Going Down: Net Neutrality and Banning Ammo in same day

[SicEmBaylor]

Bull****. Net neutrality means down the road people will have to pay extra for lesser traveled websites (ie right wing websites). Your interne t will be served up like cable tv. A bunch of liberal crap.

WTF? Blue, you have this entirely reversed.

Just another victory for communist/fascist/liberals. Anybody who favors limited speech. How could you of all people think that the govt regulating anything is a good thing, Sicem?

You talk a fair game like an inexperienced intellectual but when push comes to shove you defend Big Brother.

The government is NOT regulating the internet. The government is regulating the telecommunications companies from regulating the internet. Jesus, you are making the right argument but taking entirely the wrong side.

[SicEmBaylor]

I have come to realize that most of you have absolutely no idea what "net neutrality" means.

[rock on sooner]

All y'all go read post #8 in Vet's thread about the 'Net...it is rilly simple
easy to unnerstand terms 'bout Gore's invention....as to the bullets,
no way can an executive order or executive memorandum do any thing
like what y'all are squawkin' 'bout...now, my beer's empty, anyone want
one while I'm up?

[dwarthog]

I have come to realize that most of you have absolutely no idea what "net neutrality" means.

1)There is a definition of "Net Neutrality"

2) There was a implementation of "Net Neutrality" as defined by some 300+ pages passed by the FCC.

It's unlikely that 1 and 2 are equal to each other, particularly since the FCC was not inclined to let anyone outside of themselves see what that implementation will be.

If you were one of those on the commission who saw the implementation then you have knowledge unavailable to the rest of us in this regard. If not then you're pretty much taking it on faith they have adopted true net neutrality.

I'm skeptical such is the case.

[Ton Loc]

Skepticism is one thing. People's complete lack of understanding that ends up in misplaced outrage and anger is another. Its also what makes up 90% of this thread.

[SicEmBaylor]

1)There is a definition of "Net Neutrality"

2) There was a implementation of "Net Neutrality" as defined by some 300+ pages passed by the FCC.

It's unlikely that 1 and 2 are equal to each other, particularly since the FCC was not inclined to let anyone outside of themselves see what that implementation will be.

If you were one of those on the commission who saw the implementation then you have knowledge unavailable to the rest of us in this regard. If not then you're pretty much taking it on faith they have adopted true net neutrality.

I'm skeptical such is the case.

1. Yes.
2. No, there were 8 pages of regulation. The remaining 224 pages are of public feedback on the issue that the FCC started soliciting several months ago as the FCC started indicating it was considering net-neutrality. I remember because I was one of those individuals who gave his feedback to the FCC.

[SoonerorLater]

What we are experiencing now, at least for the most part, is net neutrality. It is almost a "for certain" that the term "Net Neutrality" would be hijacked and redefined by the FCC. The status quo was never a possibility with this ruling. It was baked into the cake that internet life would change.

[SicEmBaylor]

What we are experiencing now, at least for the most part, is net neutrality. It is almost a "for certain" that the term "Net Neutrality" would be hijacked and redefined by the FCC. The status quo was never a possibility with this ruling. It was baked into the cake that internet life would change.

The term 'net neutrality' was not changed by the FCC. We are, by and large, currently experiencing net-neutrality. The FCC ruling simply enforces what currently exists. The act that precipitated the FCC finding was the decision by Comcast and a couple of other major providers to start charging Netflix a fee in order to ensure customers, who already pay for both the internet service and Netflix, received the bandwidth to watch Netflix that they already currently pay for. Netflix appealed this to the FCC with many others signing on to the complaint -- in turn, the FCC announced they were considering the action. They asked the public to give input months and moths ago which they have been collecting. The decision came down to enforce the current standard.

[dwarthog]

1. Yes.
2. No, there were 8 pages of regulation. The remaining 224 pages are of public feedback on the issue that the FCC started soliciting several months ago as the FCC started indicating it was considering net-neutrality. I remember because I was one of those individuals who gave his feedback to the FCC.

Didn't know that.

Have you seen the 8 pages yet?

[SicEmBaylor]

Didn't know that.

Have you seen the 8 pages yet?

I read the outline of the document, but not the full report which hasn't been released yet. When it is, and if there is anything in that to be concerned over, then of course that becomes a different issue entirely. Nonetheless, assuming that the FCC releases a document consistent with the outline of its decision then I'm not concerned.

[SoonerorLater]

The term 'net neutrality' was not changed by the FCC. We are, by and large, currently experiencing net-neutrality. The FCC ruling simply enforces what currently exists. The act that precipitated the FCC finding was the decision by Comcast and a couple of other major providers to start charging Netflix a fee in order to ensure customers, who already pay for both the internet service and Netflix, received the bandwidth to watch Netflix that they already currently pay for. Netflix appealed this to the FCC with many others signing on to the complaint -- in turn, the FCC announced they were considering the action. They asked the public to give input months and moths ago which they have been collecting. The decision came down to enforce the current standard.

No they won't just be enforcing what currently exists. In order to make any ruling with teeth the FCC had to declare the internet a "public utility". So if in your opinion the government will assume control of regulation and it will be business as usual then I suppose you are correct. My experience with government control suggests otherwise.

[SicEmBaylor]

No they won't just be enforcing what currently exists. In order to make any ruling with teeth the FCC had to declare the internet a "public utility". So if in your opinion the government will assume control of regulation and it will be business as usual then I suppose you are correct. My experience with government control suggests otherwise.

No. They did not declare the 'internet' to be a Title II public utility. They declared internet providers to be a public utility. These are the same providers who built their infrastructure subsidized with taxpayer money and then turn around and lobby against allowing competitors use that same infrastructure.

[SoonerorLater]

No. They did not declare the 'internet' to be a Title II public utility. They declared internet providers to be a public utility. These are the same providers who built their infrastructure subsidized with taxpayer money and then turn around and lobby against allowing competitors use that same infrastructure.

Yes that is correct and that changes the landscape. However the ISP's case was not without merit. The Telecoms and Cable were were built out under a monopoly that is true. For the large majority they were deregulated some years ago. Much of their build-out to allow broadband was done under deregulation (not that they didn't have a huge leg up already).

The strongest part of the ISP case is that the concept of net-neutrality is based on the concept peer-to-peer file sharing. This makes an assumption of a more less equal burden on the various parties in the transfer of information across the internet. In the case of the Netflix's of the world this was not what was happening. It takes remarkably less bandwidth to upload a request for content than the actual download of that content. So should the ISP's be required to upgrade the backbone internet network to accommodate the Netflix's of the world or should they be able to throttle down to allocate their existing bandwidth?

[dwarthog]

Yes that is correct and that changes the landscape. However the ISP's case was not without merit. The Telecoms and Cable were were built out under a monopoly that is true. For the large majority they were deregulated some years ago. Much of their build-out to allow broadband was done under deregulation (not that they didn't have a huge leg up already).

The strongest part of the ISP case is that the concept of net-neutrality is based on the concept peer-to-peer file sharing. This makes an assumption of a more less equal burden on the various parties in the transfer of information across the internet. In the case of the Netflix's of the world this was not what was happening. It takes remarkably less bandwidth to upload a request for content than the actual download of that content. So should the ISP's be required to upgrade the backbone internet network to accommodate the Netflix's of the world or should they be able to throttle down to allocate their existing bandwidth?

I read that ruling re Netflix, Comcast and Verizon that seems to be one of the advocates poster children re an example of how this, net neutrality, will "help" and I'm not convinced that will be the case.

That "agreement" doesn't look like to me it would have been affected by this ruling and even if the FCC tried to step in it looks like to me that an argument could be made that with regards to connection speeds, not really changed.