Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [EFF] FCC Announces Plan to Abandon Net Neutrality and ISP Privacy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[EFF] FCC Announces Plan to Abandon Net Neutrality and ISP Privacy - Page 4

post #31 of 164
Guess we can all just go back to using roller blades and tamagachi's like the good old days. Rid us of this internet curse.
post #32 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinto View Post

Guess we can all just go back to using roller blades and tamagachi's like the good old days. Rid us of this internet curse.

This is what we'll revert to without the Internet. Is that what you really want?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksBE53CIT8E
post #33 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chunky_Chimp View Post

ISPs have more freedom to do that without these regulations, not less. There's a lot more to this, but it'll have more to do with the post after yours so I'll drop it all down in the quote-replies to that one.
The "Fed" wasn't regulating the internet. The FCC was trying to regulate providers, like it's supposed to. Government/intelligence/law enforcement agencies pulling content, which is what's actually happening sometimes, also has nothing to do with the FCC, and everything to do with shutting down operations that THEY deem illegal or a national security threat or whatever. What good is a regulatory agency that's doing everything to denounce and crap all over the regulations that it's supposed to implement and enforce? The whole point of these regulations is to stop ISPs from ripping people off and engaging in usage restriction tactics designed SOLELY to pad their bottom lines, though the worst of those tactics were never addressed by the last 2 years of Wheeler's leadership. All of this is going to lead to the state of internet service going back to 2007, not 2015. Remember that? Remember Comcast capping people and not telling anyone what the cap was, then cutting their service off for going over it even once? Remember their Sandvine torrent protocol throttling? Remember phone companies NOT being required to disclose what all of their surcharges and fees actually are? If you want to go back to all that, by all means, keep cheering on Pai. You'll be in the minority.
Funny, stripping these regulations is almost exactly that, a power grab by the ISPs justified by unsubstantiated fearmongering. Net neutrality and Title II did NOTHING to hinder investment and innovation like the ISPs' lobbyists were all crying about in 2015, and that was their only excuse for wanting nothing done. Instead, investment and innovation have since IMPROVED.
In what way do the regulations that Pai intends to undo limit our freedom and prosperity? I want an answer in the form of legitimate examples, not any ideological nonsense.
You mean trusting the companies that are buying each other out all the time under the pretense of improving services and prices when buyouts were never a prerequisite to doing that, then not even improving their services beyond what they would have anyway and RAISING prices? The companies that would make FAR better use of the tens of billions' worth of buyout dollars by actually putting it into their services, but instead screw their customers over and act as though that's what's supposed to happen? The companies that voluntarily go out of their way to sell out your browsing habits for profits, AND take handouts (especially the phone companies) from both federal and state governments, then turn around and split that money between shareholders' dividends and lobbying/buying out portions of or even entire legislatures, instead of using that money to improve their networks? Companies like AT&T and Verizon that have gone out of their way to break promises and pretend they never promised anything, and that their half-assed commitments to their products justify their behavior?

Hell no. FCC oversight, net neutrality, and Title II re-classification wouldn't have been necessary if these companies had demonstrated trustworthy and non-mono/duopolistic behavior in the first place. I'm all for the free market, but broadband internet is becoming a necessity in this world, and I will never tolerate the ongoing rampant and blatant abuse of the public's trust that the ISPs want us to believe is in our best interest. Free market principles should never apply to what are nearly unanimously agreed to be essential services in the first place. By the same token, municipalities building out their own fiber rings/cable networks wouldn't need to happen if the people living in those areas were already satisfied with their cable/DSL services, and if the providers actually fixed their mediocre networks. But of course, because for SOME reason people wanting government out of their business means ALL legislators at ALL levels of government should sit around and do nothing about these problems, they continuously elect scumbags that are paid off by ISPs to tell constituents that bills restricting/prohibiting municipal network development is in their best interest because it's somehow government messing with their lives and the free market, when in reality it's the local government that wants to compete/partner with the private sector rather than push it out completely.

Does this all make better sense now?
You seem to be concerned over potential trade practices, not communication practices. Why are these trade practices not the jurisdiction of the FTC?
Is all of the internet so important that it cannot be allowed to be uncontrolled and must only meet the feds definition of improvement with no regard to the profit of those involved in the process?
If that is made the case, then innovation will progress by gov's pace.
Try putting down, for yourself, you don't have to share, what you want the internet to become. And how that will be achieved by some means other than black box gov decree.
There seems to be a disjoint where some are arguing from a perspective of utility public access internet, and others are arguing from a perspective of private sector profit based internet.
It is best to address them distinctly. Lots of misunderstandings can be avoided by arguing the same thing.
Starting from how the internet is now, these 2 types of internets diverge in how they will be in the future. Gov utility internet will probably come to resemble the equivalent to public transportation while for profit internet will have more diversity, creativity and performance for more cost at first, but probably less later on.

Most people work for money. People plan for the future based on what they know. The presence of the threat of those plans being arbitrarily altered in the future makes them riskier and devalues them.
This is how removing that threat (FCC title 2 authority) would be good for profit based development and innovation. A greater chance at profit needs less potential profit to be viable.
It would be bad for the gov utility internet model though.

I prefer private sector, profit based, FTC regulated internet. And I don't believe that a public FCC utility internet will be as good for the price as a for profit one. Don't mix the two up, they are not the same and you can't have the best of both worlds. The public/private blend where companies bargained for effective ownership of the public resource is a good example of that.
L5
(19 items)
 
Lea2
(11 items)
 
 
Reply
L5
(19 items)
 
Lea2
(11 items)
 
 
Reply
post #34 of 164
I'm still incredulous to the notion that the internet is a utility in the first place. Its not a necessity by any means and is by and large an entertainment medium like cable TV. I just hate that the government threw money at the industry to build their infrastructure. Let them spend their own money and then do with it as they please. The subsidies just muddy the water and allow government to claim dominion over the industry (which I suspect was the very reason they gave them the money in the first place).
post #35 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by superstition222 View Post

This is what we'll revert to without the Internet. Is that what you really want?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksBE53CIT8E

Eh, I was thing more early to mid nineties.
post #36 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin SSJ Eric View Post

Its not a necessity by any means and is by and large an entertainment medium like cable TV.
Wrong. The Internet is a lot more than that, including a requirement for a very large portion of employment application filings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin SSJ Eric View Post

I just hate that the government threw money at the industry to build their infrastructure.
rolleyes.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin SSJ Eric View Post

Let them spend their own money and then do with it as they please.
Who? You just said the government funded the infrastructure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin SSJ Eric View Post

The subsidies just muddy the water and allow government to claim dominion over the industry (which I suspect was the very reason they gave them the money in the first place).
You suspect incorrectly. I suggest researching the history of the Internet.
post #37 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by superstition222 View Post

Wrong. The Internet is a lot more than that, including a requirement for a very large portion of employment application filings.
rolleyes.gif
Who? You just said the government funded the infrastructure.
You suspect incorrectly. I suggest researching the history of the Internet.

Oh yes, the "I need internet to get a job" argument! Welp, there you have it! Internet is a utility now because at some point you'll have to use it for like 5 minutes to fill out a job application! Flawless logic! It sure sucks that there's no such thing as public internet where you could possibly ever do such a thing!

The rest of your post is basically just, "You're wrong, do some research!" Very compelling...
post #38 of 164
US congressman to constituents: ‘nobody’s got to use the internet’ — ExtremeTech

United Nations Declares Internet Access a Basic Human Right

Canada declares ‘high-speed’ internet essential for quality of life

ETIMC: Internet is moving from a luxury to a necessity – India

Court Backs Rules Treating Internet as Utility, Not Luxury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hruska 
Sensenbrenner is flatly wrong when he says nobody “has” to use the Internet. Many companies now require job applications to be submitted online. When my fiancée and I recently shopped for a new apartment, multiple property companies informed us that applications for their complexes could only be submitted online. If you’ve signed up for paperless billing (or been signed up for it automatically), your only means of communication with your utility or service providers is likely through an online account. Paper either costs more, or is no longer available. Many work projects these days (including those worked on from home) require access to Google Docs or at least Microsoft Word and email. Don’t have a connection? You can’t do your job.

The various OECD countries have pursued various strategies for managing broadband and ISP rules. None of them, including those with state-owned providers, have ended up “with no internet.” Furthermore, when home internet access was rolling out in the period he refers to, there were no advertising giants hoovering up data about their users, or selling this information in the open market. In fact, when Google bought DoubleClick back in 2007, one of the promises it had to make to secure permission to do so was that it wouldn’t combine data collected by Google’s other services with data from DoubleClick’s advertising business. Last year, Google came under fire for quietly dropping this policy and moving to combine the two sets of information. Verizon, of course, did it 18 months ago.

Sensenbrenner is wrong that strong privacy protections or limits on ISPs data gathering would’ve killed the early internet, because this type of information parsing wasn’t going on in 1997 or 1998. Google agreed to limits on how it used and merged user information back in 2007, and Google clearly hasn’t gone anywhere in the past decade.

Finally, Sensenbrenner states, “I don’t think it’s my job to tell you that you cannot get advertising through your information being sold.”

He’s ridiculously wrong on this point as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin SSJ Eric View Post

Very compelling...
More compelling than alcohol-induced prattling worthy of Homer Simpson.
post #39 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by rluker5 View Post

You seem to be concerned over potential trade practices, not communication practices. Why are these trade practices not the jurisdiction of the FTC?
Because the companies conducting those trade practices are supposed to be under the FCC's jurisdiction in addition to the FTC's and DoJ's. Both latter entities are overloaded at the moment, and things won't get any better for them in the future, so it would do a fair amount of good to have FCC oversight. Palming the FCC's crap off to the FTC isn't going to do any good if the FTC has the same lack of incentive to do anything that the FCC currently does, but the reasoning isn't the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rluker5 View Post

Is all of the internet so important that it cannot be allowed to be uncontrolled and must only meet the feds definition of improvement with no regard to the profit of those involved in the process?
If that is made the case, then innovation will progress by gov's pace.
You've completely misunderstood the situation. The internet itself is that important, but the providers cannot be allowed to be uncontrolled. Regulating providers != regulating content, and the government never set the pace of innovation; the FCC only set the definition of broadband. The ISPs aren't required to provide that speed, it's only sort of shaming them into doing it, which a lot of them still don't in rural areas where they can get away with calling 10/1 broadband for the sake of CAF II.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rluker5 View Post

Try putting down, for yourself, you don't have to share, what you want the internet to become. And how that will be achieved by some means other than black box gov decree.
The internet is already what I think it should be. You keep mixing up ISPs with the internet itself for the sake of argument, and that's not working out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rluker5 View Post

Gov utility internet will probably come to resemble the equivalent to public transportation while for profit internet will have more diversity, creativity and performance for more cost at first, but probably less later on.
Severely misguided. The majority of municipal fiber networks in operation now have been built, or are being built, in or under budget with the intent to drastically out-perform for-profit service providers at a substantially reduced cost, and the associated promises with those networks have, for the most part, been kept so far. Why do you think Comcast, TWC (now part of Spectrum), and AT&T put near-exclusive focus on their gigabit network upgrades on the same cities where either a municipal fiber ring or Google Fiber began building out? This is NOT a coincidence. If a local government/municipality shows intent to compete seriously with an incumbent, they will castrate their prices and radically increase speeds, and at a pace not shown in cities where such networks aren't planned/built/being built.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rluker5 View Post

Most people work for money. People plan for the future based on what they know. The presence of the threat of those plans being arbitrarily altered in the future makes them riskier and devalues them.
The FCC's actions during Wheeler's tenure haven't had a negative effect on ISPs' plans, no matter what their lobbyists try to claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rluker5 View Post

This is how removing that threat (FCC title 2 authority) would be good for profit based development and innovation. A greater chance at profit needs less potential profit to be viable.
Title II was never a threat. It doesn't do any good to pretend that it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rluker5 View Post

It would be bad for the gov utility internet model though.
Municipal fiber networks can easily work within whatever the FCC's requirements are, because they start from scratch without having to dig up old lines or cut any red tape (unless the state restricts them), because the city already has its own rights-of-way. Funding and labor can go through MUCH faster, and if they want to, they'll open up the network to any ISP that wants to use it so there can be private competition using public infrastructure. If you think that's a stretch of the imagination, see here. The city's tech director even says you can get a 10Gbps residential connection if you so want; how much it is depends on which company you go with. See also, EPB's fiber in Chattanooga, TN, though that's not last-mile-unbundled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rluker5 View Post

I prefer private sector, profit based, FTC regulated internet. And I don't believe that a public FCC utility internet will be as good for the price as a for profit one.
You can believe what you want, but municipal fiber networks are almost always cheaper, faster, and more stable than profit-based cable/fiber. On that note, you're contradicting yourself; why would profit-based internet service be cheaper than utility-based internet? It's for profit. The company is in it to make money. That's why prices keep going up year over year, while utility-based internet will mostly stay the same price, a price that's almost always cheaper when factoring in the available speeds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rluker5 View Post

Don't mix the two up, they are not the same and you can't have the best of both worlds.
You can. See the above link regarding Ammon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rluker5 View Post

The public/private blend where companies bargained for effective ownership of the public resource is a good example of that.
If the private sector owns a public resource, it's not really a public resource.
Deep Blood
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 920 D0 (Batch # 3901A240) Foxconn X58 Blood Rage (non-GTI) eVGA GeForce GTX670 2GB 6GB Corsair Dominator 1.6GHz TR3X6G1600C8D Rev 3.2 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung SSD830 128GB / Seagate 640GB+1TB+2TB+4TB Samsung SH-S223Q 22X XTTH | OCZ Freeze | 9G1212H1011 Windows 7 Ultimate x64 SP1 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2410f (rev. A02) OCN-Ducky DK-9008 Antec HCPP-850 CaseLabs SM8 
MouseMouse PadAudioOther
Logitech G500 Sharkoon 1337 Asus Xonar DX + Swan D1080MkII08 + MXL Tempo Lifecam Cinema 
  hide details  
Reply
Deep Blood
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 920 D0 (Batch # 3901A240) Foxconn X58 Blood Rage (non-GTI) eVGA GeForce GTX670 2GB 6GB Corsair Dominator 1.6GHz TR3X6G1600C8D Rev 3.2 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung SSD830 128GB / Seagate 640GB+1TB+2TB+4TB Samsung SH-S223Q 22X XTTH | OCZ Freeze | 9G1212H1011 Windows 7 Ultimate x64 SP1 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2410f (rev. A02) OCN-Ducky DK-9008 Antec HCPP-850 CaseLabs SM8 
MouseMouse PadAudioOther
Logitech G500 Sharkoon 1337 Asus Xonar DX + Swan D1080MkII08 + MXL Tempo Lifecam Cinema 
  hide details  
Reply
post #40 of 164
This is the first step towards censorship. Throttle or ban access to any dissenting voices or alternative media, sort of like YouTube started to cut ads to such outlets. Also this will allow them to jack up the prices for internet access, which might limit the amount of people (read social class) that are able to use it. What a time to be alive !
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Technology and Science News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [EFF] FCC Announces Plan to Abandon Net Neutrality and ISP Privacy