141–150 of 423 posts
If what is happening now is that the 2015 vote for net neutrality rules is to be repealed, couldn't a later FCC vote again to return to the 2015 rules?
Nick Gillespie: Your plan will, according to a write up in Politico, and I think this is accurate, it quote, "will jettison rules that prohibit internet service providers from blocking or slowing web traffic or creating so called paid internet fast lanes." Question for you, do you think fast lanes will become a thing? What is the value of a internet fast lane? Ajit Pai: The answer to the first is we're not sure. We'v…
What should be outside net neutrality laws are protocols that leave the customer and applications in control. There is nothing wrong with using Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP), DSCP and IPv6 flow labels to get QoS that differ from the dumb pipe. Many future applications require it.
- Online games might want to request low lag.
- Streaming services might want constant bandwidth with less strict lag requirements.
- File downloads might be OK with bursts and pauses as long as the best effort throughput is good.
- Safety-critical applications like, robot cars, remote surgery or emergency messaging, need guarantees that discriminate against other uses.
Nick Gillespie: Your plan will, according to a write up in Politico, and I think this is accurate, it quote, "will jettison rules that prohibit internet service providers from blocking or slowing web traffic or creating so called paid internet fast lanes." Question for you, do you think fast lanes will become a thing? What is the value of a internet fast lane? Ajit Pai: The answer to the first is we're not sure. We'v…
> "If murder hadn't happened in a certain area yet, would it be 'too preemptive' to outlaw it?" But even with murder, the law doesn't stop murders before they happen, but rather only acts retroactively (and that is for good reason). > "Fast lanes DO exist in other countries right now." But this is ignoring the whole debate: proponents of net freedom don't consider fast lanes to be a problem.
It's called shaping and you easily pay 2x the price to avoid it. Everyone above the poverty line pays.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bullshit is so easy to spread. People willing to peddle falsehoods often end up winning if they can just repeat the lies until everyone else gets tired of repeating themselves. Network neutrality started in the early 2000s because some ISPs started blocking VPNs and other services. Network Neutrality was simply how the internet had always worked prior to that. The FCC wanted to take a light hand toward regulation but…
Who is spreading "bullshit", the person who knows that NN never existed until 2015 when it barely did, or someone who is trying to claim that 2015-style NN was necessary resolve issues in the early 2000s and is using FUD to push for NN?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not actually true. NN is something we've had since the foundation of the internet. The FCC has only been enforcing it the current legal framework for the last two years. Prior to 2 years ago, the FCC enforced NN without stipulating that ISPs were classified as "Title 2" communications services. Because ISPs really, really didn't want to be classified as Title 2s, whenever the FCC asked them to change their pra…
Tl;dr we didn’t have NN but we didn’t need it and now we do because. The FTC and FCC can still enforce anticompetitive regulations. This is so much FUD.
What I literally just said was that we have had NN for the last 20 years. The exact legal definition for how the FCC enforces NN changed 2 years ago, but the fact that they continued enforcing NN did not.
If Ajit Pai gets his way with this vote, the FCC will no longer be allowed to enforce NN. This would be the first time in 20 years that the FCC would not be able to enforce NN, which has never happened before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "If murder hadn't happened in a certain area yet, would it be 'too preemptive' to outlaw it?" But even with murder, the law doesn't stop murders before they happen, but rather only acts retroactively (and that is for good reason). > "Fast lanes DO exist in other countries right now." But this is ignoring the whole debate: proponents of net freedom don't consider fast lanes to be a problem.
> But this is ignoring the whole debate: proponents of net freedom don't consider fast lanes to be a problem. I think that this is the part that I can't comprehend. The railroads misbehaved so badly that the government had to break rail transportation as an industry to kill them. Ninety years later we're still using long-haul semi trailers for everything. Bell's abuse of its monopoly was similarly severe. How do peop…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's already illegal under existing anti trust law. Comcast and others have already done exactly that and it was the FCC that went after them, not the FTC. And how does anti-trust apply when it's the actions of a single company? There's no collusion between businesses to drop packets, one business just does it and other businesses may decide to do it also, they don't have to all agree to do it for it to be effect…
If a company uses a monopoly in one industry to benefit them in another industry that can be an anti trust violation. No collusion is required. The famous Microsoft anti trust case wasn't about collusion, but about using OS dominance to create browser dominance.
Monopoly cases are extremely difficult to prove and rarely brought, regardless of which party is in power. With ISPs, if consumers can choose Verizon or Comcast, neither is a monopoly but both could still be acting against competitors (or simply people who didn't pay their extortion) to the detriment of their customers.
>Reach out to the rest of the FCC now. Tell them they can’t take away internet openness without a fight. How? As this article mentions, their comment system had issues (spam and DDoS) and the only other avenue I've seen is to beg our representatives (who aren't part of the December vote) to do _something_. It was a clean and concise piece, but I was hoping that an insider would provide a new course of action. I've se…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm happy to do so. But in the end should we even need to do this crap? Isn't it just so obvious how bad this is that our representatives should be fighting it without calls? It just baffles me.
Yes. That's called democracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. And?
And so you could have a single-party system and you'd end up with a split of conservatives and liberals. It's not about party, at least not about blindly voting for one party.