Read the history of the FCC, folks. You're being lead on like sheeple. "I can't believe how good this sounds". No kidding.
Are you going to elaborate, or just leave it as a snarky comment?
[deleted]
FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality
351–360 of 437 posts
Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality
#352So as someone who has been lightly following the debate, and is not familiar with the FCC's process, what are the next steps to actually start enforcing mobile and landline broadband as Title II? I also wonder how long it will take for the reclassification to become enforceable, and how long the existing companies will have to "become compliant".
I am keenly interested in this as well and hoping desperately that it does not involve the United States Congress.
And it most certainly will involve Congress. Honestly, I'm confused by all the excitement surrounding this on HN and reddit.
It's like everyone's forgetting that this has to be submitted and voted on internally, and then billion dollar giants will start attacking, and then Republicans will start attacking. Considering all of that, you'd need to be pretty optimistic to continue with the celebration.
Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality
#353Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm really impressed with Wheeler. When he was nominated, all the news was about how he was a lobbyist for the cable companies, and it was a perfect example of cronyism. But he's really been knocking it out of the park. Aggressive on net neutrality, redefining broadband, trying to restore municipal Internet. I'm very glad to have been wrong about my initial impressions.
> When he was nominated, all the news was about how he was a lobbyist for the cable companies, and it was a perfect example of cronyism That's because much of the tech press prefers sensationalism to get clicks over accurate reporting to inform readers. Here's a comment I made last week on another forum that covers what the tech press should have told us about Wheeler a long time ago, but didn't. ----------------- It…
> That's because much of the tech press prefers sensationalism to get clicks over accurate reporting to inform readers.
s/tech press/press/
Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality
#354Earlier quoted context omitted.
My biggest problem with that caveat is that its really just a foot in the door for further regulation by the federal government, none of which has anything to do with network neutrality. Network neutrality by definition is about all packets being treated equally regardless of the source or destination.
It's not though because it changes nothing. The government can already stop traffic via a court order. Besides, the FCC is not a legislative body. A set of rules which allowed, for example, unimpeded access to child pornography would never be allowed, nor should it. Net neutrality can exist alongside the laws which govern what is and is not ok to do on the internet.
Does the FCC currently have rules that allow the blocking of "illegal" traffic?
Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality
#355Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good. Why people want the government's hand's deeper in the internet than now is beyond me. Look at mobile data (exempt from title II) versus "broadband"/cable speeds. Wheeler actually points to the success of title II on "mobile" while ignoring the fact that it only applied to voice. Meanwhile, all the relevant growth and innovation occurred in data. I have to say I'ld like to see the "socialist claptrap", feel-good…
>Wheeler actually points to the success of title II on "mobile" while ignoring the fact that it only applied to voice. Meanwhile, all the relevant growth and innovation occurred in data. Only voice and SMS mattered until 2007(iPhone launch). Title II seemed to work pretty well until then. >Look at mobile data (exempt from title II) versus "broadband"/cable speeds. The difference in infrastructure costs makes those tw…
> Only voice and SMS mattered until 2007(iPhone launch).
So the areas in which regulated are the ones which stagnated and became dramatically less relevant?
It seems to me like you're suffering the distortion field.
Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality
#356Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ar…
>I'm just stating the facts.
Technically. The problem is that setting the rules so that some providers saturate is functionally equivalent to throttling arbitrarily.
Verizon is setting these rules in a way that can't be reasonably complied with, so they are fully responsible for the outcome. It shouldn't be phrased as if it justifies anything.
Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality
#357Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tom Wheeler has really outdone himself with this announcement. It'll apply to mobile networks as well! Turns out this dingo knows how to stand up for what's right! I know it's early but this is a great step forward.
agreed. this level of f-u to the whims of wealthy individuals and their entrenched corporations is unheard of. i work for a smaller cable company and it has been getting very deep lately. sad thing is management doesn't seem to get that the grunts don't care. we never profit from the monopolies. every year we get some bs excuse why we won't be getting a raise this year even though reading the quarterly earnings and k…
> I have zero problem with someone making a 100 million a year
Maybe you should have a problem with it.
I get what you're saying, that there may not be anything immoral about being extravagantly compensated, and in principle I agree with that. However, there is also something to be said for the overwhelming amount of political power that such wealth brings.
It may be that we want to avoid such concentrations of wealth not out of a sense of fairness, but to keep people from hijacking our democracy.
Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Wheeler actually points to the success of title II on "mobile" while ignoring the fact that it only applied to voice. Meanwhile, all the relevant growth and innovation occurred in data. Only voice and SMS mattered until 2007(iPhone launch). Title II seemed to work pretty well until then. >Look at mobile data (exempt from title II) versus "broadband"/cable speeds. The difference in infrastructure costs makes those tw…
> Only voice and SMS mattered until 2007(iPhone launch). So the areas in which regulated are the ones which stagnated and became dramatically less relevant? It seems to me like you're suffering the distortion field.
Are you trolling? Data is to voice as electricity is to fire; one is inherently more versatile and can handle all applications the other can. You're basically asking the equivalent of "why has all the innovation happened in electricity and not in fire? Must be the gubmint's fault"
What did you expect? That a robot would read out websites to us?
Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality
#359Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if Wheeler says thats how it is, then that's how it is Not entirely. It's a proposal, which must be voted on by the rest of the FCC committee. It's unlikely everyone on the committee will agree 100%, but I'd also contend it's unlikely for this to not pass in and around it's current state.
Anyone care to bet the cable companies will take a no-holds-barred attempt to delay this until after the presidential election?
> Anyone care to bet the cable companies will take a no-holds-barred attempt to delay this until after the presidential election?
They'll probably just sue to invalidate it once the FCC finalizes it (they may seek a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement as part of that, as well); there isn't much they can do in the way of delaying it otherwise.
Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality
#360Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, wh…
Without unbundling last mile, it still accomplishes almost nothing. It's ironic, the situation he describes his startup facing is EXACTLY what any startup trying to do the same would face today. As long as there is a monopoly on last mile, the ISPs will find a way to kill innovation and competition.