Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If number of voters was the deciding factor then the Democrats would be in control of the White House.
The Presidential election has exactly zero to do with a congressional issue.
The point being expressed that I think you missed is that the number of voters in favor of a thing does not directly correlate to the number of politicians in favor of that thing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/02 19:01:09
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Yeah, Bell got in big trouble using Sandvine to shape / throttle traffic based on the type https://www.sandvine.com/.
Wiki: "Bell Canada traffic shaping: On April 3, 2008, the Canadian Association of Internet Providers requested that the CRTC require Bell Canada to immediately cease its traffic shaping and Internet traffic throttling.[25][26] On November 20, 2008, the CRTC ruled that Bell Canada's traffic shaping was not discriminatory because it was applied to both wholesale and retail customers. The CRTC also called for public hearings to ensure that network management practices are administered fairly in the future.[27]" Netflix would have never taken off here if the CRTC was not showing it was monitoring the situation.
The only other means back then of getting around it was to do a point to point encryption so they could not identify the file / stream type.
General principles is that telecom is a public utility: In Canada, under the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1993, internet providers are considered utilities which are subject to regulations which in spirit predate later debates about net neutrality that state that service providers can't give "undue or unreasonable preference," nor can they influence the content being transmitted over their networks. Furthermore, the CRTC, unlike the more directly political appointees of the American Federal Communications Commission (FCC), is a more arms-length regulatory body with more autonomous authority over telecommunications. For example, the CRTC's decisions rely more on a more judiciary process relying on evidence submitted during public consultations, rather than along party lines as the American FCC is prone to do.[5]
What it all boils down to is the American people view this as a "right" for democracy and freedom of speech rather than something to be completely determined by market forces.
I can very easily see tiered cost of internet by total amount used could be applied on how much you want to pay for how "free of restriction" your favored online programs can be for a cost.
Bell here was claiming Sandvine was necessary for reducing congestion of the infrastructure when there was not evidence of undue congestion, it was a means to be able to throttle competing services on their network.
Don't let it happen to you guys, we just barely got this sorted out here and it still seems to need to go further.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/02 19:11:11
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Easy E wrote: Despite all the stuff we may or may not disagree with in Whembly's post, his conclusion is spot-on.
The only way forward is by Congressional Action. If that is the direction, then NN supporters will have to organize, make it a campaign issue, and vote at the polls.
There is no other way forward.
I quoted myself for clarity. So stop whining about Gerrymandering and go out and do something about it.
NN is dead unless there is congressional action. Elections have consequences.
Who said that nobody is trying to do anything about it?
Elections have consequences. Unfortunately for us, one specific party has been doing everything they damn well can to make it so that elections are a farce.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If number of voters was the deciding factor then the Democrats would be in control of the White House.
The Presidential election has exactly zero to do with a congressional issue.
The point being expressed that I think you missed is that the number of voters in favor of a thing does not directly correlate to the number of politicians in favor of that thing.
This is correct.
Voters can be in favor of a thing or best served by a thing and their representative might not give a flying feth.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/02 19:29:03
Net Neutrality may be better fought at the local level. It's got to be easier to elect a town council on a platform of installing a good local internet service than to elect a congress on a single issue.
I don't think that will help in the USA - it feels as if most towns/counties are in cahoots with the Cable Companies - Kickbacks (maybe in the form of offering to 'pay' for 'infrastructure updates' or something?) make it so that there are basically mini-monopolies town to town...
Alpharius wrote: I don't think that will help in the USA - it feels as if most towns/counties are in cahoots with the Cable Companies - Kickbacks (maybe in the form of offering to 'pay' for 'infrastructure updates' or something?) make it so that there are basically mini-monopolies town to town...
It also goes back to the issue of gerrymandering and partisan politics.
Alpharius wrote: I don't think that will help in the USA - it feels as if most towns/counties are in cahoots with the Cable Companies - Kickbacks (maybe in the form of offering to 'pay' for 'infrastructure updates' or something?) make it so that there are basically mini-monopolies town to town...
It also goes back to the issue of gerrymandering and partisan politics.
No it doesn't unless you have evidence that proves that local and state regulations that inhibit competition to established ISPs by making it impossible to build new infrastructure or lay new cable exists only in states and municipalities whose governing bodies are controlled by the same party and that party is in power in large part due to gerrymandering.
NN was a stopgap measure to address the growing problems caused by ISP monopolies in large and populous regions of the country. It was legislation that was necessary but it wasn't the best solution or even a comprehensive solution to the problem. The silver lining to repealing NN was that by removing an imperfect piece of legislation the opportunity to pass a better piece of legislation is created. The ominous cloud of impenetrable darkness of repealing NN is that there is no reason to expect the current session of Congress or sessions of Congress in the near future, to be capable of crafting and passing a good comprehensive solution to the problems caused by ISP monopolies.
"“We used to think of telcos being very separate from content providers.
But there’s a lot of convergence now.
So one of the risks is as content and infrastructure are merged more, the pressures on both, which might be of a political nature ... might restrict certain kinds of coverage.”
As companies are in the business of the infrastructure AND content it is a "natural" want to squeeze-out the competition or leverage self serving content.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Tannhauser42 wrote:The point being expressed that I think you missed is that the number of voters in favor of a thing does not directly correlate to the number of politicians in favor of that thing.
Kilkrazy wrote:Net Neutrality may be better fought at the local level. It's got to be easier to elect a town council on a platform of installing a good local internet service than to elect a congress on a single issue.
There are laws that make this harder/impossible (lobbying works on all levels):
Prestor Jon wrote:No it doesn't unless you have evidence that proves that local and state regulations that inhibit competition to established ISPs by making it impossible to build new infrastructure or lay new cable exists only in states and municipalities whose governing bodies are controlled by the same party and that party is in power in large part due to gerrymandering.
Are the two links above good enough evidence? If i remember correctly there are also some other restrictions because when ISPs got government funding to adapt to the population's need for broadband access they also got additional concessions that limited competition because they were the ones improving the network and wanted guarantees on that investment (even if the government financed it).
Besides that, who think tethering might make a comeback in the USA if ISP get their way?
Prestor Jon wrote:No it doesn't unless you have evidence that proves that local and state regulations that inhibit competition to established ISPs by making it impossible to build new infrastructure or lay new cable exists only in states and municipalities whose governing bodies are controlled by the same party and that party is in power in large part due to gerrymandering.
Are the two links above good enough evidence? If i remember correctly there are also some other restrictions because when ISPs got government funding to adapt to the population's need for broadband access they also got additional concessions that limited competition because they were the ones improving the network and wanted guarantees on that investment (even if the government financed it).
Besides that, who think tethering might make a comeback in the USA if ISP get their way?
You seem to be misunderstanding what I wrote. The articles you linked to show that local and state restrictions on infrastructure projects and telecom expansion/cable laying have been enacted across the USA. This includes states such as California, Colorado, Virginia, South Carolina and Alabama. The politics in those states range from deep blue to solid red and also purple with different political parties in control of state legislatures and governorships. That proves the point of my statement that Kanluwen is wrong to attribute the problem to a single party or to gerrymandering because both political parties are happy to exacerbate the problems consumers face with ISP monopolies as long as the Parties and politicians profit from it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: Plus the whole 'you have to repeal it so you can make a better version' spiel which is patently a dishonest argument.
It isn’t dishonest at all. NN isn’t perfect and doesn’t address root problems. If we want congress to address the root problems we need to remove NN and put better legislation in place. Those facts don’t do anything to change the other facts that removing NN without having better legislation ready to be proposed and passed is a terrible move that hurts consumers. I’m not defending the repeal of NN or stating that it was a good decision I’m merely pointing out that to make progress combatting the problem of ISP monopolies we were going to have to replace NN with something better. It was still a terrible decision to simply repeal NN with no plan to replace it with anything else anytime in the near future.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/03 00:05:43
skyth wrote: Plus the whole 'you have to repeal it so you can make a better version' spiel which is patently a dishonest argument.
It isn’t dishonest at all. NN isn’t perfect and doesn’t address root problems. If we want congress to address the root problems we need to remove NN and put better legislation in place. Those facts don’t do anything to change the other facts that removing NN without having better legislation ready to be proposed and passed is a terrible move that hurts consumers. I’m not defending the repeal of NN or stating that it was a good decision I’m merely pointing out that to make progress combatting the problem of ISP monopolies we were going to have to replace NN with something better. It was still a terrible decision to simply repeal NN with no plan to replace it with anything else anytime in the near future.
It IS dishonest. New legislation automatically supersedes older one as long as it's refered to as doing it, you don't need to repeal the old law.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/03 02:22:49
skyth wrote: Plus the whole 'you have to repeal it so you can make a better version' spiel which is patently a dishonest argument.
It isn’t dishonest at all. NN isn’t perfect and doesn’t address root problems. If we want congress to address the root problems we need to remove NN and put better legislation in place. Those facts don’t do anything to change the other facts that removing NN without having better legislation ready to be proposed and passed is a terrible move that hurts consumers. I’m not defending the repeal of NN or stating that it was a good decision I’m merely pointing out that to make progress combatting the problem of ISP monopolies we were going to have to replace NN with something better. It was still a terrible decision to simply repeal NN with no plan to replace it with anything else anytime in the near future.
It IS dishonest. New legislation automatically supersedes older one as long as it's refered to as doing it, you don't need to repeal the old law.
His point was more that it's not actually a law at all. As it (formerly) stood, net neutrality protection was an FCC classification that pointed to an existing law. This could, and was, essentially overturned by executive fiat: the POTUS appointed a chairman who was directed to change this, and after a quick kabuki show of gathering comments, he did exactly that. This could again be reversed by a subsequent POTUS, but it does nothing to make net neutrality actually robust.
This really is a problem for Congress to fix, but they've got other priorities now. After the high profile blocking and throttling shenanigans begin, and I think we all know they will, then perhaps Congress can be pushed into actually enshrining net neutrality principles into law. Yes, they can still be overturned later like every law, but it's a lot harder and it's no longer essentially by executive fiat.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/03 04:29:29
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Its not really uncharted territory. We can look to the past.
The Printing Press, Radio, and TV all went through similar phases in their growth to major media. When they all started, it was the "Wild West" and random people were setting up Newspapers, Radio Stations, and TV Stations at first. Then, as they grew in popularity, they started to organize into larger entities. After which they eventually drew the attention of the government.
If we look to these older models, we can get a pretty clear picture of what will happen. What made the Internet different and helped it last as the "Wild West" a bit longer was Net Nuetrality.
Now that is gone, we will see the "Cablization" of the Internet and it will just be another, purer channel for marketing and slick productions. No more amatuers or wildcat content producers. You will have to go through "the system".
Granted, this could still take a generation or so but that is the arc of history on such topics. I am sure Hats knows way more about this topic than me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/03 14:19:57
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Easy E wrote: Its not really uncharted territory. We can look to the past.
The Printing Press, Radio, and TV all went through similar phases in their growth to major media. When they all started, it was the "Wild West" and random people were setting up Newspapers, Radio Stations, and TV Stations at first. Then, as they grew in popularity, they started to organize into larger entities. After which they eventually drew the attention of the government.
If we look to these older models, we can get a pretty clear picture of what will happen. What made the Internet different and helped it last as the "Wild West" a bit longer was Net Nuetrality.
Now that is gone, we will see the "Cablization" of the Internet and it will just be another, purer channel for marketing and slick productions. No more amatuers or wildcat content producers. You will have to go through "the system".
Granted, this could still take a generation or so but that is the arc of history on such topics. I am sure Hats knows way more about this topic than me.
It's already pretty simple in broad strokes. ISPs shouldn't be allowed to operate monopolies in large populous regions. Having entire states or huge metro areas with only 1 ISP choice is terrible, there should be 3-4. Monopoly busting used be something the Federal govt viewed as an important integral part of regulating commerce. There should be a separation of service provider entities and content provider entities. Vertical integration can reach a point where it eliminates choice which can shrink the market to an unhealthy size that hurts consumers. This is easy stuff to see. It's the same thing we saw with the financial crisis, banks shouldn't be too big to fail, banks should be separated into investment banks and commercial lending banks and not be the same entity. The tough part is getting Congress to pass good legislation on these points. The big banks are even bigger now than they were in 08 and are just as much of a tangled mess.
The internet is similar to the printing press in the sense that both revolutionized the ability to mass produce content for a large audience but there is a fundamental difference between the two. The printing press still presented a significant obstacle of start up costs: owning, operating and supplying the machine wasn't an option for a lot of people. Benjamin Franklin had the ability to produce Poor Richard's Almanac but the vast majority of the rest of the people living in Philadelphia did not. Printing presses led to the creation of publishing houses which is exactly the kind of gate keeper model we want avoid putting in place with the internet.
The internet is the greatest most amazing engine for entrepreneurship imaginable. While technological progress is eliminating a lot of jobs/careers it is also making it easier than ever to have your own career. If you want to put forth your talent, ability, opinion, personality, ideas, products etc. it's never been easier. If you have a smartphone/PC and an internet connection you can launch your own webstore, write your own ebooks or webcomics, produce your own podcast, or create your own website/blog and create the content you want and try to monetize it. Even if you don't want to set yourself up all on your own you can still capitalize on creating a storefront on Amazon or Ebay, create a Facebook page or LinkdIn profile, or start your own YouTube channel for an incredibly low start up cost in terms of money and time. If we let ISP providers like Comcast set themselves up like publishing houses and instead of publishers deciding which books get published depending on which books they think they'll turn a profit on we get Comcast deciding what content gets put on the internet we will stifle the small business engine of the internet at the exact moment in history when our economy and society needs it the most.
The internet is similar to the printing press in the sense that both revolutionized the ability to mass produce content for a large audience but there is a fundamental difference between the two. The printing press still presented a significant obstacle of start up costs: owning, operating and supplying the machine wasn't an option for a lot of people. Benjamin Franklin had the ability to produce Poor Richard's Almanac but the vast majority of the rest of the people living in Philadelphia did not. Printing presses led to the creation of publishing houses which is exactly the kind of gate keeper model we want avoid putting in place with the internet.
The internet is the greatest most amazing engine for entrepreneurship imaginable. While technological progress is eliminating a lot of jobs/careers it is also making it easier than ever to have your own career. If you want to put forth your talent, ability, opinion, personality, ideas, products etc. it's never been easier. If you have a smartphone/PC and an internet connection you can launch your own webstore, write your own ebooks or webcomics, produce your own podcast, or create your own website/blog and create the content you want and try to monetize it. Even if you don't want to set yourself up all on your own you can still capitalize on creating a storefront on Amazon or Ebay, create a Facebook page or LinkdIn profile, or start your own YouTube channel for an incredibly low start up cost in terms of money and time. If we let ISP providers like Comcast set themselves up like publishing houses and instead of publishers deciding which books get published depending on which books they think they'll turn a profit on we get Comcast deciding what content gets put on the internet we will stifle the small business engine of the internet at the exact moment in history when our economy and society needs it the most.
Yes, thank you for adding to my point. Similar things happened with Radio and TV before as what happened to the Printing Press.
Do you think the cos tof entry is so low now tha the "Publishing House" model is impossible to return to? NN helped keep those costs low. Without it, are we pointing back to "Publishing House" model with ISPs as the gatekeepers based on profits?
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
The internet is similar to the printing press in the sense that both revolutionized the ability to mass produce content for a large audience but there is a fundamental difference between the two. The printing press still presented a significant obstacle of start up costs: owning, operating and supplying the machine wasn't an option for a lot of people. Benjamin Franklin had the ability to produce Poor Richard's Almanac but the vast majority of the rest of the people living in Philadelphia did not. Printing presses led to the creation of publishing houses which is exactly the kind of gate keeper model we want avoid putting in place with the internet.
The internet is the greatest most amazing engine for entrepreneurship imaginable. While technological progress is eliminating a lot of jobs/careers it is also making it easier than ever to have your own career. If you want to put forth your talent, ability, opinion, personality, ideas, products etc. it's never been easier. If you have a smartphone/PC and an internet connection you can launch your own webstore, write your own ebooks or webcomics, produce your own podcast, or create your own website/blog and create the content you want and try to monetize it. Even if you don't want to set yourself up all on your own you can still capitalize on creating a storefront on Amazon or Ebay, create a Facebook page or LinkdIn profile, or start your own YouTube channel for an incredibly low start up cost in terms of money and time. If we let ISP providers like Comcast set themselves up like publishing houses and instead of publishers deciding which books get published depending on which books they think they'll turn a profit on we get Comcast deciding what content gets put on the internet we will stifle the small business engine of the internet at the exact moment in history when our economy and society needs it the most.
Yes, thank you for adding to my point. Similar things happened with Radio and TV before as what happened to the Printing Press.
Do you think the cos tof entry is so low now tha the "Publishing House" model is impossible to return to? NN helped keep those costs low. Without it, are we pointing back to "Publishing House" model with ISPs as the gatekeepers based on profits?
I think the gate keeper model is a possibility to be feared for as long as ISPs are allowed to maintain monopolies. We have large metro areas with only 1 ISP, like Baltimore and Comcast ( http://wypr.org/post/why-comcast-one-and-only-cable-and-internet-option-baltimore ). There are various factors that contribute to that fact but the end result is consumers have only 1 choice and with NN repealed and no new regulation or legislation likely to be passed anytime soon Comcast will be able to run it's internet service with the same business model as it ran it's cable service to the detriment of consumers. NN wasn't the only way to address the dangers of ISP monopolies and exploitative business practices and it wasn't necessarily the best way but it was a useful regulation that addressed a known problem that needed to be addressed. Vertical integration is a problem that NN didn't address. Comcast owns Hulu now so what stops Comcast from including Hulu subscriptions in the cost of Comcast internet service while putting alternatives like Netflix or YouTube behind a paywall or charging Netflix or YouTube a large fee to have access to Comcast subscribers? This would be like cable where Comcast had to pay ESPN to carry ESPN in its cable package and then passed the cost on to consumers. Comcast keeps Hulu at a low cost or as a hidden cost in the internet subscription fee while making competitor streaming services more expensive. Comcast doesn't have to throttle the speed of competitors, they can just use their advantage of owning the infrastructure and being the only ISP in town to drive more consumers to their own content and away from competitors content or to increase the cost to consumers for competitor's content. If Comcast makes YoutTube cost more then operating a YouTube channel can cost more and then that can limit entrepreneurship via YouTube.
Given that we can look back at history in the distant and recent past along with having a good understanding of pros and cons of the internet already we should be proactively addressing these issues instead of ignoring them or kicking them down the road where they'll be much harder to address. A hyper partisan political climate and big money lobbying and complexities of state and municipal jurisdictions/regulations all make this a difficult problem to solve but the longer we put it off the worse it gets.
Kilkrazy wrote: Net Neutrality may be better fought at the local level. It's got to be easier to elect a town council on a platform of installing a good local internet service than to elect a congress on a single issue.
IIRC, the FCC also put rules into place preventing state/local governments from implementing their own version of NN, so that's a bust idea considering how much money the various ISPs will throw at lawyers and what not to fight any sort of public internet like chattanooga has.
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
Which is such a dump on State's rights from the party that's supposed to support them I don't even know what to say. I mean... At least give States the option to change it if they want. If anything that will allow us to try varied solutions and see what works.
We really don't need varied solutions though. We know the solution, and it's not hope that ISPs will be benevolent. There needs to be clear and strict laws to enforce all legal internet traffic is treated equally.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/05 08:57:53
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
Wolfblade wrote: We really don't need varied solutions though. We know the solution, and it's not hope that ISPs will be benevolent. There needs to be clear and strict laws to enforce all legal internet traffic is treated equally.
All internet traffic is not equal though. Streaming data differs quite a bit from regular web browsing which differs from email use. The post office and UPS treat a single page of paper in an envelope differently than a huge box of books. You have some content providers (like Netflix) providing content with a QOS requirement that my ISP in very rural SC (so unfortunately satellite) did not necessarily sign up to provide.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Kilkrazy wrote: Net Neutrality may be better fought at the local level. It's got to be easier to elect a town council on a platform of installing a good local internet service than to elect a congress on a single issue.
IIRC, the FCC also put rules into place preventing state/local governments from implementing their own version of NN, so that's a bust idea considering how much money the various ISPs will throw at lawyers and what not to fight any sort of public internet like chattanooga has.
Can you get a source for that? I don't see how that would be possible since the Federal govt has no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce so I don't see how the FCC can dictate how states and municipalities regulate ISPs within their own borders.
The biggest issue we need to combat on the local level is removing obstacles to competition. In the article I posted previously about how Baltimore residents are stuck with only Comcast as a cable and/or internet provider for the city, it explains that Comcast isn't doing anything to keep the monopoly it's just the fact that the cost is too high for other companies to install the infrastructure to provide a competing service. Comcast already owns the infrastructure in place and they don't want to and can't be forced to lease their cable to a competitor just to lose market share, so they're enjoying a monopoly not because of any particular business practice on their end but because nobody else wants to compete with them. If states and municipalities incentivized the construction of competing ISP infrastructure by lowering the cost to do so then we'd get more competition. We don't need a lot of options but just having 3-4 ISP providers would have a similar effect to NN, in that if one ISP wants to throttle Netflix then a competitor ISP can not throttle Netflix in an effort to gain market share over the ISP that is throttling Netflix.
Kilkrazy wrote: Net Neutrality may be better fought at the local level. It's got to be easier to elect a town council on a platform of installing a good local internet service than to elect a congress on a single issue.
IIRC, the FCC also put rules into place preventing state/local governments from implementing their own version of NN, so that's a bust idea considering how much money the various ISPs will throw at lawyers and what not to fight any sort of public internet like chattanooga has.
Can you get a source for that? I don't see how that would be possible since the Federal govt has no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce so I don't see how the FCC can dictate how states and municipalities regulate ISPs within their own borders.
The biggest issue we need to combat on the local level is removing obstacles to competition. In the article I posted previously about how Baltimore residents are stuck with only Comcast as a cable and/or internet provider for the city, it explains that Comcast isn't doing anything to keep the monopoly it's just the fact that the cost is too high for other companies to install the infrastructure to provide a competing service. Comcast already owns the infrastructure in place and they don't want to and can't be forced to lease their cable to a competitor just to lose market share, so they're enjoying a monopoly not because of any particular business practice on their end but because nobody else wants to compete with them. If states and municipalities incentivized the construction of competing ISP infrastructure by lowering the cost to do so then we'd get more competition. We don't need a lot of options but just having 3-4 ISP providers would have a similar effect to NN, in that if one ISP wants to throttle Netflix then a competitor ISP can not throttle Netflix in an effort to gain market share over the ISP that is throttling Netflix.
It starts on page 116 of the FCC's repeal, and continues onto page 117: "Just as the Title II Order promised to “exercise our preemption authority to preclude states from imposing regulations on broadband service that are inconsistent” with the federal regulatory scheme, we conclude that we should exercise our authority to preempt any state or local requirements that are inconsistent with the federal deregulatory approach we adopt today. We therefore preempt any state or local measures that would effectively impose rules or requirements that we have repealed or decided to refrain from imposing in this order or that would impose more stringent requirements for any aspect of broadband service that we address in this order." Among other things, we thereby preempt any so-called “economic” or “public utility-type” regulations, including common-carriage requirements akin to those found in Title II of the Act and its implementing rules, as well as other rules or requirements that we repeal or refrain from imposing today because they could pose an obstacle to or place an undue burden on the provision of broadband Internet access service and conflict with the deregulatory approach we adopt today."
I also removed some of the citation numbers there (729, 730, and 731 for those interested) for ease of reading, and the preceding (paragraph, I think) numbers (194 and 195) for the same reason.
Wolfblade wrote: We really don't need varied solutions though. We know the solution, and it's not hope that ISPs will be benevolent. There needs to be clear and strict laws to enforce all legal internet traffic is treated equally.
All internet traffic is not equal though. Streaming data differs quite a bit from regular web browsing which differs from email use. The post office and UPS treat a single page of paper in an envelope differently than a huge box of books. You have some content providers (like Netflix) providing content with a QOS requirement that my ISP in very rural SC (so unfortunately satellite) did not necessarily sign up to provide.
Sure, in terms of data used, streaming will use more, but we're not talking about volume of data, but legal data usage being treated equal (i.e. not being throttled because you use Hulu instead of Netflix, or because you read news articles from the Times instead of the Washington Post.)
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/01/05 17:21:29
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
Kilkrazy wrote: Net Neutrality may be better fought at the local level. It's got to be easier to elect a town council on a platform of installing a good local internet service than to elect a congress on a single issue.
IIRC, the FCC also put rules into place preventing state/local governments from implementing their own version of NN, so that's a bust idea considering how much money the various ISPs will throw at lawyers and what not to fight any sort of public internet like chattanooga has.
Can you get a source for that? I don't see how that would be possible since the Federal govt has no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce so I don't see how the FCC can dictate how states and municipalities regulate ISPs within their own borders.
The biggest issue we need to combat on the local level is removing obstacles to competition. In the article I posted previously about how Baltimore residents are stuck with only Comcast as a cable and/or internet provider for the city, it explains that Comcast isn't doing anything to keep the monopoly it's just the fact that the cost is too high for other companies to install the infrastructure to provide a competing service. Comcast already owns the infrastructure in place and they don't want to and can't be forced to lease their cable to a competitor just to lose market share, so they're enjoying a monopoly not because of any particular business practice on their end but because nobody else wants to compete with them. If states and municipalities incentivized the construction of competing ISP infrastructure by lowering the cost to do so then we'd get more competition. We don't need a lot of options but just having 3-4 ISP providers would have a similar effect to NN, in that if one ISP wants to throttle Netflix then a competitor ISP can not throttle Netflix in an effort to gain market share over the ISP that is throttling Netflix.
It starts on page 116 of the FCC's repeal, and continues onto page 117: "Just as the Title II Order promised to “exercise our preemption authority to preclude states from imposing regulations on broadband service that are inconsistent” with the federal regulatory scheme, we conclude that we should exercise our authority to preempt any state or local requirements that are inconsistent with the federal deregulatory approach we adopt today. We therefore preempt any state or local measures that would effectively impose rules or requirements that we have repealed or decided to refrain from imposing in this order or that would impose more stringent requirements for any aspect of broadband service that we address in this order." Among other things, we thereby preempt any so-called “economic” or “public utility-type” regulations, including common-carriage requirements akin to those found in Title II of the Act and its implementing rules, as well as other rules or requirements that we repeal or refrain from imposing today because they could pose an obstacle to or place an undue burden on the provision of broadband Internet access service and conflict with the deregulatory approach we adopt today."
I also removed some of the citation numbers there (729, 730, and 731 for those interested) for ease of reading, and the preceding (paragraph, I think) numbers (194 and 195) for the same reason.
The FCC ability to preempt state laws regarding municipal broadband networks has already been struck down in Federal court. I don't think the new preemption proposed by the FCC will fare any better when it's challenged by states or municipalities.
The Federal Communications Commission has lost in an attempt to preempt state laws that restrict the growth of municipal broadband networks.
The FCC in February 2015 voted to block laws in North Carolina and Tennessee that prevent municipal broadband providers from expanding outside their territories. The FCC, led by Chairman Tom Wheeler, claimed it could preempt the laws because Congress authorizes the commission to promote telecom competition by removing barriers to investment.
But this was a risky legal argument, as the FCC has no specific authority to overturn state laws. Officials in both states appealed the FCC decision, and today a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the states (full text).
"The FCC order essentially serves to re-allocate decision-making power between the states and their municipalities," judges wrote. "This is shown by the fact that no federal statute or FCC regulation requires the municipalities to expand or otherwise to act in contravention of the preempted state statutory provisions. This preemption by the FCC of the allocation of power between a state and its subdivisions requires at least a clear statement in the authorizing federal legislation. The FCC relies upon Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 for the authority to preempt in this case, but that statute falls far short of such a clear statement. The preemption order must accordingly be reversed."
The decision was essentially unanimous, with judges John Rogers, Joseph Hood, and Helene White all voting to reverse the FCC's order. White concurred in part and dissented in part, writing a separate opinion to address a few issues not covered in the majority opinion.
Kilkrazy wrote: Net Neutrality may be better fought at the local level. It's got to be easier to elect a town council on a platform of installing a good local internet service than to elect a congress on a single issue.
IIRC, the FCC also put rules into place preventing state/local governments from implementing their own version of NN, so that's a bust idea considering how much money the various ISPs will throw at lawyers and what not to fight any sort of public internet like chattanooga has.
Can you get a source for that? I don't see how that would be possible since the Federal govt has no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce so I don't see how the FCC can dictate how states and municipalities regulate ISPs within their own borders.
The biggest issue we need to combat on the local level is removing obstacles to competition. In the article I posted previously about how Baltimore residents are stuck with only Comcast as a cable and/or internet provider for the city, it explains that Comcast isn't doing anything to keep the monopoly it's just the fact that the cost is too high for other companies to install the infrastructure to provide a competing service. Comcast already owns the infrastructure in place and they don't want to and can't be forced to lease their cable to a competitor just to lose market share, so they're enjoying a monopoly not because of any particular business practice on their end but because nobody else wants to compete with them. If states and municipalities incentivized the construction of competing ISP infrastructure by lowering the cost to do so then we'd get more competition. We don't need a lot of options but just having 3-4 ISP providers would have a similar effect to NN, in that if one ISP wants to throttle Netflix then a competitor ISP can not throttle Netflix in an effort to gain market share over the ISP that is throttling Netflix.
It starts on page 116 of the FCC's repeal, and continues onto page 117: "Just as the Title II Order promised to “exercise our preemption authority to preclude states from imposing regulations on broadband service that are inconsistent” with the federal regulatory scheme, we conclude that we should exercise our authority to preempt any state or local requirements that are inconsistent with the federal deregulatory approach we adopt today. We therefore preempt any state or local measures that would effectively impose rules or requirements that we have repealed or decided to refrain from imposing in this order or that would impose more stringent requirements for any aspect of broadband service that we address in this order." Among other things, we thereby preempt any so-called “economic” or “public utility-type” regulations, including common-carriage requirements akin to those found in Title II of the Act and its implementing rules, as well as other rules or requirements that we repeal or refrain from imposing today because they could pose an obstacle to or place an undue burden on the provision of broadband Internet access service and conflict with the deregulatory approach we adopt today."
I also removed some of the citation numbers there (729, 730, and 731 for those interested) for ease of reading, and the preceding (paragraph, I think) numbers (194 and 195) for the same reason.
The FCC ability to preempt state laws regarding municipal broadband networks has already been struck down in Federal court. I don't think the new preemption proposed by the FCC will fare any better when it's challenged by states or municipalities.
The Federal Communications Commission has lost in an attempt to preempt state laws that restrict the growth of municipal broadband networks.
The FCC in February 2015 voted to block laws in North Carolina and Tennessee that prevent municipal broadband providers from expanding outside their territories. The FCC, led by Chairman Tom Wheeler, claimed it could preempt the laws because Congress authorizes the commission to promote telecom competition by removing barriers to investment.
But this was a risky legal argument, as the FCC has no specific authority to overturn state laws. Officials in both states appealed the FCC decision, and today a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the states (full text).
"The FCC order essentially serves to re-allocate decision-making power between the states and their municipalities," judges wrote. "This is shown by the fact that no federal statute or FCC regulation requires the municipalities to expand or otherwise to act in contravention of the preempted state statutory provisions. This preemption by the FCC of the allocation of power between a state and its subdivisions requires at least a clear statement in the authorizing federal legislation. The FCC relies upon Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 for the authority to preempt in this case, but that statute falls far short of such a clear statement. The preemption order must accordingly be reversed."
The decision was essentially unanimous, with judges John Rogers, Joseph Hood, and Helene White all voting to reverse the FCC's order. White concurred in part and dissented in part, writing a separate opinion to address a few issues not covered in the majority opinion.
Ah, ok hadn't heard that, thanks! However, unless they've changed the wording in the repeal again, there'll need to be another appeal to get it changed.
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
Bonespitta's Badmoons 1441 pts. 
