Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The FCC Issues its Proposal On Net Neutrality; Protesters Are Tossed from Hearing
zero hedge ^ | 5/17/14 | tyler durden

Posted on 05/17/2014 10:02:55 PM PDT by Nachum

Submitted by Mike Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

As spring unfolds here in the Northern Hemisphere, the future of the free and open Internet hangs in the balance. As such, I strongly believe everyone should have at least some understanding of what is at stake. When most people hear or read the words “net neutrality” their eyes glaze over with a feeling of confusion and despair: “I can’t remember, am I supposed to be for or against this?” This is exactly how the lawyers and lobbyists in D.C. want it, but unless the citizenry is informed we could lose the most important weapon of free speech in the history of mankind.

Recognizing the convoluted nature of the subject, I did my best to lay out what “net neutrality” is and what is at stake with the current FCC rule-making process in my recent post: Say Goodbye to “Net Neutrality” – New FCC Proposal Will Permit Discrimination of Web Content.

Well the FCC voted on its proposal yesterday and it passed with a 3-2 vote. More on that later, first I want to share an article I recently read on The Verge, which is extremely important to understand before you form an opinion on what should be done.

The first buzzword you need to familiarize yourself with is “Title II regulation.” Title II refers to a key section of the Communications Act, which has to do with the classification of telephone providers as “common carriers,” and subjects them to increased regulation and oversight. When the Communications Act was updated in 1996, it appears that broadband providers would not be deemed “common carriers,” which would allow them to be largely unregulated. Yet, Verizon decided it wanted to be regulated under Title II when building out its broadband network. Why would it do

(Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 1stamendment; commoncarrier; fcc; globalagenda; liberalagenda; net; netneutrality; neutrality; protesters; verizon
Yer gettin Net Nuetrons an' yer gonna like it!
1 posted on 05/17/2014 10:02:55 PM PDT by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; ...

The list, Ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/


2 posted on 05/17/2014 10:03:25 PM PDT by Nachum (Obamacare: It's. The. Flaw.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Despite the lengthy explanation, I still don’t get it. Maybe it’s too late in the evening.


3 posted on 05/17/2014 10:11:05 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

D FCC Band needs to disband.


4 posted on 05/17/2014 10:14:44 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Start your own ISP then you can offer your own “neutral” internet. Until then, don’t force for-profit companies to be “neutral”. You don’t like it, nobody is forcing your to use it.


5 posted on 05/17/2014 10:33:48 PM PDT by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

Basically companies want to limit how much bandwidth and speed they will give you for what you are paying, including the ability to slow down your ability to surf the net unless you’re willing to pay extra for the speed you are currently receiving.

I don’t have a problem with them limiting how much internet I can access unless I pay more, but they want to limit how fast my bandwidth unless I pay more. This is an artificial limitation, not one inherent within the infrastructure that currently being used.


6 posted on 05/17/2014 10:51:34 PM PDT by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

no sale blitzkreig blog or whomever you are. not going to sign any petition by “occupy whatever.”

how verizon manipulates the gov’t regs they have been subject to: irrelevant. i say more power to them if they can survive under them. any company in the US has to deal with intolerable regs from the gov’t.

and what business is it of yours or the gov’t’s what verizon decides to charge for it’s network. as long as they’er not colluding with other carriers for price fixing, they are getting what people will pay.

get and keep the gov’t’s hands completely off the internet and it’s providers. period. individuals will leave any company that starts to abuse them.


7 posted on 05/17/2014 10:55:02 PM PDT by dadfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

Thanks. Apparently this is a separate issue from the controversy about the US relinquishing control of the Internet to an international body.


8 posted on 05/17/2014 11:20:58 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

That should also piss people off.


9 posted on 05/17/2014 11:29:58 PM PDT by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dadfly

This does looks like a sorta socialist protest.


10 posted on 05/17/2014 11:35:32 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30
Basically companies want to limit how much bandwidth and speed they will give you for what you are paying, including the ability to slow down your ability to surf the net unless you’re willing to pay extra for the speed you are currently receiving.

Companies ALREADY do this.

Verizon's Fios service, for example, has many tiers, from 15Mbps all the way to 250Mbps and higher. Anyone paying for 15Mbps is already being "slowed down", even when surplus bandwidth is available.

But it's not a problem and it makes complete economic sense.

It's a way of getting "elite" users to pay a premium for more while still allowing regular users to pay less to get basic service. It's a form of discriminatory pricing and you see it in most industries. In the book business, you have hardcover books and paperbacks. In the computer industry you have very fast CPUs and slower budget CPUs. In jet travel, you have first class and coach.

Consider CPUs. Suppose 1 million CPUs will sell at $600/CPU but only 500,000 at $1000/CPU.

At $600/CPU, total sales are $600 million. At $1000/CPU total sales are $500 million.

BUT, if the fastest processors are sold at $1000/CPU and slower CPUs are sold at $600/CPU, then the total revenue is $800 million. That might be the difference between making a profit and losing money.

The same sort of thing happens when selling internet connectivity.

11 posted on 05/18/2014 1:57:24 AM PDT by freerepublicchat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Net-neutrality is forcing your neighbors to pay for your Netflix habit.


12 posted on 05/18/2014 2:02:56 AM PDT by Royal Wulff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30
As I understand it net neutrality impacts the costs/services for those providing services over the Internet. In other words, it cuts Verizon, Comcast, Brighthouse, etc in on Netflix's, Hulu’s, etc. action. In other words it's Redbox’s best friend.
13 posted on 05/18/2014 2:09:49 AM PDT by The Duke ("Forgiveness is between them and God, it's my job to arrange the meeting.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Governments are extremely intimidated by the free flow of information.

They’d like to close down the Internet altogether.

Failing that, they’ll simply tax and regulate it out of existence.


14 posted on 05/18/2014 3:29:12 AM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Royal Wulff
Net-neutrality is forcing your neighbors to pay for your Netflix habit.

How do you figure that?

15 posted on 05/18/2014 3:41:38 AM PDT by raybbr (Obamacare needs a death panel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

> I don’t have a problem with them limiting how much internet I can access unless I pay more, but they want to limit how fast my bandwidth unless I pay more. This is an artificial limitation, not one inherent within the infrastructure that currently being used.

Sort of has the same vibe as blackmail ...


16 posted on 05/18/2014 4:34:32 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

I think Charter communications already does that


17 posted on 05/18/2014 4:39:50 AM PDT by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... History is a process, not an event)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Increased regulation and oversight democrats need to stop the truth.


18 posted on 05/18/2014 5:06:42 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

The Net Neutrality Debacle: A Submission To The FCC*
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229021


19 posted on 05/18/2014 5:23:21 AM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (Pubbies = national collectivists; Dems = international collectivists; We need a second party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sagar

Yep, this issue is strictly about the gimme crowd versus the internet providers. Problem is, the gimme crowd has numerous high profile companies and all of the media on their side. Companies like Netflix are at the center of this propaganda blitz and are the primary problem with the current system. Put simply, people who expect unlimited streaming video and the providers of that video need a reality check in the form of unregulated pricing on that kind of service. If they expect a giant pipe they need to pay for it.


20 posted on 05/18/2014 6:15:26 AM PDT by palmer (There's someone in my lead but it's not me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30
but they want to limit how fast my bandwidth unless I pay more.

As they should. Either you pay more or Netflix pays more or both.

21 posted on 05/18/2014 6:16:31 AM PDT by palmer (There's someone in my lead but it's not me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: The Duke
In other words it's Redbox’s best friend.

That's fine with me. I have no interest in sitting on my butt watching streaming video, nor picking up a disc at the store and returning it. Limiting the bandwidth hogs or getting them to pay more is not only good for me, but it enables me to actually use the internet in my very poor bandwidth location.

22 posted on 05/18/2014 6:19:29 AM PDT by palmer (There's someone in my lead but it's not me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Simply stated what the FCC is doing is allowing Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to create a fast lane and a slow lane in their service and pick and choose what websites will get the faster speeds and which will be relegated to second class service. Sites like this could be relegated to dial up speed. If you want to watch a streaming movie say from Netfliks you will be paying extra..either for your Netfliks subscription as they will be paying ISPs for the "privilege" of being offered at high speed or the ISP will charge you more for watching streaming movies or both. Net neutrality means that ISPs must offer equal access speed to all web sites.

I believe that Congress specifically forbade the FCC from regulating the Internet, but with this administration that means nothing.

23 posted on 05/18/2014 6:33:36 AM PDT by The Great RJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

It’s a complicated issue, and it isn’t like there aren’t other Communication companies also providing entertainment and Internet access.

IMHO, the Internet has aspects as a utility. A utility is a common resource provided at minimal cost, hence its “Utility”.

While interlata regulations help discern between utility service and competitive market services, those who manage their resources between the two will work to game the systems.


24 posted on 05/18/2014 6:57:18 AM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ
Sites like this could be relegated to dial up speed

Ridiculous.

...either for your Netfliks subscription as they will be paying ISPs for the "privilege" of being offered at high speed...

Duh. Bandwidth costs money and if you chew it up streaming you should pay.

25 posted on 05/18/2014 9:30:44 AM PDT by palmer (There's someone in my lead but it's not me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sagar; Nachum
You don’t like it, nobody is forcing your to use it.

Nobody is forcing you to breath oxygen either but life just isn't the same without it.

26 posted on 05/18/2014 11:19:59 AM PDT by itsahoot (Voting for a Progressive RINO is the same as voting for any other Tyrant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

Right to life(by sucking in oxygen) is your right, but there is no right to the internet in the constitution, as far as I can recall.


27 posted on 05/18/2014 11:43:02 AM PDT by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sagar
but there is no right to the internet in the constitution, as far as I can recall.

Poor analogy I admit. The point is life is very much different without the internet. It is practically a public utility, like electricity you can live without it but sure is better with air conditioning.

28 posted on 05/18/2014 12:28:37 PM PDT by itsahoot (Voting for a Progressive RINO is the same as voting for any other Tyrant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
The FCC is looking for the authority to regulate the internet in the same way they regulate traditional phones.

The FCC is rapidly running out of a reason to exist as traditional phones go away.

In the FCC's recent "proposed rulemaking", they keep using the term "open", but they just use it as a buzzword without really any relevance to what they're talking about.

What they're talking about is mostly bandwidth, like in (see the document, elsewhere):

2. Proposed Elements of an Enforceable Legal Rule

a. Prohibiting Only Commercially Unreasonable Practices

116. Sound public policy requires that Internet openness be the touchstone of a new legal standard. Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that the Commission should adopt a rule requiring broadband providers to use “commercially reasonable” practices in the provision of broadband Internet access service. Our proposed approach is both more focused and more flexible than the vacated 2010 non-discrimination rule. It would prohibit as commercially unreasonable those broadband providers’ practices that, based on the totality of the circumstances,threaten to harm Internet openness and all that it protects.


Ok, this is moronic.

a) they want to restrict commercial practices to what is commercially reasonable ? Duh. The obvious devil is in the details. That's entirely open-ended. Once given authority to require practices be commercially reasonable, they can make as many regulations as they want and simply keep continuing to "adjust" what they DEEM to be "commercially reasonable". Who died and made them king ? Why would the weirdos at the FCC be better at deciding what is reasonable and dictating regulations according to their whim, as opposed to if something is SO IMPORTANT that it needs to be regulated, let's pass a law in Congress. Not like the government will concern themselves with anything other than selectively enforcing it, but at least our vital internet would have it's day of public debate before changes are made to the "regulations", instead of the FCC just changing them at their (or some consultant/lobbyist's) whim.

b) the real point - THERE'S NO NEED FOR ANY REGULATION. Consumers can plainly see if their internet connection is too slow for their liking. If it's too slow - THEY EITHER 1) CHANGE CARRIERS or 2) BUMP UP THEIR CONNECTION SPEED (paying a little more) WITH THEIR CURRENT CARRIER. Not a problem, everyone already does this. On the other end, people creating content, applications, etc., let's call them website owners - they ALSO can very easily find out if the connection their webserver has to the internet is too slow for their liking. They currently do the same thing: ask their carrier to bump up their speed and pay for the faster speed, or if they're unhappy with the carrier, SWITCH carriers. Not a problem, everyone already does this.

c) Connection speed has nothing to do with openness. Openness has to do with the CONTENT itself. If I'm not allowed to receive packets destined for port 80, I can't host a website. But duh, if that's the case, I either paid for a package that includes port 80 access or I didn't. If I'm not happy, I change carriers.

d) What the FCC really wants: for now, ANYTHING. Just to get in the business of regulating the internet somehow, any way, some way. So they keep saying open, open, open, a million times. They keep saying there are "problems" that the FCC needs to "fix".

e) Once the FCC has that first little tiny regulatory authority, THAT'S ALL THEY NEED. Because (LOLOLOLOLOL) every government agency knows (LOL) they are then free to expand their authority without any limit whatsoever. Just one step at a time. That's how the department of agrigulture and the department of education have SWAT teams.

f) The only thing remotely meaningful is this scenario: I have a new site called pietervideo that competes with youtube. Let's say youtube makes a deal with the few MONOPOLY carriers, so that every cellphone user slows down the speed of pietervideos, while allowing youtube videos to run at full speed. Yes, that's a problem, not for openness, per se, but for unfair competitive business practices, which pieter could battle in court over - and pieter should win his case if users can see the difference. Once again, FCC is NOT NEEDED to do ANYTHING in this regard.

g) the word "open" in technology today carries with it various connotations. Programming interfaces that are not proprietary are said to be "open". Though when you think about it, whatever board or foundation that administers the "open" standard - has simply taken the place of the company which had a proprietary standard. The "open" foundation or board owns the copyright to its interfaces, they will vigorously oppose anyone who tries to change or add to their standard without their approval. So it's not "open" in the sense that anyone can just change the standard. It's open in that supposedly various commercial businesses that adopt the standard will all have an equal treatment regarding the standard not favoring particular companies. What we see in practice, however, is that market-leading companies dominate the boards and foundations, so that instead of fighting each other with "dueling standards", they agree on standards enough to keep out any new standards that would compete with them. At most there are typically 2 or 3 competing standards, each backed by major market players. The companies don't need their officers to sit on these technical boards, they have their head egghead employees sit on the boards, and therefore they can coordinate standards activity with company software development. Small startups are thus confined largely to existing standards. If a startup's "new proprietary programming interface" would be 10 times better than an existing standard... well... they gotta push their own new standard on their own. Of course, if it takes off, the "open" corporate people will push them to make their standard an "open" standard, thereby limiting their influence over their own standard.

https://new.icann.org/ are the internet standards people, and their http://www.iana.org/about department handles names, numbers and protocols.

Interesting links on internet administrative organization:

ICANN
Internet Engineering Task Force
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Authority

And yes, here's a link on Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Federal Communications Commission, circa 1934:
FCC,
which came into being well after the first signalling tom-toms, right around the time of the invention of two cans with the string between them.
29 posted on 05/18/2014 9:57:10 PM PDT by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sagar

Yep, let’s just keep the government out of the “regulation” business. It’s just politicizing liberty and free markets. The bogeyman CORPORATIONS aren’t as “evil” as government or politicians. Their rapacity is limited by the marketplace.


30 posted on 05/20/2014 7:29:27 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality


31 posted on 05/20/2014 7:51:39 PM PDT by Beowulf9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson