I like how many times he says "Congress gave us the power to make this decision". Kind of like he's daring them to try and stop him.
I hope they try. The same people that run the post office running the internet? Oh god...
FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality
331–340 of 437 posts
Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality
#332Earlier quoted context omitted.
Will this ban blocking of tethering?
Blocking of tethering was already banned, it just isn't enforced that carriers must provide tethering.
That's not true. The only carrier banned from blocking tethering is Verizon -- and that applies only to phones using the C Block spectrum. That's because when the FCC sold that spectrum it came with strong net neutrality rules attached (e.g. open devices, use any app, etc.)
Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality
#333Earlier quoted context omitted.
So did you have a thoughtful, reasoned argument against this proposal or what?
I'm against net neutrality. To me it looks like more regulation for not enough gain. I don't see why we should stop the free market; if one internet provider is doing things you don't like, another one will open and the consumer can change to that one if they care. I also feel that companies should have a right to provide some websites at higher speeds. There will always be a trade off; perhaps you could get cheaper…
I'd argue that there are lots of anecdotal examples that suggest the US internet market is stagnant. Our speeds compare poorly to other countries as do our costs. The sudden increases in speed that ISPs roll out whenever Google Fiber moves into an area seem like strong evidence that the ISPs are delaying service upgrades as much as possible. There have already been examples of ISPs throttling certain protocols or endpoints that don't align with their business plan.
I would also point out that the FCC has not been granted any additional regulatory power. They could have made this move at any time and they can un-do it at any time as well. Congress can also take action to remove or re-define the FCC's power.
I don't see this as "the" be-all and end-all action, but it seems worth trying to see if we can get the average connection speeds across the country up and the minimum cost down.
Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality
#334Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If the GOP wins 2016, however, the future may not be so bright Can we please stop trying to make this a "GOP is evil and hates America" and "DEM is right and loves America" thing? The GOP standpoint is to put policy in place that naturally overtime encourages small business to bring competition to the bigger guys. The problem with this plan is it takes time and people want an immediate result. That's not "hating am…
> Can we please stop trying to make this a "GOP is evil and hates America" and "DEM is right and loves America" thing? Whether or not the GOP is generally evil, it certainly seems to be true that their position on net neutrality has been consistently bad and if they're allowed set policy on it, they'll do it in a way that will let carriers interpose themselves as gatekeepers. >The GOP standpoint is to put policy in p…
The point is neither the GOP nor the DEM get to decide what net neutrality policy is... that is the FCC's job now that congress has given them that power.
This isn't a party thing... let's not try to make it one.
Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
He got a 3/2 split on the redefinition of broadband with one of the yeas publicly admitting that she would have rather seen 100Mbit as the threshold. It stands to reason that this will pass too with the current committee makeup. If the GOP wins 2016, however, the future may not be so bright once they install their pro-business people and fix all of this "Socialist" claptrap.
> If the GOP wins 2016, however, the future may not be so bright Can we please stop trying to make this a "GOP is evil and hates America" and "DEM is right and loves America" thing? The GOP standpoint is to put policy in place that naturally overtime encourages small business to bring competition to the bigger guys. The problem with this plan is it takes time and people want an immediate result. That's not "hating am…
The President has the power to appoint FCC commissioners, subject to confirmation by the Senate. This is a pretty significant influence, albeit an indirect one.
The GOP standpoint is to put policy in place that naturally overtime encourages small business to bring competition to the bigger guys.
That's what I hear around election time, but I'm not convinced its supported by their legislative record.
Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality
#336Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're wrong on every issue if you assume that Obama is right no every issue. My sense is that Obama is right on some, wrong on some. On most of the issues that he's wrong on, the Republicans are right purely for allowing him to set the agenda.
> They're wrong on every issue if you assume that Obama is right no every issue. I was speaking specifically about the issues mentioned in the parent post. Namely vaccination[1], evolution, and climate change. The Republican positions are objectively wrong on these issues. Projecting from there, it's not unreasonable to assume they're wrong on other issues that I know less about. To be more explicit, I was disagreein…
Republicans have been right on other issues, just ones that I didn't mention.
- Shortening unemployment insurance from 99 weeks did help nudge some folks back to work. - Encouraging housing development is better than rent control.
Perhaps I just agree with the Democrats more on hard science, and the Republicans on the dismal science. The latter is (of course!) less amendable to hard and fast truths.
Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality
#337Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just want to reply to your first point. Verizon is not "throttling" traffic to youtube/netflix, it is just allowing peering links to be saturated because the providers are out of compliance with their peering rules. You can read their peering rules here: http://www.verizonenterprise.com/terms/peering/ We can argue that it is just semantics but it is more in-depth than "throttling."
It's entirely Verizon's fault that the traffic exchange ratio is so skewed, because none of their customers are able to maintain a 1.8:1 download:upload ratio except by not using most of the download bandwidth they're paying for. Verizon's trying to hold on to a peering agreement appropriate for tier 1 transit providers when they're mostly a residential ISP now.
It is not Verizon's fault the ratios are skewed, it may be their fault their policy only has a 1.8/1 ratio. However they aren't throttling but just letting their peering links saturate. Verizon should understand they are a mostly eyeball network and adjust the ratios, I agree. They own the last mile to the customer so they hold them hostage while colluding with other ISPs to do the same. Title II fixes nothing with peering though.
Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality
#338Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just want to reply to your first point. Verizon is not "throttling" traffic to youtube/netflix, it is just allowing peering links to be saturated because the providers are out of compliance with their peering rules. You can read their peering rules here: http://www.verizonenterprise.com/terms/peering/ We can argue that it is just semantics but it is more in-depth than "throttling."
Which part are they out of compliance with? The requirement that traffic be balanced is nonsensical. In a logical sense, all packets in a connection should be 'billed' to the initiator. Raw data rates are a terrible proxy for this, and shouldn't be used at all. So in the case of Netflix, Verizon is responsible for about 99% of the traffic and the only party that should even think about charging for the interconnect i…
You answered your own question, the balanced traffic. I don't agree with it either but I'm just stating the facts.
However I'm not sure where you get the 99% or anything like that. If I'm Verizon and I own the last mile to the eyeballs you want then I can set my policies to benefit me, which they have. However they aren't throttling and Title II will do nothing about the peering issue or the policies they have set around it.
Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality
#339Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a federal/state/local government declares something illegal, they can shut it down within their jurisdiction. There is no "I'm on the internet so you can't enforce laws" get out of jail free card.
Well, the Uber site isn't distributing illegal content, so should the Uber site be shutdown or should they just be going after Uber via the courts (where a judge could order Uber to suspend operations)? I was stating that you could see city government trying to get the Uber site blocked to local ISP customers as a way to side-step the court system.
> Well, the Uber site isn't distributing illegal content
If Uber's service is illegal, the content the site is delivering, insofar as it is solicitation to engage in an illegal exchange, may also be illegal.
Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality
#340Earlier quoted context omitted.
He got a 3/2 split on the redefinition of broadband with one of the yeas publicly admitting that she would have rather seen 100Mbit as the threshold. It stands to reason that this will pass too with the current committee makeup. If the GOP wins 2016, however, the future may not be so bright once they install their pro-business people and fix all of this "Socialist" claptrap.
> If the GOP wins 2016, however, the future may not be so bright Can we please stop trying to make this a "GOP is evil and hates America" and "DEM is right and loves America" thing? The GOP standpoint is to put policy in place that naturally overtime encourages small business to bring competition to the bigger guys. The problem with this plan is it takes time and people want an immediate result. That's not "hating am…
The President has a great deal of indirect control over the FCC. All FCC commissioners are appointed by the President. But they don't turn over immediately, since they're appointed at 5-year intervals. See " rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commissi....
Worth reading in this context Joel Brinkley's "Defining Vision", about the history of broadcast HDTV in the US.
Also, history strongly suggests that the GOP's political rhetoric is a load of dingo's kidneys. Do you honestly believe that stuff? Do you have any corroborating examples? Because the GOP that was in power prior to 2008 pretty much exemplified the opposite strategy.