)
The Reforms
 
Jetée's Avatar
 
Location: Rarely, if ever, here or there, but always in transition
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
No, I can access those just fine. I just can't use Google.
Well, that brings about the argument about you preferring to use Google Canadia as a stand-in to the accepted universal standard of Google. The use of "only" in your previous sentence brought about reminders of net monitoring and abidance similar to that found in The People's Republic of China, or in Myanmar.

It's not that you can "only" use the Canadian home and service made available by Google, it is just that you feel you deserve you should also be able to access the established original of Google freely; as you found you cannot, you merely "accept" to use the proffered regional Google.
__________________
As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world (that is the myth of the Atomic Age) as in being able to remake ourselves.
Mohandas K. Gandhi
Jetée is offline  
Old 04-06-2010, 06:59 PM   #11 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Well, the use of "only" more or less meant "if I want to use a version of Google that isn't geared towards another language and/or geography."

I used to be able to use Google.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 04-06-2010, 07:04 PM   #12 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
but that's not about net neutrality but more about distributed computer and resources.

jetee can you please elaborate a bit more on your stance. I don't understand.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 04-06-2010, 07:20 PM   #13 (permalink)
The Reforms
 
Jetée's Avatar
 
Location: Rarely, if ever, here or there, but always in transition
My stance is that the FCC is a horrible, corrupted and longstanding barrier to fair media distrubution, free radio, and a goverment-institutionalized "hovering hand" to content labeling, which has progressed so far from being just an "advisory board" to something altogether "necessary" for the goodwill of the nation; it is to dictate what exactly is suitable for whom, and for those that do not adhere, you can be fined exorbitantly, jailed unconscionably, or punished outrageously by means of something else altogether, enforced by which they should hold no legal power to accomplish.

simply: from which you stated in your OP about the Federal Communications Commission needing to update its responsibilites, its only responsiblity from when it was founded by means of the Communications Act of the mid-1930s (forgot as to which year, '33, 34 or 35, exactly) to the day it still stands, is to solely distribute "content advisory" and to regulate the nation's telecommunications (media) through fair and unbiased methods, which should not be based upon race and/or background, nor region of inhabitance.
__________________
As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world (that is the myth of the Atomic Age) as in being able to remake ourselves.
Mohandas K. Gandhi
Jetée is offline  
Old 04-06-2010, 07:31 PM   #14 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
BG... on Google.ca, look down at the bottom of the page. There should be a link that let's you use Google.com.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 04-06-2010, 07:41 PM   #15 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Well, fuck me. So there is!

Now back to our regularly scheduled program!
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 04-06-2010, 07:42 PM   #16 (permalink)
Custom User Title
 
Craven Morehead's Avatar
 
Coincidently, last week Comcast sent me an email about their "High-Speed Internet Data Usage" meter that can be viewed when I log on to my account options.


Quote:
Your Comcast High-Speed Internet service has a monthly data usage allowance of 250 gigabytes (GB). If you are wondering whether you are at risk of exceeding this 250GB threshold, you should know that the vast majority - around 99% - of Comcast customers use significantly less than 250GB per month.

Quote:
It's no secret we've been evaluating a specific monthly data usage or bandwidth threshold for our Comcast High-Speed Internet residential customers for some time. Rumors circulated online last year and they popped up again in May.

In January, we added new frequently asked questions about what we consider acceptable use of our service to our online Help site customer.comcast.com and Security Channel page Comcast.net Security.

We've listened to feedback from our customers who asked that we provide a specific threshold for data usage and this would help them understand the amount of usage that would qualify as excessive. On October 1, 2008, we amended our Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) available at Comcast.net Terms Of Service - Acceptable Use Policy to establish a specific monthly data usage threshold of 250 GB/month per account for all residential customers. Read more.
I'm so far under the limit that it doesn't bother me. I don't have a problem with it and wouldn't even if I were getting close.

But I would have an issue if they began to provide preferential routing or something similar.
Craven Morehead is offline  
Old 04-06-2010, 07:53 PM   #17 (permalink)
Human
 
SecretMethod70's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
I'm 3x over the limit this month, but that's not normal
__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling
SecretMethod70 is offline  
Old 04-09-2010, 12:20 AM   #18 (permalink)
Psycho
 
blktour's Avatar
 
Location: Anchorage, AK
I work for a telecommunications company in AK. We have unlimited internet as of now. We are going away from that. I think we are putting a cap of 200gig/mo or so. We dont really know yet.

their stance is that there are 5% of our customers use alot more than expected. They will deal with them on a case by case basis. I wonder how that will go down.

I like though that they will try to stay on the "customer service" standpoint and not a "hey, you use to much, bye." mentality. We will try to do our best to meet the customers needs, but again, this is a business not a charity.
blktour is offline  
Old 04-09-2010, 03:26 PM   #19 (permalink)
Invisible
 
yournamehere's Avatar
 
Location: tentative, at best
Quote:
Originally Posted by blktour View Post
. . . but again, this is a business not a charity.
Actually, it is kind of a charity - for the cable companies. How convenient that internet access became available through the same cables they already had in place; and were already charging people to get their TV signals. . . . which back when they started promised us wouldn't have commercials any more, because charging advertisers AND customers would be double-dipping. Now they're triple-dipping.
__________________
If you want to avoid 95% of internet spelling errors:
"If your ridiculous pants are too loose, you're definitely going to lose them. Tell your two loser friends over there that they're going to lose theirs, too."
It won't hurt your fashion sense, either.
yournamehere is offline  
Old 04-12-2010, 10:45 AM   #20 (permalink)
Upright
 
Thrombatic Pyle's Avatar
 
Wow
Thrombatic Pyle is offline  
 

Tags
court, enforce, fcc, net, neutrality

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:18 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360