Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [WSJ] Appeals Court Strikes Down FCC's Net Neutrality Rules
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[WSJ] Appeals Court Strikes Down FCC's Net Neutrality Rules - Page 7

post #61 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by perfectblade View Post

because they are basically government sanctioned monopolies. these corps are regulated by the government, but they also enjoy a weird give and take position with the government. for example, the courts ruled that google could not give internet away free to university towns. also, many of these corps received funding and subsidies to upgrade their infrastructure (which apparently they failed to do).

that goes for all forms of infrastructure. because they often enjoy monopolies in a given area, they can't be treated like corporations that really function a free, competitive market. not to mention the services they provide are often essential to the public interest. this is especially true for utilities like water and electricity.

Erm, no.

Once again, this situation is caused by the FCC's lack of definitive regulations.

Their definitions for anything regulatory in regards to the internet was literally put in place @ 10 years ago.

Those standards no longer apply.

There is no gov't sanctioned monopolies because the FCC is SUPPOSED to prevent them, they just can't because of their previously placed standards.

Let me put this another way.

Most highways still have speed limits of 55. Does anyone drive 55 anymore? No. Are you given a ticket for speeding in a 55? Yes. So even though the standard of travel has changed, the law remains the same.

Same EXACT issue here.

The limits and regulations in place do NOT police modern ISP's because they're not applicable anymore. Standards have changed but, the law remained the same.

The FCC was supposed to also regulate electrical companies but, that falls under the same situation as their net neutrality sanctions.

Ultimately what needs to happen is a complete overhaul of the FCC and it's standards...Then, situations like these, wouldn't happen because the regulations exist for modern circumstances.
post #62 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masked View Post

Erm, no.

Once again, this situation is caused by the FCC's lack of definitive regulations.

Their definitions for anything regulatory in regards to the internet was literally put in place @ 10 years ago.

Those standards no longer apply.

There is no gov't sanctioned monopolies because the FCC is SUPPOSED to prevent them, they just can't because of their previously placed standards.

Let me put this another way.

Most highways still have speed limits of 55. Does anyone drive 55 anymore? No. Are you given a ticket for speeding in a 55? Yes. So even though the standard of travel has changed, the law remains the same.

Same EXACT issue here.

The limits and regulations in place do NOT police modern ISP's because they're not applicable anymore. Standards have changed but, the law remained the same.

The FCC was supposed to also regulate electrical companies but, that falls under the same situation as their net neutrality sanctions.

Ultimately what needs to happen is a complete overhaul of the FCC and it's standards...Then, situations like these, wouldn't happen because the regulations exist for modern circumstances.

to say that they don't function under local monopolies is just factually untrue. and it's not a failure of the fcc so much as it is a recognition of practical concerns: no one wants to build the same infrastructure twice and it would be a waste of time and money. what would be the point in two companies installing separate fiber infrastructure (ie doing the same job twice?) which is why they are required to share infrastructure to create competition.

regardless whether it is ideal or not internet service is basically an oligopoly in the us. and on top of that they receive government funding and were recently protected from google simply giving away fiber for free.

now should regulations be modernized? probably. but to say that somehow these are independent entities that truly function in the free market is absolutely untrue. and if they feel that way, maybe they should stop accepting government subsidies
Edited by perfectblade - 1/15/14 at 9:11am
post #63 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin SSJ Eric View Post

My main point is that no matter how much we may want to be able to dictate to these companies how to run their networks, we have to acknowledge that it has been the companies and their money that have built the vast majority of the infrastructure that we enjoy today. How is it fair for us to tell them how they have to run their own networks (just as an abstract devil's advocate argument)?

no, you are right...we have no place to regulate things like networks, or even electricity for that matter.
but how do you decide when something is no longer a luxury and it is actually a "necessity?"
electricity became that, and therefore companies couldnt play games with it anymore.
water, telecoms before now, both the same.
i personally think that the internet is nearing the point of no longer being a luxury due to how much of our daily life has been transcribed into the digital realm. when it is decided that this is a necessity and not a luxury, then they cant play these games anymore, regardless of whose network it is.
do you think the first electric companies were building power grids and lines out of the pure interest of the people? oh hell nah...they built and owned those lines, but they fell under the same equal right regulation thats being proposed with net neutrality.
we have no place to regulate anything, but we do to provide a base common denominator of life, especially modern life...this is simply the next step.
new life
(17 items)
 
Ripley
(6 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3820 @ 4.3giggles sabertooth x79 EVGA gtx 970 @ working on OC mushkin redline 16gb @ 1866 c9  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
crucial m4 128gb WD blue 1tb hitachi deskstar 500gb WD Black 2tb 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Hitachi Desktar NAS 6tb LG Bluray royale with cheese seidon 240m win 10 x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
acer G245HDL x2 logitech g710+ corsair 650w switch 810 white 
Mouse
rat 7 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i5-4200u HD 4400 8gb @ 1600mhz Crucial MX300 275gb 
OSMonitor
Manjaro 15.6" 1080p 
  hide details  
Reply
new life
(17 items)
 
Ripley
(6 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3820 @ 4.3giggles sabertooth x79 EVGA gtx 970 @ working on OC mushkin redline 16gb @ 1866 c9  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
crucial m4 128gb WD blue 1tb hitachi deskstar 500gb WD Black 2tb 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Hitachi Desktar NAS 6tb LG Bluray royale with cheese seidon 240m win 10 x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
acer G245HDL x2 logitech g710+ corsair 650w switch 810 white 
Mouse
rat 7 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i5-4200u HD 4400 8gb @ 1600mhz Crucial MX300 275gb 
OSMonitor
Manjaro 15.6" 1080p 
  hide details  
Reply
post #64 of 95
We pay for a specific speed limit and bandwidth cap. We should be able to consume any content we want within said restrictions without the fear of having either restricted further based on vested capitalist interests wanting to guide us to other services and/or punish another company.

I wonder if these judges have the first clue what they just did, or if they are having their silk-lined pockets gold-plated by said vested interests.
Bueller
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3770K 4.7Ghz @ 1.36v Asus Sabertooth Z77 Gigabyte Windforce 780 Ti 3GB 16GB Corsair Vengeance 1866 9-10-9-27 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
256GB Samsung 840 Pro + RAID1 2TB 7200 Hitachis LG 6X Blu-ray Burner Corsair H100i Windows 7 x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus VG236HE XArmor U9BL-S Enermax Galaxy Evo 1250W Corsair 600T 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech G500 SteelSeries 5L O2DAC -> Corsair SP2500 (or O2 amp and Beyerdyn... 
  hide details  
Reply
Bueller
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3770K 4.7Ghz @ 1.36v Asus Sabertooth Z77 Gigabyte Windforce 780 Ti 3GB 16GB Corsair Vengeance 1866 9-10-9-27 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
256GB Samsung 840 Pro + RAID1 2TB 7200 Hitachis LG 6X Blu-ray Burner Corsair H100i Windows 7 x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus VG236HE XArmor U9BL-S Enermax Galaxy Evo 1250W Corsair 600T 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech G500 SteelSeries 5L O2DAC -> Corsair SP2500 (or O2 amp and Beyerdyn... 
  hide details  
Reply
post #65 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by t00sl0w View Post

no, you are right...we have no place to regulate things like networks, or even electricity for that matter.
but how do you decide when something is no longer a luxury and it is actually a "necessity?"
electricity became that, and therefore companies couldnt play games with it anymore.
water, telecoms before now, both the same.
i personally think that the internet is nearing the point of no longer being a luxury due to how much of our daily life has been transcribed into the digital realm. when it is decided that this is a necessity and not a luxury, then they cant play these games anymore, regardless of whose network it is.
do you think the first electric companies were building power grids and lines out of the pure interest of the people? oh hell nah...they built and owned those lines, but they fell under the same equal right regulation thats being proposed with net neutrality.
we have no place to regulate anything, but we do to provide a base common denominator of life, especially modern life...this is simply the next step.

qft. Imagine a power company being allowed to charge you differently because of HOW you use the power they send. It's basically exactly the same thing because bandwidth is bandwidth, and in most cases, the usage of the infrastructure has no impact on how much it costs to run aside from raw bandwidth calculations. There's obviously a little bit of abstraction there because of BGP peering and whatnot, but the bottom line is, you can't charge more for a given packet of data because the user wants/needs it more than some other packet. That's like charging a homeowner more for the plug running their TV than the plug where they charge their phone.
Fractal Fury
(9 items)
 
TJ08-e Reborn!
(12 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-5930k ASRock X99m Killer AMD Radeon Fury X G-Skill Ripjaws 4 32Gb 
Hard DriveCoolingKeyboardPower
Kingston Hyper-X Predator M.2 Corsair H100i GTX Ducky Shine III (MX Blue) EVGA Supernova 750 G2 
Case
Fractal Node 804 
  hide details  
Reply
Fractal Fury
(9 items)
 
TJ08-e Reborn!
(12 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-5930k ASRock X99m Killer AMD Radeon Fury X G-Skill Ripjaws 4 32Gb 
Hard DriveCoolingKeyboardPower
Kingston Hyper-X Predator M.2 Corsair H100i GTX Ducky Shine III (MX Blue) EVGA Supernova 750 G2 
Case
Fractal Node 804 
  hide details  
Reply
post #66 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by perfectblade View Post

to say that they don't function under local monopolies is just factually untrue. and it's not a failure of the fcc so much as it is a recognition of practical concerns: no one wants to build the same infrastructure twice and it would be a waste of time and money. what would be the point in two companies installing separate fiber infrastructure (ie doing the same job twice?) which is why they are required to share infrastructure to create competition.

regardless whether it is ideal or not internet service is basically an oligopoly in the us. and on top of that they receive government funding and were recently protected from google simply giving away fiber for free.

now should regulations be modernized? probably. but to say that somehow these are independent entities that truly function in the free market is absolutely untrue. and if they feel that way, maybe they should stop accepting government subsidies

Firstly, you're being extremely small minded and you're not focusing on the big picture.

The big picture is simple. The Gov't let things go as they were for a while. Then when ISP's got out of hand, they said to the FCC, expand your guidelines and cover this new technology. So they did. They were made the governing body of the internet.

AT THAT TIME, standards were made. Those standards have not changed. Thus the FCC cannot enforce those standards because they're no longer relevant.

TLDR: Those monopolies exist BECAUSE the FCC doesn't regulate according to a standard.

The FCC doesn't regulate according to a standard BECAUSE their standards are out-dated.

This has NOTHING to do with infrastructure or kick-backs due to infrastructure.

This has everything to do with how the internet and it's traffic is regulated, how the ISP serves this data to the community and the governing body that's SUPPOSED to enforce these regulations but, doesn't and/or can't because it's out-dated.

IF the FCC had newer standards and update definitions/patents on the modern world, we wouldn't be in this predicament at all, regardless of infrastructure or monopolies.
post #67 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masked View Post

Firstly, you're being extremely small minded and you're not focusing on the big picture.

The big picture is simple. The Gov't let things go as they were for a while. Then when ISP's got out of hand, they said to the FCC, expand your guidelines and cover this new technology. So they did. They were made the governing body of the internet.

AT THAT TIME, standards were made. Those standards have not changed. Thus the FCC cannot enforce those standards because they're no longer relevant.

TLDR: Those monopolies exist BECAUSE the FCC doesn't regulate according to a standard.

The FCC doesn't regulate according to a standard BECAUSE their standards are out-dated.

This has NOTHING to do with infrastructure or kick-backs due to infrastructure.

This has everything to do with how the internet and it's traffic is regulated, how the ISP serves this data to the community and the governing body that's SUPPOSED to enforce these regulations but, doesn't and/or can't because it's out-dated.

IF the FCC had newer standards and update definitions/patents on the modern world, we wouldn't be in this predicament at all, regardless of infrastructure or monopolies.

so what are you advocating then? the absence of standards altogether or what new standards would you suggest. because it seems that the absence of standards will most likely lead to the end of the free internet as we know it, with isps determining what content people can access at what cost.

i also don't see how any of this would magically lead to more competition. the same people are going to control the same infrastructure and it's not like its going to magically make sense for newcomers essentially build the same infrastructure twice
post #68 of 95
In all fairness to the FCC, they did try to change it so that ISPs would fall under the same category as phone/electric companies. However, thanks to republicans who said "no more government over sight," the FCC failed. Now this is the result: A new age of filtered internet is coming. There is money to be made in putting your content before anyone else's.

Some people think this is only going to effect "big" things like Netflex and Google. NOPE.

Just to give you an example of what will happen: Say one of these corporations that own an ISP wants to put out a website like overclock.net. Well overclock and other sites like it will be in direct competition with their new site. Normally you would try to bring out more and better content to compete with such a site. All that ISP has to do is block the end users from accessing it and bam, their users have no choice but to use their website.
post #69 of 95
I'm confused. Why are these internet providers pushing so hard for this kind of stuff? Don't they already have a monopoly in a sense? Don't they already make a ton of profit? Do they really need to make a ton more? I don't even think it comes down to money. That' cant be the case it's just the evil desire to control more.

It's like a 21st century version of dictatorship. We like to see capitalism as a good thing. But apparently it has some unforeseen consequences.

A bit cheesy but I figure this video applies to what I said above:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
My System
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 D0 @ 4.0Ghz Asus P6T EVGA GTX 680 4GB G.Skill 3x2GB DDR3 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Western Digital 1TB Caviar Black Windows 10 Home 64bit LG 30" 2560x1600 CMSTORM Quickfire Tenkeyless 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Corsair TX750 watt Haf 932 Razer Deathadder AD700x 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 D0 @ 4.0Ghz Asus P6T EVGA GTX 680 4GB G.Skill 3x2GB DDR3 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Western Digital 1TB Caviar Black Windows 10 Home 64bit LG 30" 2560x1600 CMSTORM Quickfire Tenkeyless 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Corsair TX750 watt Haf 932 Razer Deathadder AD700x 
  hide details  
Reply
post #70 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin SSJ Eric View Post

I see, so only large groups of people (majorities) matter and smaller groups (minorities) should be discriminated against? Interesting.
.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. And nice of you to misrepresent that into the corporations being discriminated against. Currently, a select handful of people hold all the power.. but wresting it from them is "discrimination"? Oh my days...
The Riginator
(20 items)
 
 
Wife's Rig
(5 items)
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Qualcomm Snapdragon S600 Adreno 330 2GB LPDDR3 NAND Storage 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Samsung 32GB MicroSD Android 4.4.2 KitKat 5 inch (441ppi) 1080x1920 Super AMOLED SwiftKey 
Power
2600mAh Battery 
  hide details  
Reply
The Riginator
(20 items)
 
 
Wife's Rig
(5 items)
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Qualcomm Snapdragon S600 Adreno 330 2GB LPDDR3 NAND Storage 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Samsung 32GB MicroSD Android 4.4.2 KitKat 5 inch (441ppi) 1080x1920 Super AMOLED SwiftKey 
Power
2600mAh Battery 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Technology and Science News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [WSJ] Appeals Court Strikes Down FCC's Net Neutrality Rules