Net Neutrality

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 2:34 pm

Verizon tests the waters.

Post by **TPRJones** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 3:27 pm

This is a move that surprises no one with any active brain cells.

Post by **GORDON** » Wed Aug 27, 2014 5:12 pm

A dim light on the horizon: The FCC received so many RsFC that they are going to take another look at the issue.

And they calculated that 1.1 million comments contained 7817 instances of the word "fuck."

The debate on net neutrality is about to get even more controversial at the Federal Communications Commission as Chairman Tom Wheeler is leaning toward using authority to regulate Internet service providers like phone companies – a move that would infuriate Republicans, Wall Street and telecom firms.

http://www.usnews.com/news....-phones

Edited By GORDON on 1409178731

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Wed Aug 27, 2014 5:31 pm

Only 7 or 8k? No fucking way.

Post by **Troy** » Wed Aug 27, 2014 11:29 pm

Sounds like i'm sending a "good fucking idea" email tomorrow.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:13 am

Those senators including Ron Wyden, D-Ore., Elizabeth Warren, D- Mass., and Cory Booker, D-N.J., sent a letter to Wheeler in July calling for him to use his authority to “reclassify broadband to reflect the vital role the Internet plays in carrying our most important information.”

Fuck them all. I hope their challengers crucify them over this issue next election.

Wheeler 'seriously considering' option that would please consumer advocates, infuriate Republicans.

If by "Republicans" you mean "everyone with broadband connection..."

Edited By Malcolm on 1409235224

Post by **GORDON** » Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:46 pm

99% of the 1.1million comments were in favor of net neutrality, and only 60% were form letters, which the FCC says is way less than usual, so they admit that 300k unique letters about an issue is interesting.

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech....n195236

Post by **GORDON** » Thu Sep 04, 2014 6:27 pm

FCC chairman says switching ISPs is too hard because of their monopoly status in most areas.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read....an-says

This guy is gonna get wacked.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Thu Sep 04, 2014 9:35 pm

GORDON wrote:FCC chairman says switching ISPs is too hard because of their monopoly status in most areas.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read....an-says

This guy is gonna get wacked.

Yeah, Xfinity is rocking the shit out of my internet. Like ...

It's better than dial up. Well ... when it's up. Even my 14.4 modem could maintain connectivity for longer than a FUCKING HOUR.

Edited By Malcolm on 1409880974

Post by **GORDON** » Thu Sep 04, 2014 9:40 pm

It's gonna be a huge dick in the booty when the FCC is making all these customer-friendly comments, and they are going to side with the corporations, anyway.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Tue Sep 09, 2014 2:54 pm

Protest.

Post by **GORDON** » Thu Nov 06, 2014 12:06 pm

GORDON wrote:It's gonna be a huge dick in the booty when the FCC is making all these customer-friendly comments, and they are going to side with the corporations, anyway.

Called it.

Protests are planned.

http://www.theguardian.com/technol....olution

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Thu Nov 06, 2014 12:19 pm

Net neutrality’s defenders want the internet to be regulated under Title II of the Communications Act – a move that would classify the service as a “common carrier” and give the FCC the power to stop cable companies introducing “unreasonable discrimination” and ensure they work “in the public interest”. Cable companies argue such a move would hamper innovation by tying the industry in red tape.

Because when I think "innovation," I think "cable companies."

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 1:45 pm

Obama weighs in.

Post by **GORDON** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 1:55 pm

I looked it up, the FCC doesn't fall under the executive branch, so they will go with the money. The head of the FCC was a lobbyist for Comcast, wasn't he? Bought and paid for. We're fucked.

Post by **Vince** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 2:10 pm

If anyone thought the government implementing "net neutrality" was anything other than making government the gatekeepers that will give the side that shells out the most campaign cash anything they want probably shouldn't be voting.

Plus, they will probably make it convoluted enough that Dtman will either have to hire an attorney to stay open on the Interwebs, or shut down.

Post by **TheCatt** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 2:12 pm

I'm not sure how I feel about all of this.

1) I want open Internet. I don't want throttling, etc.
2) I want faster, better Internet.
3) I want it as cheap as possible.

I'm not sure the right path to that.

Post by **TPRJones** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 2:14 pm

Nah, in the long run it'll work out and they'll be treated like common carriers. It might take some time for it to shake out that way but it will.

They brought it on themselves by being greedy fuckers.

I'm not sure the right path to that.

Well, I think the path to what you want isn't the common carrier route. It's let the current crop of ISPs destroy it all and then new ISPs that are more dedicated to a cheap and open internet as part of their core business model will put the old greedy fuckers out of business quick as people switch to them.

Having the government step in to protect net neutrality may make things better in the short term, but the market itself will always provide better long term solutions if you let things run their course, IMO. Like letting forest fires burn, in a free market sometimes you have to let things fail and go to shit before they come back better and stronger.

Edited By TPRJones on 1415733534

Post by **GORDON** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 2:22 pm

TPRJones wrote:
I'm not sure the right path to that.
Well, I think the path to what you want isn't the common carrier route. It's let the current crop of ISPs destroy it all and then new ISPs that are more dedicated to a cheap and open internet as part of their core business model will put the old greedy fuckers out of business quick as people switch to them.

You're talking about a 50 year game. The federal government will not let the current monopolies fail. Billions will be given to them to restructure the debt incurred because they suck.

I won't be around in 50 years to enjoy it when we finally get the new, fast internet.

Post by **TPRJones** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 2:50 pm

I bet it would be more like a 5 to 10 year game. But the last couple of those years would really suck. And it would cripple the global economy in the process.

But yeah, I generally look at the long term on these things; probably more long term than most people would think reasonable.