Author Topic: Net neutrality  (Read 1867 times)

Adios

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 96724
    • View Profile
Net neutrality
« on: December 20, 2010, 03:53:56 pm »
For many Americans -- particularly those who live in rural areas -- the future of the Internet lies in mobile services. But the draft Order would effectively permit Internet providers to block lawful content, applications, and devices on mobile Internet connections.

Mobile networks like AT&T and Verizon Wireless would be able to shut off your access to content or applications for any reason. For instance, Verizon could prevent you from accessing Google Maps on your phone, forcing you to use their own mapping program, Verizon Navigator, even if it costs money to use and isn't nearly as good. Or a mobile provider with a political agenda could prevent you from downloading an app that connects you with the Obama campaign (or, for that matter, a Tea Party group in your area).

It gets worse. The FCC has never before explicitly allowed discrimination on the Internet -- but the draft Order takes a step backwards, merely stating that so-called "paid prioritization" (the creation of a "fast lane" for big corporations who can afford to pay for it) is cause for concern.

It sure is -- but that's exactly why the FCC should ban it. Instead, the draft Order would have the effect of actually relaxing restrictions on this kind of discrimination.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-franken/the-most-important-free-s_b_798984.html?ir=Politics

Gotta love it. The death of Freedom of Speech.

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 87071
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: Net neutrality
« Reply #1 on: December 20, 2010, 04:04:55 pm »
So, no one has read it yet, but everyone know what it will say?

Adios

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 96724
    • View Profile
Re: Net neutrality
« Reply #2 on: December 20, 2010, 04:07:52 pm »
So, no one has read it yet, but everyone know what it will say?

Sounds like someone has been talking..........

Adios

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 96724
    • View Profile
Re: Net neutrality
« Reply #3 on: December 20, 2010, 04:29:20 pm »
Later this week, the FCC is set to vote on net neutrality rules, which would prohibit Internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon from discriminating in how they handle information traveling over their networks. Both supporters and opponents of net neutrality are unhappy with the FCC's plan, some arguing it is toothless while others asserting that the rules will stifle innovation. Al Franken called the draft regulations "worse than nothing," while McDowell accused FCC leadership of tackling an "imaginary problem."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/20/fcc-commissioner-net-neut_n_798998.html

More data on the issue. Still no copy of the regulation itself though.

Prince Glittersnatch III

  • Heir to the throne of King Kong
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 27301
  • Landlord of the Flies
    • View Profile
Re: Net neutrality
« Reply #4 on: December 21, 2010, 02:35:02 am »
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?=743264506 <---worst human being to ever live.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Other%20Pagan%20Mumbo-Jumbo/discordianism.htm <----Learn the truth behind Discordianism

Glittersnatch would be a rather unfortunate condition, if a halfway decent troll name.

AORTAL SEX MADES MY DICK HARD AS FUCK!

Requia ☣

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 53479
  • Delicate and pretty shark of impending doom.
    • View Profile
Re: Net neutrality
« Reply #5 on: December 21, 2010, 02:53:13 am »
I'm going to wait till I actually get to see the rules to claim the sky is falling.

I do want to know why they haven't shown the public the legislation yet though.  Isn't Obama even pretending to have transparent government anymore?
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.

Prince Glittersnatch III

  • Heir to the throne of King Kong
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 27301
  • Landlord of the Flies
    • View Profile
Re: Net neutrality
« Reply #6 on: December 21, 2010, 02:57:01 am »
I'm going to wait till I actually get to see the rules to claim the sky is falling.

I do want to know why they haven't shown the public the legislation yet though.  Isn't Obama even pretending to have transparent government anymore?

I dont think Obama cares about appeasing the masses anymore.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?=743264506 <---worst human being to ever live.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Other%20Pagan%20Mumbo-Jumbo/discordianism.htm <----Learn the truth behind Discordianism

Glittersnatch would be a rather unfortunate condition, if a halfway decent troll name.

AORTAL SEX MADES MY DICK HARD AS FUCK!

Adios

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 96724
    • View Profile
Re: Net neutrality
« Reply #7 on: December 21, 2010, 03:07:38 pm »
But some FCC members said the regulations, which won't be fully public for at least a few days after the vote, are an important first step for the government.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/20/AR2010122005769.html?hpid=topnews


Why can't we see the regs now? What happened to transparancy?  :argh!:

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 87071
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: Net neutrality
« Reply #8 on: December 21, 2010, 03:10:34 pm »
The white house stopped doing that at least a week into the new administration.

Adios

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 96724
    • View Profile
Re: Net neutrality
« Reply #9 on: December 21, 2010, 03:13:59 pm »
The white house stopped doing that at least a week into the new administration.
Oh snap, forgot about that.

Cain

  • Alea iacta est
  • Chekha
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 105003
    • View Profile
Re: Net neutrality
« Reply #10 on: December 21, 2010, 04:44:33 pm »
transparent government

Government you can see right through?

Adios

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 96724
    • View Profile
Re: Net neutrality
« Reply #11 on: December 21, 2010, 04:46:53 pm »
transparent government

Government you can see right through?

But...but...WE WERE PROMISED DAMMIT!  :horrormirth:

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 87071
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: Net neutrality
« Reply #12 on: December 21, 2010, 04:52:41 pm »
transparent government

Government you can see right through?

:mittens:

Needs to somehow be made into a newsfeed.

Jenne

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 79228
    • View Profile
Re: Net neutrality
« Reply #13 on: December 21, 2010, 05:17:30 pm »
WE WERE PROMISED A TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT THAT WE COULD SEE RIGHT THROUGH.  OBAMA DELIVERED.

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

  • Probably
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 8974
    • View Profile
Re: Net neutrality
« Reply #14 on: December 21, 2010, 05:23:04 pm »
I'm torn on this.

On the one hand I am and always have been an avid supporter of no preferential traffic on the net. I've been on the net since 89 and to give preferential treatment would fundamentally change the entire concept of the internet.

On the other hand, wireless broadband is from a technical standpoint currently drowning in streaming video, to the point that there's some real risk to actual phone service. Cellular networks simply cannot keep up with the current wireless/mobile device usage. The network was never designed to facilitate web surfing, let alone streaming internet radio... and certainly the engineers never thought that someone would try to watch a 90 minute streaming video on their cell phone.

This new FCC ruling is a confused batch of nonsense... trying, IMO to address both of these issues.

According to what scant information we have... the FCC ruling will bar ISP's from limiting bandwidth for specific services, using QoS routing for specific sites or slow delivery of packets for any web service. This is basically what we wanted in net neutrality. Your provider cannot say "Well, we're gonna block torrents" or "We give preferred traffic access to Fox, but low access to Alternet, cause Fox paid us". Depending on how the order is written, this may well be a Good Thing.

The bad thing is that Wireless has different rules. IE, if you use VoIP, Streaming Video etc. on your phone or iPad your Service Provider could charge you more, than if you just surfed the web and checked email. They could even choose to block services like YouTube, unless they were allowing a competing product.

And this may be a bad thing, because more and more people access the net via wireless. However, from a technical position... this is a very good thing. The number of new wireless devices coming online, using broadband services are seriously impacting the wireless network. At some point in the near future, making a phone call may be difficult, because everyone else is watching Lord of the Rings on their new G2. This is really the part that I struggle with.

The primary purpose of the wireless cellular network is for voice service, should we allow streaming video to impact the availability of the networks primary purpose? Or should we allow people completely unfettered access to do whatever they want, even if it seriously impacts other users ability to make phone calls? We're already seeing local networks bomb under heavy load (Washington DC in the run up to the Obama Inauguration, for example).

I think it will heavily depend on exactly what is in the FCC ruling. Its a weird balance issue and not simply "THEY WANT TO CONTROL MY INTERNETS!!" (though depending on the actual ruling... it may be headed that way).
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson