Users who Dugg This
John Boitnott
15810 Followers
CourageWolf
6888 Followers
Cecil Helton
12879 Followers
hax0rgam3r
567 Followers
luv2luvDec 20, 2010
This is one of those things that might not get front page attention today but in 10 years we could look back and say that it was the most influential event of 2010
slappybag9Dec 20, 2010
I'll look at whatever I f**kING want too
bluto36Dec 21, 2010
not if the FCC has anything to say about what is and what is not a legal website...
oh wait because of this they will
great job everybody thinking this was about tiered bandwidth.
psypher1Dec 21, 2010
No you won't
couragewulfDec 21, 2010
If ISPS filter content, they will lose a s**t load of business.
cactuartamerDec 21, 2010
Orrr they won't. s**tty business practices are perfectly viable as long as everyone's engaging in them. It's the same way we wound up with people still patronizing insurance companies that refuse to pay out for illness... All the companies do that, so there's no real choice in the market. What's the point in taking your business elsewhere if all other options are equally s**tty?
crashdvisDec 21, 2010
Well let's quickly get the government involved then. They have a proven track record of doing things right. Nothing they ever get involved in gets screwed up or made worse. There are never any unintended consequences of government involvement. If the FCC does this, the entire world will break out in sunshine and there will be rose petals falling from the sky. I can't wait.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
slizzoDec 21, 2010
I dugg you up since some people don't understand what sarcasm is.
diggsmckenzieDec 21, 2010
WE ALL GOT THE SARCASM. You are not f**king special.
You are both being buried because you're f**king stupid.
jaybird1905Dec 21, 2010
So did you.
JustSayNoPartyDec 21, 2010
While I agree with your misgivings about the government and the FCC action here, the whole drum beat about government being useless is getting old. Who does have a track record of getting everything right? Government has a role to play in society. Unfortunately, they often attend to the wrong things or things that don't benefit most of us.
juniorbDec 21, 2010
Of course the government doesn't work properly, when there are so many greedy little gremlin profiting from dismantling it.
JustSayNoPartyDec 21, 2010
There's truth in that comment, Junior. Unfortunately, those who think 'government=bad' so eliminate government will end up shooting themeselves in the foot. It's about balance.
letherialDec 21, 2010
got a better idea?
darkshroudDec 22, 2010
Not letting them have permission to filter web content.
bookantDec 21, 2010
"Well let's quickly get the government involved then."
How about KEEPING the government involved, and extending the exact same rules that made the internet as we know it possible in the first place? That'd be your "proven track record," by the way.
bluto36Dec 21, 2010
no no no. the "progressive" thing to do here is try to fix something that is not broke while helping your political friends to a big heaping dose of profiteering all while screwing the internet till it resembles a old peg board with old ladies plugging your search connections.
"dildo hair-pie... one sec while i make that connection. Sir your search will be one dollar for the legal sites thirteen dollars for the sites the FCC considers illegal"
enjoy your new internet!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
farmthisDec 22, 2010
All the FCC is doing is not allowing the companies that you pay for service to direct you to their preferred business partners, discourage alternative sites, or limit certain types of internet use.
The government has less of an agenda than a corporation, which seeks money above all else, without morals.
bookantDec 22, 2010
"enjoy your new internet!"
Thanks, I hope to, but it's the OLD internet (see my extended comment below). Until you guys understand at least the rudimentary basics of what Network Neutrality *is*, the history of this regulation on communication netowrks and how traffic over the internet works, you're no more informed than Ted "Series of Tubes" Stevens, and your opinions carry about as much weight.
bluto36Dec 22, 2010
really Bookant?
so tell me what problem did this fix?
what issue are you currently having that this addresses.
hate to tell you this but i work at an ISP and the New net rape is being prepared as we speak. i hope you love the new access, i hope you love the new prices!
enjoy!
bookantDec 22, 2010
"hate to tell you this but i work at an ISP and the New net rape is being prepared as we speak. "
Looks like you answered your own question. If the ISPs are preparing the "new Net rape . . . as we speak" that sort of contradicts the idea that they can be trusted to keep the net neutral without being forced to, doesn't it?
The offline world is full of examples of what the internet will become without mandated Neutrality. To take only one of the many possiblities - corporations signing exclusive deals to access us with other corporations. Those CDs sold *exclusively* at WalMart or movies that are *exlusive* at Blockbuster will morph into ISPs who grant Blockbuster EXCLUSIVE access to their clients by blocking all other DVD rental/streaming movie sites. Grant B&N EXCLUSIVES by blocking Amazon and all other book sites. Etc. We won't chose who we want to do business with anymore, our ISPs will chose who they will ALLOW us to do business with
3the3dude3Dec 22, 2010
What "rules" are being "extended"? The internet has continually evolved, without the false pretext of neutrality.
By prohibiting ISPs from negotiating fees for companies that create the bulk of the network congestion, all the FCC has done is insured that the price of consumer internet service will rise.
bookantDec 22, 2010
When the internet/web came into existance, the public were accessing it using dial-up, over the telephone lines. These telephone lines were subject to common carrier regulation - the requirement that all traffic be passed along equally regardless of content or origin, which is Net Neutrality. It's been regulating our communication networks since the telegraph.
(From the Pacific Telegraph Act, 1860: "And Provided further, That messages received from any individual, company, or corporation, or from any telegraph lines connecting with this line at either of its termini, shall be impartially transmitted in the order of their reception,"
Citation - http://cprr.org/Museum/Pacific_Telegraph_Act_1860.html)
Initially, the phone companies also had to be forced by the FCC to allow data transmission over "their" lines at all, whithout which there also would've been no internet.
(http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v55/no2/cannon.pdf)
What's changed, is we've all left the dial up and the phone lines and moved to broadband, where there (currently) are no common carrier requirements. That's the only reason there even IS such an issue as "network Neutrality." Enshrining it would mean bringing those very old PREEXISTING regulations with us onto the new networks.
vastusDec 21, 2010
Excellent point cactuartamer! Policing business only works if all the businesses are being policed. Shady business practices are present since the dawn of the time and doubtfully they will go away by complaining.
hipmanDec 21, 2010
Uh isn't that like breach of contract or something?.
linuxpersonDec 21, 2010
"s**tty business practices are perfectly viable as long as everyone's engaging in them"
By virtue of the laws of demand, however, s**tty business practices are eliminated in a free market by new businesses who don't utilize those same practices.
If I am not satisfied with my ISP, I go to another ISP that doesn't f**k me over. Problem is, I only have a few ISPs to chose from thanks to my local utility commission which has created a legal local monopoly. That is not the free market, that is market control.
JustSayNoPartyDec 21, 2010
I agree. I only get to choose one crappy cable company that charges too much. Of course there is sattelite, but why not another 'cable company'? Though, I do see some companies getting away with s**tty business practices and consumers still line up. I think the main cell phone companies, cable companies, credit card companies, and banks have some awful practices. There are alternatives, but somehow, these concerns keep screwing people over and growing.
linuxpersonDec 21, 2010
In my small town of around 30,000 people we have one choice for cable internet, Time Warner. There have been at least two other companies that wanted to move into the area in the past few years, but they were denied by the local utility commission.
If government would just get the hell out of the way, the market would be flush with choice.
JustSayNoPartyDec 21, 2010
Correct. Government has it's place. It just doesn't know what that place is. I understood rules originally set up to allow cable companies to recoup costs of infrastructure. But is it still necessary today?
JustSayNoPartyDec 21, 2010
Your absolutely right. You don't have to look far to see business practices that for the most part benefit the business while costing the customer more than is necessary. I feel that credit card companies fall in this category. And unfortunately, people don't vote with their 'feet' as much as I would like.
davidtcDec 21, 2010
Once one ISP starts to f**k over the customer, it will only take a month or two for the rest to jump on. When they all jump on, there isn't much the customers can do if they still want the internet. You always hear that competition is good for the consumer, which is true, but most things don't truly have competition. They all copy each other when it comes to making profits, which usually means f**king over the consumer.
linuxpersonDec 21, 2010
ISPs don't have competition precisely because of government regulation at the state and local levels. Government utility commissions grant legal monopoly status to the highest bidder.
JustSayNoPartyDec 21, 2010
This is true. But companies don't get away scott free with the excuse that the government makes them be so bad. It's colusion between companies and government. Or, it's just downright crappy business practices. I believe oil companies have shown themselves to institute crappy practices. BP has gotten away with not uprgradding infrastructure in Alaska forever. That's the next spill that I'm waiting for.
linuxpersonDec 21, 2010
I agree that big business and government are colluding together but my points still stands that limited choice in the ISP market is not the result of the free market.
bookantDec 21, 2010
But if we go your route, there will STILL be limited/no choice in the ISP market. Sure, we'd remove the government-granted local monoplies, but we'd also be removing any requirement that the owners of the infrastructure share traffic/pass along the packets of other providers - which means no new startup ISPs unless they've got enough startup capital to build their own entirely new global communications network from scratch.
linuxpersonDec 22, 2010
"which means no new startup ISPs unless they've got enough startup capital to build their own entirely new global communications network from scratch."
If the existing choices are bad enough, assuming no artificial barriers are created ala regulations, there will always be a great enough demand to fund new business.
farmthisDec 22, 2010
how does one make a start-up ISP in a small town? There is no demand for redundancy. Double the cables, etc. If government can cap a single option at a reasonable price, that's the next best thing. two small ISPs cannot survive in a small town. One would go bankrupt, and then the remaining one would begin to victimize customers.
linuxpersonDec 22, 2010
"how does one make a start-up ISP in a small town?"
Gather investors and build a competitive business model.
"There is no demand for redundancy."
Odd, in the town I'm speaking of we have three grocery stores. Seems kind of strange, doesn't it? There is most certainly room for redundancy, that's the entire nature of competition in the market.
"Double the cables, etc."
Incorrect. Public infrastructure such as cabling can most certainly be shared. If my tax dollars are paying for them, a single business should not be allowed to monopolize them.
"If government can cap a single option at a reasonable price, that's the next best thing."
When government does this, rarely is it to benefit consumers. In the town I'm referencing for example, Time Warner has a monopoly primary because they award the city kick backs in the form of free internet.
"two small ISPs cannot survive in a small town."
Incorrect. There are already several ISPs that are successful in town, but only one of them can use the cable lines.
"One would go bankrupt, and then the remaining one would begin to victimize customers."
Monopolies by their very nature almost always victimize their customers because their customers have no other place to turn.
farmthisDec 25, 2010
A grocery store is a little different than 100's of miles of cable strung up in parallel. When one set of hardware can handle all the bandwidth needs of the town. It's a gross waste of resources.
anyway. you address that. we're arguing the same thing I think. In town we have two cable companies that share the same infrastructure because they're required to by law. Because it's ridiculous to expect a start-up to rewire the entire town just to get their foot in the door. When the existing company could just lower their rates when they detect a threat.
How they stay competitive, I do not know. But here in Alaska I've seen a wonderful example of monopoly. One air carrier out of town -- Alaska airlines. Currently it's more expensive to get from Juneau to Seattle than it is to get from Seattle to Paris. Something is wrong there. Several years ago a company called Mark Air tried to compete -- Alaska lowered round trip prices to $95 for a year and bankrupted Mark Air which didn't have as much capital. My family had 4 round trip tickets to Florida with them. Bye bye. Next year, prices were back up to $300-400.
So f**k the free market, I'm all for the government keeping monopolies in line.
norman619Dec 21, 2010
How when they are the only game in town?
macdoodleDec 21, 2010
good!
veni_vidi_viciDec 21, 2010
Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds to me like:
a. This is a victory for wired networks because our access will not be filtered. The internet is open, and we don't have to worry about access prioritization.
b. ditto for the wireless networks. Though I don't understand why they are less regulated....
c. ...but we all still have the problem tiered internet pricing / pricing based on usage. It sounds to me like the FCC caved to the telecoms' greed over maintaining their cable television profits.
What we need is a policy that encourages network growth. I'm tired of these bulls**t excuses for limiting bandwidth because the throughput is approaching its limit. If the network is not big enough, build a bigger network. Your executives have too much money anyway.
norman619Dec 21, 2010
"a. This is a victory for wired networks because our access will not be filtered. The internet is open, and we don't have to worry about access prioritization."
Wrong. It sure as hell will be filtered AND throttled in the name of managing bandwidth.
nevesisDec 21, 2010
The loopholes are ridiculous. For example - Comcast can continue to QoS their phone service while their competitors (Vonage, etc) cannot.
agmlauncherDec 21, 2010
Exactly.
Youtube users eating too much into Comcast's bandwidth? (A) Charge those users more for access to YouTube or (B) charge YouTube more for unfiltered bandwidth access by its visitors or (C) Both.
Either way, this is the end of the internet. If Verizon wants to push VCast instead of YouTube, they can do it. If Comcast wants to push Comcast mail instead of Gmail, they can do it.
You don't want your choices restricted like that? Pay extra, because the $45 they already charge for 1.5mbps isn't outrageously expensive or anything......
dralezeroDec 22, 2010
It will not be filtered, it will put a ban on blocking lawful content. But yes it can still be throttled which is no different because the lawful content won't perform as it needs to or be usable anyways.
linuxpersonDec 21, 2010
"c. ...but we all still have the problem tiered internet pricing / pricing based on usage. It sounds to me like the FCC caved to the telecoms' greed over maintaining their cable television profits. "
And that's EXACTLY what is going to happen now across the board. Now that ISPs can't prioritize by law, they will just put us on tiered bandwidth plan. Good jobs liberals, you f**ked us over again in the name of altruism.
Remember this: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyDec 21, 2010
You had me right up to the 'liberal comment'.
rogersausagesDec 21, 2010
So the truth in his comment is somehow not true now because he said "liberal"?
linuxpersonDec 21, 2010
So you're claiming that liberals are against net neutrality? If not, what's the problem?
JustSayNoPartyDec 21, 2010
It's probably a reaction to the 'all too often' implication that one or the other party is evil. I just prefer to focus on each issue as they come up. Mixing in the 'party' often leads to tons of 'non-constructive' comments. And, in our country, it's getting harder and harder to discuss issues without first checking that 'the issue' has the proper party approval.
linuxpersonDec 21, 2010
That's all great, but you just totally dodged my question. Liberals were primarily the ones pushing for this net neutrality nonsense.
JustSayNoPartyDec 21, 2010
That's true. Liberals most likely deserve a 'ding' on this one. Though, admittedly, I haven't read the bill.
I get leary when anyone tries to start regulating the web.
letherialDec 21, 2010
This was not net neutrality, this is the exact opposite of what it stands for; just because the bill says "neutrality" on it, doesn't make it so; it allows them to start shaping packets to fit there will, instead of say....upgrading there infrastructure. It allows them to start tolling there pipes; so if you like Google, but Microsoft can pay more...guess which one is going to be slow as s**t and which one is going to be quick?
This is the very f**king thing that we where fighting against. f**k YOU FCC
Damit, where are all those crazy tea-baggers and there misspelled signs
I hope the courts strike this s**t down, they made it worse, not better.
fluxDec 21, 2010
you are all missing the point here .
The FCC just over reached it bounds massively and did something blatantly unconstitutional and every one here is whining about tiered service the big deal is that our govt is over stepping it bounds and daring us to put them back
The FCC instead of getting permission ( which it was denied by congress ) decided to take power never given it and then make congress or the American people take it back via the courts. This is a gross over stepping of power by our govt that is supposedly by the people of the people and for the people.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
paranor01Dec 21, 2010
And you're missing knowledge, honesty & reason.
audiomodderDec 21, 2010
disagree. the FCC has said that if you want to tap into the infrastructure that the American people paid for you'll have to play by the FCC's rules. there's nothing wrong with saying you can't limit access to something that's not yours. it would be like a car salesman saying you can only drive to certain locations or certain distances in a car that you've already purchased from him.
fluxDec 22, 2010
the problem is they do no have the authority to do so , no where does it state they have power over the internet they just took it since the congress has on 3 occasions voted down the bill to give it to them
neotechniDec 21, 2010
What about for wireless?
Closed AccountDec 21, 2010
If it ends up not costing us any more money it sounds good to me.
norman619Dec 21, 2010
Don't worry you can bet that it will.
javasir848Dec 21, 2010
FCC
pawanipaceDec 21, 2010
Very Informative post.
DwightRapperDec 21, 2010
Well it was fun while it lasted.
particleman420Dec 21, 2010
fox news is lying to you. this issue is not what they are telling you it is.
norman619Dec 21, 2010
You are an autistic troll.
audiomodderDec 21, 2010
pot, meet kettle.
DwightRapperDec 22, 2010
I never hear people say the pot kettle line in real life but it seems like a lot of people say it in places like this on the internet, if it's too lame to say in the real world it's too lame to say on the internet. Come up with a better line. Like "I say stupid s**t on the internet, meet myself."
LOL?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Dec 21, 2010
yes fight it! you cant possibly be wrong if you deny everything as hard as you can!
DwightRapperDec 22, 2010
That's what she said
DwightRapperDec 22, 2010
That's what she said
Closed AccountDec 21, 2010
Nice post.
geoffrey159Dec 21, 2010
The day a tax is added is the day I cancel my internet acct. I lived 50 years without it. I am taxed enough already.
davidnivenDec 21, 2010
You close-minded, bigoted, racist, sexist, mean-spirited, right-wing Christian extremist, you!
How dare you not want to pay your fair share? Don't you care about the poor and needy? Don't you know that you NEED massive government to take care of every aspect of society?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
geoffrey159Dec 21, 2010
mind your language.....it doesn't mean we don't care about poor and needy....I am paying my share...but i will not do the same for such stupid things which i consider is not fair enough.
JustSayNoPartyDec 21, 2010
Give it a rest. Yes, you are being sarcastic. But the unballanced view that the government is bent on destroying us all is old. Government has it's place. It just constantly over reaches. It doesn't have to be a choice between 'government bad' or 'government good'.
rogersausagesDec 21, 2010
Well, I for one, would rather they not reach at all if they will always end up overreaching.
JustSayNoPartyDec 21, 2010
Cmon, they have to reach some. I like a comment by Steve Wynn (guy that builds all those Vegas Casinos). He said government is good at some things and terrible at others. They just need to figure out those things they are good at.
cosmicsurferDec 21, 2010
Don;t mind the troll, he does that to everyone...He assumes he is the all-knowing therefore projects hi s illness on the world.'
The internet was given to the world for free by its developer. It was his gift to create a worldwide communication network in order to break the barriers down for a free exchange of ideas...transparency = freedom.
Unfortunately, there are those who would try to harness and control it ...
I am absolutely against any attempts to tax or charge for its use....it was given freely it should remain free
isenborgDec 21, 2010
This is the official end of the internet as we know it. The loss of freedom again comes in the name of "equality". The government plays us all so easily.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tmonster1Dec 21, 2010
exactly, and no one is pissed off about it
I swear people deserve what they get
bookantDec 21, 2010
"This is the official end of the internet as we know it."
Since this is just an extention of the FCC rules that the Internet was born under, and thrived under, it's exactly the opposite. It's a step towards (though too weak of one, IMHO) the preservation of the internet as we know it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bluto36Dec 21, 2010
best comment on Digg ever!
great job!
and pulling the pin on the grenade up your butt is just the first step to a cleaner ass.
you probably think it is about tiered bandwidth dont you?
isenborgDec 22, 2010
I like it in your rosey-colored world. Do they sell tickets there?
look4alecDec 21, 2010
People will just filter their encrypted packets through legal services (probably foreign) which act as a gateway to the rest of the internet. The cable companies will lose all control and future records of everyone's internet activity (marketing info). The fact that they have the balls to charge for bandwidth which they lose if it's not used is ridiculous. This would be the perfect time for a new ISP to crop up and sweep up the unhappy customers.
tmonster1Dec 21, 2010
they are basically destroying the internet and some of you idiots are too grammatically challenged to read between the lines
Closed AccountDec 21, 2010
WTF? "allow providers to ration access to their networks. "
That is not the Net Neutrality I know.
linuxpersonDec 21, 2010
This is EXACTLY what net neutrality is designed to do. Why do you think people like me have been trying to explain this fact to naive liberals for the past year?
Corporations want to implement tiered bandwidth but the problem is, that would create heated competition that could cost the big dogs a lot of money to the little dogs.
Net neutrality now levels the playing field so that these ISPs can rape us and we have no where to turn. Now we are all equally f**ked.
bluto36Dec 21, 2010
i work for ISP...
been telling people this for years. prepare for the net rape but you cant say you were not warned.
hineyDec 21, 2010
fake net neutrality.
linuxpersonDec 21, 2010
And yet again we encounter the No True Scotsman argument. Liberals demand that government do something but once they do it and reality proves their ideological goal unattainable, they claim that the government didn't go far enough.
I've been bitching about net neutrality on digg for the past year. I stated numerous times that this would result in nothing but higher costs for consumers but I was met with buries. Remember that next time you bury somebody who is standing up against government intrusion in the market.
delt145Dec 21, 2010
this is something we should all be aware of, otherwise it could cost us all alot more to surf what used to be free.
wilhoitmDec 21, 2010
Obama 2012!
macharborguyDec 21, 2010
are there any posts that show exactly, word for word, what is in this Net Neutrality ruling that is supposed to be getting voted on? Kinda bugs me when news sites talk about something, but don't link to the thing they are talking about.
The article never mentions specifics
macharborguyDec 21, 2010
just to expand what I mean. I reread the article, and this is all i found that talked about the rules...
"The rules would prohibit Internet providers from arbitrarily blocking or slowing delivery of online services, but they could strike business deals in which a company might pay extra for faster access to consumers"
Okay, so we know what the rules would do, but what ARE the rules? What are the hard definitions of what "arbitrarily" means in this case? Are there any mentions of "lawful content" in the rules?
The definition of "arbitrary" is "happens by chance, whim, with no real rhyme or reason". A cable TV company blocking Netflix is not arbitrary, it's done for a reason, and that reason is the cable company does not want competition on their own network space and wires. They want to sell you THEIR services. Not saying this is a good or bad thing, but simply what it is. They would have a reason for blocking it, a business reason, albeit a negative one for consumer choice, but it is far from arbitrary.
skellenerDec 21, 2010
This is not the Net Neutrality you are looking for...move along...
Getting really sick of the Corporate States of America. This is not good for the people. Real Net Neutrality Please!!!!
JustSayNoPartyDec 21, 2010
I second your motion.
linuxpersonDec 21, 2010
Real net neutrality can only be achieved through competition in the free market. So long as you demand that government give us equality, we will be all equally miserable.
What we need is choice, not government created monopolies.
skellenerDec 22, 2010
Not sure what you are disagreeing about. I'm not for government created monopolies or any monopolies at all. There is no free market. That does NOT exist. That is a major problem. Competition is good but currently what we have is too much collusion and it needs to stop. Bits are bits no matter if they are video, audio, games, docs, programs, etc. I can see paying based on speed of connection or even quantity of bits, but not on the "type" of data or the location of data. All bits are equal and should be treated that way. ISPs need to be dumb pipes. Just like water and power. They should NOT be allowed to also be content providers. There is way to much conflict of interest.
josephthedonDec 21, 2010
What could possibly go wrong? Oh, right, everything.
tehxen3Dec 21, 2010
Internet became what it is thanks largely due to absence of government regulation and involvement. This •regulation• is a Chavez-like populist move that disregards laws of mathematics and will backfire ridiculously.
bookantDec 21, 2010
Nope.
Back in the early days when consumers were on the whole using dial-up, "Internet became what it is" largely due to the PRESENCE of Network Neutrality regulations ("common carrier").
All that the current push for Network Neutrality is about is about MAINTAINING those regulations by moving them with us as we all move from the phone lines onto the private broadband providers.
jnav121Dec 21, 2010
i smell taxes and regulation coming hahah.. how does that hopey changey s**t work for you ?
bijaDec 21, 2010
Right now, the Internet isn't broken but I am leery of any legislation or rules that will come about because it may change it and it may not be for the better.
JustSayNoPartyDec 21, 2010
"These rules appear to be flush with giant loopholes," Really? Since when does does a governing body pass rules with tons of loopholes for business budies and other special intersts?
I won't say this bill is going to be bad for the consumer. But, if I were betting, I'd bet that it will be bad. These government agencies almost always pass rules that are not in the best interest of consumers. Big surprise. This will probably just be something else that I have to pay more for. I hope that 'cost of living' adjustment comes soon in everyones pay.
linuxpersonDec 21, 2010
ISPs now have a level playing field where tiered bandwidth is a absolute must to maintain quality of service. Expect fewer choices, higher costs, and a lower quality of service over all.
JustSayNoPartyDec 21, 2010
yea, consumer gets screwed again. Linux, isn't part of the problem here our 'corporate model'? Companies are always looking for ways to make profit. On the face of it, that's fine. But often, this gets translated in to practices that make things worse for the consumer. In this bill, there are 'loopholes' for those very companies.
SPATIALGUYDec 21, 2010
I'm personally not a high bandwidth user... but the basic thought that charging depending on usage is a scary thought... Let me draw some comparisons, when broadcast television introduced the entrainment content was sponsored by advertisements and rightly so. Viewers just adjust their antennas and tune the channel to watch the content it was free. Still today, broadcast HGTV is still free.
Conversely the majority of viewer today are now provided content directly via hardwired connection or satellite feed as paid service. The problem is that viewer are still seeing the same advertising that's on the free broadcast version, even though they are paying for the direct connection.
Wouldn't stand for reason that if you pay for content that it be void of the advertisements? When you go to a movie theater you do not see ads during the actual movie! Sure you can get premium content which is movie channels... but the fact for basic television without out movie channels package is still a paid service and yet you still get all the advertising. Viewers have become complacent to these costs.
macharborguyDec 22, 2010
there are many other services/utilities that are usage based. Water, Sewage, Electricity, Gas. All are "pay per unit used". Hell, back in the dial up days on the internet, many small town ISPs metered your usage on a "per minute" set. Users would pay for a number of minutes, then be charged per minute if they went over, they could also buy an unlimited plan for more money.
If you own and operate a website, most of the time your hosting plan has a limited amount of usage available, and a set price per Gigabyte if you go over that cap.
And no, it does not "stand to reason" that if you pay for content that it would be void of ads. The public pays for roads, yet they are lined with billboard ads. Magazines are not free, yet there are ads filling most of it. Even Google wouldn't be where they are right now if they didnt have the huge advertising system (AdSense and AdWords).
SPATIALGUYDec 22, 2010
I do remember a time like netzero and the like where yeah if you wanted free internet you could get it albeit an ad based system. The fact that I was getting at is: for content I would be willing to pay a percentage for non advertising media. But for those media outlets that have become reliant on ad revenue and the consumers that have been ambivalent and accustom to seeing those ads there are not many entertainment or leisure mediums that are void of ads. Where do we draw the line. Movies, TV, Radio, Satellite radio, books! Would it be OK that if i went out to by a bible and there were ads plastered through out the book? Satellite radio at first touted to be a ad free medium... that was because the subscriber funded the service. Just as TV used to be funded by the advertisers. The point being is that if the TV viewers are paying higher and higher costs for subscription based content with out any real change in service.
Where is the benefit? As a advertising and marketing professional it my job to communicate a message. However as a person and a parent I am all to aware of negative affects of advertising. I'm acutely aware of how our focus is distracted from content by the use of advertising.
As far as utilities are concerned, water, sewage and electricity those are commodities a limited resource. The internet is quite different its a false commodity it has false limits or chokes on bandwidth... if a person wants faster downloads they pay for it. Otherwise the service chokes their connection to a lower speed. Sure I could see a time based metering but not bandwidth. The logic is that if you are based on bandwidth the more prevalent the adverting, the larger the ads... be it, video, animations, coding and so on. The viewers are then paying to download that data even if they don't want it. That in itself will really screw a lot of people. Where time based would be more effective and fair. A user could grab the content they were looking for and log offline with a reasonable exchange. Where if it were bandwidth, users may expend a greater amount of bandwidth on unwanted data from ads than the content they were actually looking for.
roy5000x2Dec 21, 2010
Well they can go suck a dick...no no wait, a bag of dicks. Yeah. A whole bag of 'em.
wilhoitmDec 21, 2010
The Republicans don't want poor people's internet traffic interfering or clogging up their internet traffic. It is just like health care, if we provide it for the poor, then there will be less health resources available just for the rich. How do Republicans sleep at night?
bluto36Dec 21, 2010
please tell me you are trying to be funny
hanzoDec 22, 2010
I was actually wondering how Republican conservatives might feel about this whole issue. They want less government. A government that won't interfere with the private sector. Let Capitalism be. But I wonder if they were in support of Net Neutrality. Maybe they only like the government to get involved when its convenient for them.
tractordriver88Dec 22, 2010
The Republican stance is that this is just another back door method into taking control of the internet down the road, to enact a fairness doctrine much like the democrats wanted imposed on news.
"Oh, well that's a good idea, right? Expression of all opinions?"
Not really. That idea was mostly trying to snub people like Rush Limbaugh.
"Well, he's an idiot anyway."
Perhaps, but imagine a day when Rush Limbaugh controls America, and you're prohibited from getting your liberal agenda out thanks to the "fairness doctrine" or net neutrality.
See? It's a losing situation for everyone except those in control.
dralezeroDec 22, 2010
Net Neutrality means that we are to have all equal freedom on the net and not have it limited and controlled. This is doublespeak for the FCC to say they are supporting Net Neutrality but the rules are allowing limits and restrictions. "Oh we arent going to be allowed to ban lawful content but we sure are going to make it really difficult to view it anyways by setting limits"
rastas11Dec 22, 2010
Just another attempt by the Dems/Progressives/Socialists to impose their will on us.
ManiacLibertarianDec 22, 2010
This is a disastorous violation of our Constitutional freedoms. Get the FCC out of the internet NOW.
dptbear3893Dec 22, 2010
as long as my internet doesnt get any slower i could give a damn
tractordriver88Dec 22, 2010
Maybe the act that they handed down wasn't a bad idea, but the context in which they did it is very disturbing.
First, several members of Congress told them not to, then a court ruling said that FCC has no authority to hand down such rules!
When you have bureaucrats handing down rules like this without the approval of elected officials, that will lead to the end of the real America.
3the3dude3Dec 22, 2010
I am no fan of Comcast. In fact, they are overpriced and they under deliver. But, they were on the right side of the "Comcast vs Level3" argument.
If a company (in this case, Netflix) grows large enough to merit that consumer ISPs negotiate fees for traffic/bandwidth management, I'm all for it. A company's growth requires additional investment that yields greater profits.
The FCC has essentially handed the investment responsibility of companies like Netflix to the consumer. Congratulations Net Neutralizers, the price of your Netflix account will still gradually rise, torrents will still be free and your ISP will soon charge based upon your consumption of GBs instead of their ability to deliver more MBs/second.