FCC

FCC Votes to Consider Net Neutrality Rules, Broadband Reclassification

|

FCC.gov

In a 3-2 vote, the Federal Communications Commission decided today to proceed with consideration of Chairman Tom Wheeler's controversial net neutrality proposal, and to take public comments on the possibility of reclassifying broadband from a Title I information service to a Title II telecommunications service.

The full proposal, which has been the subject of a heated debate since its announcement, has not yet been made public, although Chairman Wheeler indicated that it may be available by the end of the day. But reports suggest that the proposal would insist on baseline service levels from broadband providers while also allowing for the possibility of some paid prioritization deals, subject to strict review and policing by the FCC.

In addition, the agency will seek public input on another option: reclassifying broadband service under the Telecommunications Act from an information service to a telecommunications service, making it akin to a utility subject to significantly more oversight from the agency.

Reclassification would potentially represent a radical transformation of the way the FCC regulates Internet service. And although the agency has suggested in the past that it would waive some of the Title II requirements through the regulatory forbearance process, doing so would be a legally murky proposition. Indeed, it's not clear that the agency has the legal authority to reclassify Internet service at all.

Net neutrality advocates have heavily pushed for reclassification in recent days, and several protestors who favor the regulatory overhaul were escorted by security out of today's FCC meeting. Both sides have already weighed in formally through a series of letters making cases for and against reclassification. In the aftermath of today's vote, lots more will follow. The upcoming comment period on the proposal, set to last 60 days, with another 60 days for replies, is expected to be unusually heated. 

NEXT: There's a Food Truck That Hawks Legal Cannabis-Laced Edibles

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. In a 3-2 vote, the Federal Communications Commission decided today to proceed with consideration of Chairman Tom Wheeler’s controversial net neutrality proposal,

    And I’m going to keep this in mind the next time we elect FCC commissioners!

    Oh, wait..

  2. I can’t see what could possibly go wrong with having an organization, with a long history of violence, oppression and corruption, in charge of the Internet.

    1. Especially the corruption. Somebody was being paid off to keep BPL alive despite all the technical problems.

      BPL = Broadband over Power Lines

      A solution in search of a problem. Yeah, let’s run lots of RF, including fire, police and EMS bands, over HUNDREDS OF MILES OF ANTENNA WIRE. Brilliant!

  3. It is absolutely astounding to me how much energy and effort the NN advocates are willing to expend for this. Just to fuck the ISPs and try and keep their data usage for their torrents down. It’s so short-sighted it’s unreal. It’s reminding me of Obamacare: they just want to ram it through, and then they can find out what the repercussions are. Why? Because. Because they think that it’s super important. Why? Because they are stupider than you can possibly believe.

    1. Every time I have a conversation with a proggie about Net Neutrality I always ask “so who exactly do you think should pay for unlimited internet access?” the answer is always “THE CORPORAYSHUNS MAN!!! OF COURSE!!! THEY GOTS ALL THE MONEY..”

      There is no point debating anything with people who simply don’t understand basic economics.

      1. Yeah, except to quote Yeats, the best lack all conviction while the worst are filled with passionate intensity. These idiotic fools are incredibly persistent and inflamed about this (why I really have no idea), and may succeed just by flogging it until they get what they want. The stupid and envious and hateful have way more energy than those of us who aren’t retarded.

        1. I hope for a technological solution that will simply put the internet where it can’t be controlled or influenced by these idiots. Do you think MaidSafe and pCell and Google’s possible ‘internet drones/hot air balloons’ can do that?

          1. Those solutions still have a long way to go, but they certainly show that it is possible. If NN becomes reality it will certainly spark new life into those projects. In reality, though, even if NN gets enacted most people won’t notice the difference. There will be a difference, but they won’t notice it, or they will misattribute it to their ISP.

        2. What they’ll get is a fully regulated internet system with all that entails.

      2. At no point do they check the KORPORAYSHUNS!!!! 10K financial statements.

      3. “THE CORPORAYSHUNS MAN!!! OF COURSE!!! THEY GOTS ALL THE MONEY..”

        There is no point debating anything with people who simply don’t understand basic economics.

        Of course Net Neutrality is meant to stop ISPs from charging corporations like Netflix, Microsoft and Google for Internet.

        Not just misunderstanding of economics but complete bat shit insanity.

    2. It is absolutely astounding to me how much energy and effort the NN advocates are willing to expend for this.

      Why? Do you know how much power the government can wield with Net Neutrality? Believe me, the shit ain’t checkers, it’s chess, and the NN advocates know that extremely well. They’re playing chess, and they have a shit ton of pawns over at Slashdot.

      1. I was referring to the energy expended by the pawns. I know that the FCC scum have every reason to expend a ton of energy. But the energy expended by the pawns is disproportionally huge.

        1. The pawns have tons of energy and it has to go somewhere (but not somewhere productive). So, all you have to do is point them in the right direction.

        2. I think it corresponds with Gen Y moving out of their parents homes and they have to start paying their cable/phone/internet/cell bills.

          Gen X actually remember not only paying $30 for internet but also that it was $30 for 14k dial-up….and then seeing a year later $25 for 56K then 2 years after that seeing $30 for DSL then 5 years later $40 for cable.
          going from 14K to cable in 10 years is way more striking of an experience then going from 2Mbits to 5Mbits to 10Mbits.

    3. Did anyone check Boing Boing yet? Is this giving Cory Doctorow hissy fits, or huge, shuddering orgasms?

      1. I gave up on them. They banned me several times for reasoned, polite, on-topic disagreement on political issues. No non-PC thoughtcrime for Boing Boing! The last I checked, they had even ditched Disqus, probably because there were too many un-PC comments.

    4. “They are stupider than you could possible believe”

      Yes they are. I just got through arguing with a bunch of them over it, and after I explained how this shit actually works they fell back on making conspiracy theory accusations against the ISPs and I knew I’d won.

      Note that I didn’t say any of them changed their minds, though.

    5. Episarch,

      You have to put yourself in their mindset. This is coming from the left so they beleive:
      1. All business naturally gravitates towards monopoly
      2. The media is a tool by which the ruling class manipulates public opinions
      3. Concentrated control of the media by corporations threatens freedom of speech by “the people”.

      These people have this fear that without net neutrality rules the internet will gradually whither into a handful of corporate controlled websites, and “alternative” voices will be shut off.

      Now this seems crazy to us, because the web is vast and full of all sorts of bullshit, but these people are the same people who are inclined to read InfoWars and watch films like Zeitgeist over YouTube, so they think if the ISPs aren’t forced to carry that traffic all of those sites will end up being relegated to a slow crawl.

      It’s not just about bit torrent, it’s about their own wierd beliefs about economics and the media. They think the “corporate media” will conspire to shut down “alternative” media by not carrying their traffic at an adequate speed.

    1. Now, my Lord. I’m sure they’ll “proceed with consideration” of that input.

  4. the proposal would insist on baseline service levels from broadband providers while also allowing for the possibility of some paid prioritization deals

    OK, as political compromises go, this doesn’t sound too bad…

    subject to strict review and policing by the FCC

    Well fuck.

  5. Sigh. Let’s fuck up the one good thing from the last couple of decades.

    1. The awe-inspiring power of the the iron law of bureaucracy at work.

  6. I have to plead ignorance. I don’t get this at all. What is the problem under the current system?

    1. The problem for these mongoloids is that they might have to pay more for using shittons of bandwith, so they want to let the government control the internet and force ISPs to not charge different rates for different speed and data plans. Note the “government control the internet” part. Yes, they are that fucking stupid.

      1. Wonder if it will be applied to all these SPWLs’ cellphone plans?

      2. okay, so i got it. it just didn’t make sense. thanks.

      3. Which government? Every pro-NN article I’ve read talks about how every other government on Earth is superior to the USA on the subject of the internet. Which, now that I reflect, is curiously ironic since they also claim the USA invented the fucking thing.

        1. Every pro-NN article I’ve read talks about how every other government on Earth is superior to the USA on the subject of the internet

          yeah it is all bullshit.

          the US is in the top 10 and showing great speed in increasing copacity and most of the “countries” above the US are not even real countries or reflect huge urban centers with very fast internet. South Korea, Hong kong are examples.

          The US is not behind the rest of the world. They are only behind a hand full of cherry picked small examples in small geographic areas with far less then 300 million people.

          http://cdn2.tnwcdn.com/wp-cont…..1_2013.png

          You have to remember below the top 10 is the entire rest of the world and most of them are not getting 1Mbps let alone 8Mbps.

          1. Take a long look at that list i linked to.

            Notice that Germany, France and England and pretty much all of Europe is absent….and the US is far more sparsely populated then Europe.

            There are some European countries above the US…of course if the US was broken up into regions and/or states I am sure many of those would be above the European countries.

            1. Right, small countries like Switzerland, where everyone lives in dense cities and towns.

          2. Yeah, this is a good point. The US has a lot of rural territory, where significant numbers of people live. So it’s a lot harder to run fiber-optic cable all over the whole place.

      4. “force ISPs to not charge different rates for different speed and data plans.”

        I am sorry, but that is so far off the mark, it makes me dizzy.

        Net Neutrality is not about being able to get 100Mbps speeds at 10Mbps prices. It is about paying for a 15Mbps connection and being able to have that speed (or nearest approximate speed) regardless of the service I use. So if I want to check my email, it should download at 15Mbps. If I want to play an online game, it should communicate at 15Mbps. If I want to want a movie on Netflix, it should stream at 15Mbps. If I want to do something that is a combination of those activities or more, the combined speed should not be less than 15Mbps.

        The problem people have is that ISPs want to sell you a 15Mbps plan, but not let you have those speeds unless the service provider, such as Netflix, pay them to let you get that speed to use their service. So instead of paying for 15Mbps and being able to watch Netflix at that speed, Netflix would be throttled to 1.5Mbps unless it decides to pay the ISP to get the full speed.

        1. So if you pay for 15 Mbps, and the ISP intentionally delivers less than that, isn’t it a violation of your contract? Why is a civil suit not sufficient for dealing with this? It’s an honest question.

          1. No. First of all, you are probably paying for “up to 15 Mbps”. The “up to” is important and its there for a reason.

            Second, your ISP controls both ends of the transaction. Just because you paid to be able to pull at 15Mbps, that doesn’t mean Netflix paid to be able to push at 15Mpbs.

            They have limited bandwidth with which to handle all their customers and so they have to be able to throttle selected streams during high-usage hours. Right now they just throttle the big users like Netflix. Under NN they would have to throttle everyone. And under NN you wouldn’t be able to buy your way out of being throttled.

            1. Sure you would. But pricing plans would have to change. Big streaming video and bittorrent users would see their bills go up several fold.

              The question is all about who gets to profit and who has to pay.

              Verizon wants the person profiting to be Verizon. Netflix wants it to be Netflix. Joe Consumer wants to pay $40 a month for gigabit fiber with unlimited data use.

              These are incompatible goals. Since the ISP controls the pipe, they are in the best position to profit. In many areas the government has made sure they have a near monopoly (or duopoly, triopoly). So everyone runs to the government to use force to make sure they are the ones who profit.

              True net neutrality would probably be the best – each of us buys the bandwidth we use, including people like google and Netflix. The ISPs sell the bandwidth at a cost that reflects each entities use. Not gonna happen with content providers and ISPs being the same person in many cases. Also, a minority of users would see their cable bill go up exponentially since less than 10% of internet users account for 90% of the traffic.

            2. I don’t think this is exactly accurate either.
              The thing is that netflix is a *streaming* service.

              They’ve got vast server archive somewhere out there (or perhaps several located around the country), and they have to get traffic to your computer in a way that is at a *consistent* smooth rate.

              The people using bittorrent aren’t a problem at all. Or they think they are, but that’s not what this is about.

              Because the normal way ISPs do business is they try to get data through a nationwide network of data links that have varying bandwidth, in the most efficient way possible. So the data gets through, but it does not always get through at the same *rate*. That’s why your torrents will speed up and slow down randomly. The net is a stochastic process – sometimes traffic is high, sometimes low, and how fast you get things depends on whateveryone else is doing.

              That DOESN’T MATTER for bittorrent.

              But it *does* matter for real-time streaming video, because everyone fucking hates it when their video stops suddenly in the middle of playing to wait for the data to catch up.

              So what the ISPs want to do is to charge netflix (and youtube for that matter) to offer them a service of guarenteeing that their video stream runs at a smooth constant rate.

        2. Holy shit! I didn’t realize fraud was involved!

          Wouldn’t it be nice if there was some mechanism by which a bunch of customers who were not provided the service they had contracted for could get reimbursed? Some sort of lawsuit. Some sort of lawsuit taking action on behalf of a class of injured people.

          It’s too bad no such animal exists. Tsk!

        3. Why do you need to get NetFlix at 15Mbps if you can only play 1Mbps of movie per second? That seems like good pipe management by the ISP to me. They aren’t holding your data for ransom, they are making choices about what needs to be on their backbone every second to balance all of their customers’ needs.

          1. Streaming full HD video is 10-20 Mbps. Get with the times, Brett!

            1. Dude, I can watch two or three full HD videos at a time on my 1.5Mbps pipe. And the day they start slowing my porn, I’m going over to the NN side.

          2. These are the same people who demand all-you-can-eat buffets at low prices and then complain about the quality of the food and the wait in line.

            Economic literacy is not their strong suit.

        4. Is that all this is about? We need to fetter the single greatest technological achievement because ISPs’ marketing departments exaggerate their download speeds? Sounds like a problem for Consumer Reports or Angie’s List.

        5. So if I want to check my email, it should download at 15Mbps. If I want to play an online game, it should communicate at 15Mbps. If I want to want a movie on Netflix, it should stream at 15Mbps. If I want to do something that is a combination of those activities or more, the combined speed should not be less than 15Mbps.

          So, if you had five minutes of training on building networks, you would know that at any one time, bandwidth is limited. And if you download your email at 15mb, you might slow someone’s Netflix viewing experience down. Therefore, the ISPs want to be able to prioritize traffic (a thing called QOSing in the biznatch) so certain critical functions– or functions which the ISP views as critical to the largest number of customers can BE guaranteed that. Net Neutrality BANS that.

          1. “or functions which the ISP views as critical”

            I think i’m seeing the problem. they might choose incorrectly.

          2. Yeah, that’s what a lot of people don’t get. Bandwidth is limited. If everyone has unlimited access at full speed. Then one or two companies or even individuals streaming mega amounts of data in your service area potential screws everyone else. NN says not only can you not throttle the bandwidth hogs, but if you offer unlimited to anyone than you have to offer it to everyone. This is why you’re already seeing unlimited data plans being axed for wireless.

        6. In addition, Comast et al WANT to provide you with a more guaranteed 15mb. They believe they can better do that through tiered service.

          The little old lady who just checks her hotmail account can pay a lower rate for 1.5mb. But Torrenter guy who wants 200mb will pay more.

          This is considered ‘unfarez’ and any attempt to turn this into a simple (I’m not getting what I pay for argument) is willfully ignorant of the NN proponents are demanding. They are EXPLICITLY fighting what they believe is a ‘tiered’ internet.

          1. “The little old lady who just checks her hotmail account can pay a lower rate for 1.5mb. But Torrenter guy who wants 200mb will pay more.”

            Ummm…That is not at all what I said. If person A wants to purchase a 1.5Mbps account and Person B wants to purchase a 200Mbps account, there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is when person B pays for 200Mbps and half the services he wants to use are artificially throttled to 1.5Mbps.

            1. And so a new regulatory designation, turning ISPs into utilities (like AT&T in the 60s!) will solve that?

              The problem with what you said is it’s based on an entirely myopic view of what you think you’ll achieve. The Neutrality in Net Neutrality has meaning. In the case of the little old lady who purchased 1.5mb– how do you think Comcast achieves this service tier? Throttling.

              NN proponents want a broad reclassification which forces broadband providers to treat all traffic the same. You’re purposefully trying to turn a terms-of-service dispute into a government-needs-to-take-over-the-internet dispute.

              Here’s a definition from a CNET article defining NN:

              Net neutrality supporters are concerned that without a common-carrier reclassification of broadband traffic, broadband providers would still be able to create priority services or fast lanes on their networks. They argue these fast lanes would necessarily mean slower access for all other services that don’t pay for priority. And they believe it would serve as a barrier to entry for new competitors online, who may not be able to afford the added fee.

              NN proponents DON’T WANT tiered service, period.

              1. Honestly, I don’t know why selling fast lanes necessarily means that other lanes become slower.

                The NN proponents may have a point that ISPs are trying to get paid from both ends, though.

        7. So the NN proponents’ solution is to give the government power over the entire internet in order to force the ISPs to stream their Netflix or their torrents at a higher speed without getting Netflix or Amazon or whoever to pay. Until the government tells the ISPs that to combat piracy (under lobbying from the entertainment industry) anything coming from certain IP ranges must be slowed or blocked. Or until the ISPs cozy up with the FCC regulators and start throttling things anyway. Or until an administration wants to clandestinely crack down on porn and tells the ISPs to throttle any traffic that looks like porn downloads.

          What makes the NN advocates so amazingly stupid is not the details of what’s at issue. It’s that their solution is to let the fucking government take over control of the internet. I don’t give two fucks about the minutiae of what they’re quibbling about. I care that they want to give away the freedom of the internet–which they will NEVER get back–in exchange for issues that will be resolved via technology and competition (where allowed) in the not too distant future.

          Again, they want to let the government get its grubby hands on the internet FOREVER instead of waiting a bit for advancements to make these issues go away. This is why they are fucking retarded.

          1. They also don’t mention that every tenth byte on an ISP backbone between about 7pm and 10pm in America is from Netflix. So yes, the ISP may decide that they are not responsible for delivering Netflix’s product the way Netflix would prefer to the 0.5% of the ISP’s customers who are eating 10% of their capacity. If Netflix wants to pay to improve their customers’ experience (and they do) that’s cool. But the 50 old people who are checking Drudge get priority over the two who are watching Netflix. (Actually, everyone gets served, just not at their peak bandwidth)

          2. You are correct.

            I had this argument with a California acquaintance years ago. I spelled out exactly your argument to no avail. All they can hear is the Comcast dog whistle.

            What I don’t get is why Google is pushing for it as well.

            1. Heavy bandwith users like Google don’t want to have to pay for that bandwith if they can help it. NN would make it so they don’t have to pay. It’s pure self-interest in Google’s case. And unlike Netflix, Google’s bandwith use doesn’t have much of an effect on “customer” experience. So if NN slows things down, Google doesn’t really care because they’re saving a ton of money and still delivering pretty much the same experience.

            2. What I don’t get is why Google is pushing for it as well.

              Because they ship fucktons of data down to the end user via YouTube and their other services.

              What all of this is the media-generating companies wanting the ISPs to subsidize their business model and they get the lefty mongoloids to clap and sing for NN as a free bonus.

            3. What I don’t get is why Google is pushing for it as well.

              Google wants to push it because google wants its future services to be accessible– and Google probably knows that they have a lot of high-bandwidth stuff planned in the future pipeline.

              NN makes it so Google won’t have to make a special deal. All they have to do is file a complaint with a government agency that users in X network segment are being denied access to delicious services because bandwidth limits!

              1. Google TV/Apple TV/Netflix/Etc are content providers whose streaming content is in direct competition with Comcast Xfinity (on demand). Comcast got nailed twice, before and after loosing a lawsuit against them for throttling bandwidth of torrent users. The fact that Comcast, among others (Time-Warner) are both content providers as well as ISPs was construed as anti-competitive by 3rd party content providers (Netflix) who rely on those ISPs (that they’re in direct competition with)to stream content to their end users. In light of the revelations of Comcast’s borderline vindictive manipulation of torrent users bandwidth, and actual data packets them selves, those 3rd party C.P.s realized how vulnerable their business models were at the hands those ISPs… They screamed for “protection”.. N.N.

          3. What a lot of people don’t realize is that most of this started when major corporations started torrenting their updates *cough*Blizzard*cough*.

            Comcast realized quickly that Blizzard had no intention of building the infrastructure to send billions of gigabytes out from their servers to update someone’s WoW client so they could finally win at next week’s PVP tourney.

            So Blizzard, quite cleverly, came up with an idea that they would torrent their client out, and let the ISPs shoulder the bandwidth strain between their users. Actually, it was quite a coup.

            However, comcast realized that every WoW patch tuesday, their switches and network was fucked sideways. Realizing that the nature of this of update methodology could kill their network, they started throttling them.

          4. “I care that they want to give away the freedom of the internet–which they will NEVER get back–in exchange for issues that will be resolved via technology and competition (where allowed) in the not too distant future.”

            This I completely agree with. I am not a fan of government mandated net neutrality as I recognize that government is the reason we have so many problems with the internet as we do.

            The biggest reason why we have the problems we have is because in most areas of the US, consumers have at most 2 options for internet and neither are really very good. Some areas, such as the town I live in, people have 1 providers that is even worse.

            Why? Because of government regulations and deals that effectively, if not explicitly, block competition among ISPs.

            1. Right, so Net Neutrality is exactly the wrong way to fix this.

            2. and neither are really very good.

              Bullshit.

              Broadband speeds in the US are in the top 10 and average at over 8Mbps.

              Compared to how fast it was 5 or 10 years ago US internet is astronomically faster and increasing in speed at pretty damn good clip.

              What the hell are you even comparing “really very good” to anyway? Not to the past which was shit internet…and not to the rest of the world which has shit internet.. Just some fantasy in your head of what is “really good” that everyone will probably have anyway 5 to 10 years from now and you will probably still be bitching about it not being “really very good” then.

              1. Oh yeah…and what the fuck will NN do to increase the number of ISPs and increase speeds?

                Fucking nothing that is what…and there is a good chance that NN will hurt competition and speeds.

        8. so under this scenario, netflix will constantly buffer and email will take forever to download. but equally miserable.

          1. It’s the single-payer of traffic ip traffic management.

            1. God. Medicare in charge of the internet. okay. i get it now.

              1. Or the USPS in charge of the internet. Choose the form of the Destroyer.

          2. So you turn on Netflix to watch something while your email downloads and just make the problem worse…

        9. It is about paying for a 15Mbps connection and being able to have that speed (or nearest approximate speed) regardless of the service I use.

          Wrong.

          It’s about ISPs prioritizing packets and charging heavy bandwidth producers more to deliver their product and/or charge them for a higher priority. IOW, when it all goes to shit and the network is flooded with torrents, Netflix has paid the ISP to give their packets priority over porn torrents, email or YouTube.

          You know, like you pay FedEx more to deliver your package overnight, instead of next week with USPS.

          In reality, it’s about fucking Comcast in the ass. That’s really all that matters. And they’ll give up any and all online freedom they have to get that.

        10. It’s not about how fast the consumer gets their data, it’s more about how fast it gets from the server, through the rest of the network, and even more about how *consistent* that rate is.

          That is the speed at which the video is streamed cannot jump up and down too much, because otherwise you get interruptions in the stream, which everyone hates.

          This is totally all baout the market desperately trying to find a way to make streaming video a reliable consistent process. Because the net does not have infinite bandwidth, the only way to do that is to prioritize streaming video traffic at bottlenecks.

        11. So if I want to check my email, it should download at 15Mbps. If I want to play an online game, it should communicate at 15Mbps. If I want to want a movie on Netflix, it should stream at 15Mbps.

          But that’s not how the internet works. You’re only paying for the “last mile”.
          If the traffic isn’t running at 15 Mbps from the online game’s server, then there isn’t fuck all that the ISP can do about it. Except to prioritize that traffic.

          You’re actually arguing the exact opposite of your point. If you really want your online game to communicate at 15 Mbps all the time, the ONLY way to accomplish that is to proritize that traffic over other traffic during bottlenecks.

          Net neutrality owuld mean that you *can’t* do that. Some other random schmoes email must be treated as equally important as your online gaming data. Nevermind that people DONT READ EMAIL IN REAL TIME.

      5. that they might have to pay more for using shittons of bandwith,

        But my ISP already has different price/bandwidth tiers. What am I missing??

        1. OK I’ve read some more above and while I see competing notions of exactly what’s going on, I do agree that the government will fuck it up regardless of the details.

        2. We go into the details just above.

        3. They may decide how fast they let packets coming from one of Netflix’s servers onto their backbone. They may not be throttling you. Or they may be reading your packets and not let you swamp the local switch with torrent packets when others are trying to use it. They don’t actually have the full capacity they sold everyone (neither do the phone companies. If everyone picks up their cell phone at the same time, cell networks often overload and fail). As utilization ramps up they throttle the big users because cutting your bandwidth by half for the prime time hours lets them serve 10000 other customers who are reading web-pages with that bandwidth.

    2. You see, the corporations finance Team America, and then Team America goes out… and the corporations sit there in their… in their corporation buildings, and… and, and see, they’re all corporation-y… and they make money!

    3. I have to plead ignorance. I don’t get this at all. What is the problem under the current system?

      The government is largely hamstrung in its ability to pick winners and losers. Plus, NN can bring in a kind of EU-style fairness doctrine if applied correctly.

      There’s just too much power sitting there, being ignored.

  7. We’ll all be dead by climate change before any of this matters
    /498 days

    1. haven’t heard this one. septemer 25th 2015?

      1. From 2 days ago:
        French Foreign Minister: ‘We Have 500 Days to Avoid Climate Chaos’

        1. Wait, I thought the world was going to end because of income inequality first. Jeez, I wish they would pick a talking point of doom and stick with it for more than a week.

        2. Ahh. They never run out of derp.

  8. OT but relevant to government authority.

    So I commented on the youtube video for Voteman on Youtube, asking how Europe has fallen so far when voting controls the amount of cinnamon on a cinnamon bun. This was the response:

    Robert Hritz1 day ago

    Well that is because (the usually used variant of) cinnamon contains a big amount of coumarin, causing liver damage in some. Yes, it is one of government roles to regulate that kind of thing

    One is left without words.

    1. If anything can possibly cause damage to anyone else under any circumstance, you must government it.

    2. there are people who, literally, would welcome govt regulating the number, ply count, and relative strength of toilet paper a person could use in wiping his own ass.

      1. If Charmin passed a law saying they’re the only company allowed to sell toilet paper, then yes I would suddenly take an interest in regulating what sort of toilet paper they have to sell.

        Once there’s a government mandated monopoly, the market is no longer an option for me to make my preferences know. Wake me when Comcast starts lobbying to band Franchise Laws. Until then, fuck Comcast.

        1. I guess I didn’t need to apologize for implying that you were one of those phony libertarians who supports corporatism as I did here.

          Because you clearly are one those phony libertarians who supports corporatism.

  9. I don’t get all the bitching. I’m streaming videos and using the web in my house, as are my kids, without any major problems. I need to fuck up the Internet with government why, exactly?

    1. Because you’re a rich corporate lawyer who gets tier I internet. I might not. That’s not fair.

    2. I can’t play you tube for more than 20 seconds a go because Verizon is deliberately letting their connections saturate rather than expanding. So I keep paying for service I don’t get, and I can’t go to another company because the have a law saying only they and Comcast are allowed to provide broadband in my county.

      1. And under net neutrality, the federal government will more tightly control who is allowed to provide broadband for the country in addition to the municipal and county governments!

        No way Comcast will game that addition to its advantage!

        1. My point is that Comcast et. al was the one who brought government interference into the market. Don’t ask me to feel sorry for them now that their Frankenstein’s Monster has turned on them.

          1. You are amazingly stupid. Congratulations. Are you sure you’re not Tulpa too?

            1. Nah, I’m George Soros. Warren Buffet is Tulpa.

          2. That isn’t what your point seemed to be:

            Because you wrote in answer to the question, “I need to fuck up the Internet with government why, exactly?”

            with the answer

            “I can’t play you tube for more than 20 seconds a go because Verizon is deliberately letting their connections saturate rather than expanding.”

            Maybe you just messed up due to the threading and you didn’t mean to post that statement as an answer to that question but as a standalone comment. If so, I apologize for implying that you were one of those phony libertarians who supports corporatism.

            1. The government is already fucked up with government. The only difference here is that now it’s fucked up in away Comcast doesn’t like. But the subject never comes up outside net neutrality, because the phony libertarians here don’t actually care about big government unless it hurts a big corporation.

              1. The internet is already fucked up with government, even.

              2. But net neutrality doesn’t hurt a big corporation honey.

                It benefits one set of corporations at the expense of another set.

                By arguing in favor of net neutrality, you are actually supporting the big-government/corporate collusion you claim to oppose.

                1. Yeah NN is nothing but regulatory capture.

                  Microsoft and Google can afford to put new fiber in the ground easy. In fact google is already doing that.

                  All NN will do is eliminate the need for competition..which will only make internet slower and more expensive and limit choice.

              3. because the phony libertarians here

                Stormy please go fuck yourself and die.

                Phony? really?

          3. Oh, well Comcast is bad. So anything done against Comcast must be good and justified. Makes sense!

          4. My point is that Comcast et. al was the one who brought government interference into the market.

            Nope. Local governments wanted franchise agreements for cable, not open competition. Franchises meant more opportunities for graft, forcing cable companies to televise local politics, etc. Maybe Comcast etc. wanted exclusiveness, but only the local governments could grant it, so that’s where the blame should go.

      2. You’re a complete idiot. The ONLY way that Verizon can guarentee that your You Tube videos DON’T stop playing every 20 seconds is to prioritize YouTube video traffic over other traffic.

        They aren’t deliberately letting their connections saturate. They are doing *exactly* what net neutrality advocates want. They are treating YouTube video data equally with all other traffic. That means that when other traffic is heavier, YouTube video traffic slows down.

        If you want your fucking youTube videos to be prioritized over email and web traffic, then you should be in FAVOR of letting Comcast charge YouTube for priority routing.

  10. Hmmm, 51 comments and no mention of Franchise Laws. Comcast isn’t bothered having governement involvement in the internet when it’s protecting them from competition, but the second the government is protecting their customers, OMG, BIG GOVERNMENT OUTRAGE from all the phony libertarians.

    1. Fuck off, you weeping twat.

      It’s well established here that franchise laws are the root of the problem. NN is not about that and hence, not being discussed.

      Now you know.

      1. So if it’s well established that’s the root of the problem, why isn’t it being discussed? Because phony libertarianism isn’t actually about solving problems.

        1. Tea in china!

          We need to talk about it!!!

          You are fake human beings if you think we should not!!

    2. Hmmm, 51 comments and no mention of Franchise Laws.

      OMG you suck.

      NN has nothing to do with franchise laws and it will do nothing to fix the problems caused by franchise laws and will add similar problems that franchise laws cause along with completely new problems.

      But oh yeah lets bitch and whine about your particular internet service which has probably improved being faster and cheaper then it was 20, 10 and 5 years ago.

      But yeah sure you have a problem caused by government (franchise laws) and you want to fix it with more government.

      Fucking brilliant you stupid twat.

      1. Honestly, I view Net Neutrality to be the equivalent of treating a paper cut by shooting the patient with a gun.

        Apparently my opposition to gun shot wounds makes me a proponent of false medicine because I haven’t written anything decrying paper.

        1. “You oppose gun shot wounds, therefore you oppose guns. You are a fake libertarian!!! waaaaaaahhhh!!!”

          – Stormy Dragon

      2. But oh yeah lets bitch and whine about your particular internet service which has probably improved being faster and cheaper then it was 20, 10 and 5 years ago.

        It’s noticeably worse than it was a few years ago. e.g. Exactly when Verizon started rolling out Fios and suddenly You Tube was a competitor to their in house Video on Demand service.

        1. FWIW, my internet is WAYY better than even a couple years ago — and I’m on Time Warner FFS.

          1. At home, Charter cable, i have seen huge improvements over the past 5 years.

            At my office, Verizon DSL, it is about the same if not a bit worse…worse only because everyone in the office is on the same connection and we are all using more and more bandwidth. Uptime at the office has improved though.

        2. But your internet is better then it was 20 10 and 5 years ago right?

          and you even admitted that there is a another prover which you haven’t even tried to switch too yet.

          and you have not stated one piece of evidence that NN will do jack shit to improve your situation.

          And your situation is not even close to what nearly everyone else in the country is experiencing which is improved faster and cheaper service.

          But yeah sure we are all phoney libertarians because Verizon’s DSL central office in your area is run by idiots…makes a whole lot of fucking sense there Stormy.

          1. and you even admitted that there is a another prover which you haven’t even tried to switch too yet.

            Because as bad a verizon is, comcast is even worse.

            and you have not stated one piece of evidence that NN will do jack shit to improve your situation.

            Frankly, I’m not even in favor of NN, I’m just bothered by the tears on how put upon Comcast would be. In terms of regulation, what I’d actually like is a separation between the content providers and the telecommunications providers. If I’m going to be restricted in whose pipes I can hook up to, then they at least shouldn’t have a conflict of interest by also being one of the parties sending stuff through the pipes.

            1. conflict of interest = competition.

              What you think Google and Microsoft can’t afford to lay some fiber?

              Hey but lets talk about conflict of interest. FCC mandated MaBell’s monopoly…and MaBell prevented any network from ever existing on their phone network until it was broken up.

              Conflict of interest much?

            2. The only problem I can really see is that if ComCast is a monopoly, it has less incentive to build more bandwidth instead of charging more for the limited bandwidth they have.

              The only role for net neutrality in this is that if you prevent comcast from prioritizing traffic, then they are forced to build a shit ton more bandwidth. But if they aren’t getting paid to do that, why would they?
              If you think comcast doesn’t have enough competition, then net neutrality isn’t going to change that.

          2. And no, Verizon’s DSL office isn’t run by idiots. As long as there’s no chance of competition, providing shitty service makes perfect sense.

            1. I am using Verizon right now.

              In my area it works fine. So yes your Verizon operators are idiots.

              You are also an idiot for not changing or at least trying Comcast when Verizon gives you crappy service in your area.

              That is how competition works.

    3. I don’t need the government’s protection, thanks.

      Jesus. Trying to shame libertarians for not praising “the government protecting customers.”

  11. NO way man, who in their right mind would have thought of that?

    http://www.YourAnon.tk

  12. NOBODY IS FUCKING GETTING IT.

    They want to charge Netflix more so that YOU can get your netflix videos down without having them randomly stop playing back in the middle. Because that is not how the internet normally works!! The internet was not designed to stream video!!

    When you open a link to Google, do you not get a dedicated chunk of bandwidth between you and Google. What you gets is a bunch of packets that get put in a QUEUE. And the time it takes the shit in the queue to get to you depends stochastically on the traffic level and capacity through all of the fiberoptic lines and routers and hubs that connect you to Google’s server. Most of the time, you don’t notice it because your browser just downloads a page of text and then stops until you click on a new link. Your behavior is stochastic. You notice the occational lag, but not enough to bother you.

    But when you try to watch a video, you either download the whole thing in advance (which takes forever), or you STREAM – which means you START WATCHING before you’ve gotten the whole video. Which means that if the data rate slows down, the video stops playing back in the middle.

    And since that pisses everyone off, Netflix wants to stop that. So they want the ISPs to prioritize their traffic so they can get the video data through fast enough to prevent people’s videos from randomly stopping. And the ISPs want to CHARGE THEM for doing that. That’s all that’s going on.

  13. I think there is a vast failure on the part of some people to understand that the internet is a stochastic process that involves a lot of queueing where the rate of stuff going into the queue is varying randomly.

    As a result, randomly varying download rates are an inherent fact of internet reality. It’s not the ISP out there being a dick just to fuck with you. They aren’t deliberately slowing down your YouTube video because they think you are using too much bandwidth. There just happen to be a lot of other people all over the country doing various things that use bandwidth in between you and YouTube’s servers.

    You are never going to get a guarenteed constant traffic speed to anywhere on the internet. Not without dedicating 15 mbps just to your exclusive use through every fucking data hub in the world. That’s not how the internet works.

    Net neutrality, by definition, means that every packet going into the queue must be treated equally. Which means your email is just as important as the next packet of your Netflix video stream. Which means that when traffic is high the ISP can’t deliver that video packet instead of the email packet because THE LAW says that would be illegal.

    1. Exactly. Netflix is at least buffered. Wouldn’t VoIP and VTC over the internet with low latency and jitter be awesome? Or kill the lag on your MMO of choice, or awesome stuff.

      We can have many queues based upon the delay sensitivity of the traffic AND PAY FOR IT. Resulting in a better internet. Its not like the best practices for converged networks aren’t well known for at least a decade or anything.

      But yeah lets get the government involved in a bunch of B2B billing negotiations. That always works out.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.