Skip to comments.The Document That Could Change the Internet Forever
Posted on 05/15/2014 6:19:56 PM PDT by lbryce
The FCC has published its full net neutrality proposal, a document that could very well change the Internet as we know it.
See also: FCC Advances Controversial Proposal on Net Neutrality
On Thursday, the FCC approved the proposal with a 3-2 vote, opening a period of 120 days of public comments in which anyone, from stakeholders like broadband providers and net neutrality advocates to the average netizen, can weigh in and propose changes to the document. After this period, the FCC will write a final set of rules and vote on them.
The entire proposal is embedded below and the proposed new rules start on page 66. Full disclosure: it's a long, dense document that's fairly impenetrable. Our in-depth coverage of the hearing is available here.
Scribd:FCC Net Neutrality Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Excerpt) Read more at mashable.com ...
Nothing personal to the FCC but it should be up to
the netizens to decide. Five people voting for the
rest is not acceptable!!!
Rule #187: No LOLcats
Let’s see, if Affordable Care Act = Unaffordable Care Act and the Marketplace Fairness Act = the Marketplace Unfairness Act then it is safe to assume that Net Neutralitity = Net Bias.
What authorizes the FCC to have any involvement with the internet? Did the bureaucracy just grant itself authority?
Welcome to Brussels.
One thing’s for sure. The Statists can’t let the internet stay the way it is now.
Rule #342: No Pron
Anything the Obama Ggv. can do to stifle economic activity they will do.
There is no need for any new laws.
Anyone can put up a webserver in their home on a commodity PC, and host multiple websites on it, but purchasing static IP address internet service.
Their internet provider is just providing a network connection.
They have nothing to do with what goes over the wire and really don’t care about it and should not care.
The price of the connection service is based on how fast the connection is; faster costs more.
That’s already “open”.
And it’s reasonable in that more network traffic in general requires more hardware spending on the providers network to handle their overall network load.
No improvements are needed for the law or regulation.
The wording of this document is classic gibberish that leaves things WIDE OPEN for abuse down the road.
WHO WILL DETERMINE WHAT IS OPENNESS AT THE FCC A FEW YEARS FROM NOW ?
It’s not stated - it’s a wide “open” authorization for the FCC to regulate according to their whim.
“Your website talks about Bibles, which is not “open”, your IP address is hereby shut off to network traffic on port 80, so your website is now shut down”.
“The software you sell on your website is not “open”, so your website is now shut off”. Of course, the software you were selling was just a little too competitive against the wrong organization or business.
The FSF wants all software to ship with source code included, thus eliminating the idea of a software startup business. They’re fine with a SERVICE business, just not a PRODUCT business. You’re supposed to create great software because you like to do that, then turn over your work product to “the world”.
Basically at the moment, whatever you pay, you get all websites at the same speed...after, you pay extra to get the same speed for certain websites that are popular...Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, etc.
Can somebody educate me on net neutrality? I keep up with different issues, but this hasn’t been one of them. I know it’s bad, but I really don’t know what it means. Just a link to a good article would be great. Ten words or less would be golden. :)
This is what they do when they want something, come at us a hundred different ways until they get through. Bottom line on this is O wants control of the web. He just tried to give the whole damn thing away and when that failed, he revived the net neutrality gig.
I'll start emailing/calling etc. but this might be subtle enough to slip under the radar. Giving the Internet away got enough press to stop them but we can probably never get enough attention focused on this.
Jack Boots and SWAT Teams are on order.
I’m here at the offices of Web Hosting Company X where an FCC Enforcement Team raid uncovered illicit bandwidth utilization. During the raid FCC Enforcement Team Officers shot several technicians, one fatally. Several others were arrested. All servers have been impounded pending further investigation. No word yet on whether company mascot Fido, also shot during the raid, will recover.
Back to you John.
Studio co-host John:
John to co-host Mary:
If you can’t do the time...
That’s right (nodding yes) Don’t do the crime.
Stay tuned! Sports and weather next.
the google bots did not build the telecom backbone the Internet requires but they want it to serve THEIR business model which requires those that have built and keep building the telecom/internet backbone be reduced to operating as a public service to the likes of google et al
Rule #666:All your internets are belong to us.
Nutty conspiracy stuff.
It sure sounds like it.
The WSJ doesn’t seem to think it’s a conspiracy. Here’s a link to recent article about this.
But until any concrete stuff do come out, I will take this with a bit of salt.
The big internet providers (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc) want to be able to charge Netflix and others for the right to deliver content to the end user. The basically want to put up a toll booth.
Cable television currently makes money from their customers (you and me) and also from the TV stations that pay for the right to be on the cable lineup. The ISPs want a similar business model for that business. Of course once ISPs start making decisions about what you can access then they could cut off whatever they want (think "hate sites" like freerepublic)
Net neutrality is the concept that ISPs should be neutral and simply transmit information not interfere in any way.
Actually, all this stuff is about huge profits.
The profits are all just for the huge companies of the elites.
With open source, you have to think in the big picture. Product startups = competition for monopolies.
The most significant open source work is that done by and for big companies. This means the companies share the work of their employees who are working on open source products. This means the sponsor company gets it at cost. But don’t forget, they get the work done by other sponsor companies’ employees for free.
Think of all the big data and nosql software. That’s all only of any benefit to mega corps and government. If the authors of those products had started their own companies and sold these as products, every product would had to have been paid for, with the authors earning hundreds of millions instead of their six-figure incomes. Six-figure income sounds like a lot until you compare it to an eight-figure income. Think of the competition these hypothetical new startups could have been for Oracle, MS, IBM, etc. The open source community keeps those companies comfortably operating without serious competition from startups. Notice the startups that are allowed into the IPO process by Wall Street - they are services, usually a website. That is no competition at all for software product companies, they are service companies.
I’d be remiss if I didn’t also mention the export of software to countries that are adversaries of the US. The financial elites of the US have always loved to transfer technology and manufacturing capability to communist countries. Well, now we can include in that the supposed “terrorist” countries. America - according to the purposes of the financial elites - needs to supply and finance the best enemies money can buy.
How can our illustrious Rockefeller interests make sure that all our supposed “enemy” nations can use our most high-tech software ? Open source ! Voila ! Are you a terrorist nation ? Are you threatening America ? Are you a potential adversary of America ? Maybe you’re a nation who plays host to drug lords. Want a copy of Hadoop to help run your operations, maybe do some analysis ? Just download it for free ! There are thousands of software packages that enable all sorts of heavy-duty computing capabilities. No export license required, no questions asked, it’s all free, have a nice day.
The health field would be funny if not so tragic. It’s all about huge profits. For the existing insurance industry.
And 24x7 fox news keeps calling this a “government takeover”.
The government websites/exchanges are simply marketing websites. The insurance companies are selling the “Obamacare” insurance.
The only part that government plays is enticing or coercing people to buy insurance from the insurance industry. Or enabling the insurance industry to cancel a person’s policy and selling them a new policy that costs more and pays less in benefits (that they actually use). This is done by mandating that they pay for coverage they will not claim any benefits under. It’s like selling ovary insurance to men; they’ll never collect. Adding on coverage of pre-existing conditions means a premium increase to pay for that benefit. If a person has no pre-existing conditions, they can no longer save money by buying a policy without the coverage.
If one has even the most fundamental knowledge of insurance underwriting, these carnival barker tricks are all painfully obvious. But to the average sheeple, it’s a “communist plot” by “obama” to “take over” “our” healthcare industry.
I want to sell everyone insurance against turnips falling from the sky onto their roof. It’s only $10 per month, call now. You can’t be turned down, and your rate will never go up. And I want it mandated by law that everyone needs to buy my insurance or else pay a fine. Being a sheeple, I’m just not going to be able to make this idea fly.
Only problem I have is when I read the actual text (this thread points to it).
It is horrifically open-ended.
As worded, if something down the road is deemed by the FCC, at its sole internal discretion, to be somehow interfering with the “openness” of the internet, they can shut it off.
This particular wording of “net neutrality” is a law that’s cleverly worded to allow the thing it’s purported to be prohibiting.
I worry that ‘openness’ of the internet will be interpreted as anonymous posting on the internet. This is an invitation to net-id like in China.
You have spoken that which must NOT be spoken !
To the gulag with you !
There’s two sides: the web server and the web client (the user’s browser).
Net id is more about knowing who the users are.
Net neutrality deals heavily with the server side, i.e., are you as a person or your business allowed to control the content on your website and only be subject to normal operation of the law, that is, fraud, various actual crimes like theft, prostitution, etc.
If website owners are legally forced to police their own websites and remove and report legitimate dissent, or legitimiate whistleblowing, then the “elites” have essentially complete control of the entire internet to use for their own totalitarian whims.
A website owner might not even have users; most small websites have few or no users; the content is purely that of the website owner.
Having a website presents the concept of a “right to publish”. The publishing is very cheap and to the entire world.
Most troubling, actually, is the idea of a website owner that offers software, whether for free or for a charge, whether program source code is included or not. This is because any software could be deemed “not good for the internet” and the website shut down by the FCC without even the benefit of a trial.
Ironically, the criminal activities of the financial elites, as well as their espionage operations, give them motivation to keep the internet as it is. This is why, IMHO, they are pursuing a very open-ended, ambiguous legal framework, so they can pick and choose later who to attack and who to leave alone, exactly as we now know has always been done using tax law and the IRS.
Re: two sides.
Since they’ll be doing the server side they’ll just make ‘open standards’ that require servers to know who they’re dealing with.
Perhaps a standard whereby gubmint is continually notified to make it easy for them to see in realtime.
Cuz right now they can simply come with a court order to any website which orders the owner to fork over the email address and IP addresses used by the user.
Just about every site communicates with their users through their email address.
Email providers are very used to responding to court orders ordering them to fork over the user’s credit card info/etc.
It is very easy for gubmint to find out exactly who Black Agnes and PieterCasparzen are with court orders.
They want to know without court orders, in realtime.
Which the NSA can do right now.
If gubmint asks NSA, they get all your phone call content, emails, web browser, credit and debit card activity.
There are a handful of large telco/net companies that have their own networks and everyone’s public IPs (phones, computers, etc.) is administered by one or the other of them. These top companies then connect their networks to each other; this is the internet.
These companies route all traffic to the NSA, which saves a copy in their massive databases, and routes it back to them.
The NSA then can search their massive databases to find all traffic related to a particular person.
If the “standards” were changed a bit, yes, it would make the NSAs job easier, but more importantly, perfectly legal, technically, because the standards would be providing id information along with all the data as it flew around. It could be deemed to be in the public domain, like the address of your house if you have your house number next to your door or on your mailbox.
A dream come true for the lawyers of totalitarian financial elites.
Yeah. I know they know who’s who.
This would let the wackjobs know who you are as well. Post something ‘objectionable’ to the prevailing mindset and old Tom up the street will just toss a molotov cocktail in your car as you drive by.
Congress could solve this by getting of their collective asses and writing a law instead of leaving it to be regulated by bureaucrats.
What we have is the elites’ “governance” architecture, have CongressMinions(tm) delegate to (enable) the elites’ “experts” who are employees of or consultants to (totalitarian administrators of) the executive branch agencies.
Thanks lbryce, sidebars and backstory: