Net Neutrality and the FCC

harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Net Neutrality and the FCC

So what exactly are all the ramifications of this ?

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/1/14/federal-court-throwsoutnetneutralityrules.html

 

A federal appeals court on Tuesday threw out rules from the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, that required Internet service providers to treat all Internet traffic equally, a principle known as “net neutrality.”

The decision in the case, which pitted telecommunications giant Verizon against the FCC's Open Internet rules, might open the door for ISPs to charge major companies like Google or Facebook for speedier access to content, edging out smaller content providers.

The United States Court of Appeals in D.C. ruled that FCC net neutrality rules were invalid because the Commission had previously classified the Internet as an “information service” rather than as a “telecommunications service.”

“Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act (of 1996) expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such,” reads the ruling.

The FCC can still attempt to reclassify broadband providers as a telecommunications service, a step that the court says would give the FCC more oversight power.

Proponents of net neutrality say Internet users should be able to access any web content and use any applications they choose, without restrictions or varying charges imposed by Internet service providers or the government.

The FCC further maintains that equal access to the Internet is necessary to facilitate a competitive market, encouraging the investment and innovation that has driven growth in the Internet sector for decades. Without the Open Internet rules, the FCC says, richer companies will reap an unfair advantage.

The ISPs that built these networks, on the other hand, argue the FCC has no right to intervene in how they manage their information pipelines.

"We look forward to working with the FCC and Congress to keep the Internet a hub of innovation without the need for unnecessary new regulations that seek to manage the explosive dynamism of the Internet," Verizon said in a statement.

Internet law experts are split on the necessity of net neutrality rules, said Jim Speta, a professor at Northwestern University School of Law who specializes in telecommunications law. "My own view is that the Open Internet rules are not necessary to maintain a broadly open and competitive Internet ecosystem, but that's where the essential fight is in the policy space."

Tom Wheeler, the FCC chairman, said in a statement that the Commission would consider an appeal of the ruling.

“We will consider all available options, including those for appeal, to ensure that these networks on which the Internet depends continue to provide a free and open platform for innovation and expression, and operate in the interest of all Americans.”

Tuesday’s ruling was not all bad news for the FCC, however. Without defining specific parameters, the court acknowledged the FCC’s authority to govern the Internet, which has long been disputed.

"The short game is that it’s a win for Verizon on getting the most burdensome parts of the Open Internet rules struck down," Speta told Al Jazeera.

"But in the more important long game, the FCC mostly wins the day because the court recognized statutory authority for the FCC to regulate broadband markets. It's a big win for the Commission and a big change to the regulatory landscape."

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The way I understand it, it

The way I understand it, it basically turns service providers into television stations. If a provider doesn't like a site they can refuse to allow access. And they can take money from customers AND websites instead of just customers. Might be a good idea to look into starting up a service provider if you want unfettered access to the internet in the US.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Ironically, the only

Ironically, the only organizations that have ever prevented me from visiting a site that I wanted to were the New York State Attorney General's office and the FBI, when they shut down my beloved poker websites. The Internet works great without any help from the US government.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15757
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Ironically, the only organizations that have ever prevented me from visiting a site that I wanted to were the New York State Attorney General's office and the FBI, when they shut down my beloved poker websites. The Internet works great without any help from the US government.

Why does your stupidity not shock me?

 

No moron, we are not Somolia. I am tired of your stupid attitude that any relgulation is bad.

 

Now while this is a lower court ruling, like most when a lower court throws a case out, they are not preventing another one from comming up.

Like Citizens United, however, if another case comes up and goes all the way to the Supreme Court, and they side with corporate media, this will allow more monopolies to arise and create the same level of big money bullying media as it does politics.

 

Your pathetic attitude towards everything is "all laws are bad".  The only way to reduce relgulation and make government smaller is for those with the money and power to have ethics. Money by itself does not automatically equate to morality.

You want to staple your nuts to the wall fine have at it, but that does not mean I want your stupidity and your selfish attitude running our country.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
The pendulum swings ???

 Re :: The pendulum swings ???

 

 

   The internet is probably the only media provider that allows for the most inventive use of 'regulation'. I never understood how "(dot)com" became the catch-all within the high level domain's domain (TLD) designations (examples : .net; .org; .info; .com; .tu, etc.),.

  Yes, Unfortunately there remains a number of challenges from an number of areas of inquiry; surely it is no surprise that's a dominate category needing further fleshing out and from its' tender age, alot has to do with this. Especially with its' (the Internet's) 'wild-west' background, which it notoriously got completely out of hand (serious).. It hard not to forget for thousands daily people are relatively new to the online experience. Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

   An aside  :: I doubt it would help to say but you may have noticed this yourself. Portal sites like Google have been both secretively and openly been 'trying' to 'clean' up its' (that's google's) image page. With no intervention from anyone other than finding a need, which is ironic because they are doing it for reasons that are nothing more than improving easability and the net experience.   No crusade, not that it isn't overdue for one!

  I remember about two years ago, I went to my Great Aunt's house she was watching Public Broadcasting (PBS), in North America; it was showing how to hand tie fly-fishing lures. Not into fishing, believe it or not, but I used to go to the gym when I was seventy pounds heavier. There was a very nice man there who was 'around' who was always and always talking about fishing. Being led from above more than out of a more typical loathsome compulsion, in his case. Anyway, This non-typical Gym-rat guy, He would have loved the show.

   Just for fun, right after I went to Google Images to look up these hand ties. In the image search at Google Images up cropped busty girls in bikinis that were fly fishing. I wasnt looking for that, now was I ?!!? I have noticed their (Google's) efforts in the last 18 months in this area, but didnt even bothered to ever look up fly-fishing anything after that search.

 

 --   --   --

 Stillness (tehe) 


 

Eph. 4  -- . .which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.

 

 post script  -- No Teralek sightings  We hardly knew ye! Check out Link /Url  ::  http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/34179

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Ironically, the only organizations that have ever prevented me from visiting a site that I wanted to were the New York State Attorney General's office and the FBI, when they shut down my beloved poker websites. The Internet works great without any help from the US government.

Which leads me to a question that I have never fully gotten the answer from (since I generally do not use the web for those purposes) but I had read somewhere about  sites that could not be touched due to the fact that they were not located in the US and vice versa ? How does that affect stuff like gambling, drugs and porn say ? 

However, I have occasionally had videos that would not play on Youtube due to come country blocking it, and that always pisses me off because sometimes I want to send a newsclip to European friends, or they want to send me something off of youtube from say Russia or England, and inevtiably, stuff is always blocked where no one can see it. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:Beyond

harleysportster wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Ironically, the only organizations that have ever prevented me from visiting a site that I wanted to were the New York State Attorney General's office and the FBI, when they shut down my beloved poker websites. The Internet works great without any help from the US government.

Which leads me to a question that I have never fully gotten the answer from (since I generally do not use the web for those purposes) but I had read somewhere about  sites that could not be touched due to the fact that they were not located in the US and vice versa ? How does that affect stuff like gambling, drugs and porn say ? 

However, I have occasionally had videos that would not play on Youtube due to come country blocking it, and that always pisses me off because sometimes I want to send a newsclip to European friends, or they want to send me something off of youtube from say Russia or England, and inevtiably, stuff is always blocked where no one can see it. 

 

                   Gambling sites located outside the USA are untouched by US law,   but when US dollars are sent overseas to pay the debts, that becomes a violation of US law and it is likely the Secret Service {Treasury dept.} that investigates, at which point the FCC shuts down the site, or at least the sites access to the US market.  Keep in mind the FBI often gets undue credit for what other US agencys accomplish. The Secret Service isn't called "Secret" for nothing.

 

 

                    On this site {RRS} I have trubble seeing videos posted by members, especially "The Daily show" , it's because "Comedy Central" owns Canada's copyright to the content. I have to go to Comedy Central {a Canadian website} to see it.  The European market has to be working under the same copyright laws, the same rules easily applies to news and other source material.

 

 

   

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond Saving

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Ironically, the only organizations that have ever prevented me from visiting a site that I wanted to were the New York State Attorney General's office and the FBI, when they shut down my beloved poker websites. The Internet works great without any help from the US government.

Why does your stupidity not shock me?

 

No moron, we are not Somolia. I am tired of your stupid attitude that any relgulation is bad.

 

Now while this is a lower court ruling, like most when a lower court throws a case out, they are not preventing another one from comming up.

Like Citizens United, however, if another case comes up and goes all the way to the Supreme Court, and they side with corporate media, this will allow more monopolies to arise and create the same level of big money bullying media as it does politics.

 

Your pathetic attitude towards everything is "all laws are bad".  The only way to reduce relgulation and make government smaller is for those with the money and power to have ethics. Money by itself does not automatically equate to morality.

You want to staple your nuts to the wall fine have at it, but that does not mean I want your stupidity and your selfish attitude running our country.

 

 

Why does your fascist attitude not surprise me? 

I'm not talking about "all laws", I'm talking about specific regulations regarding net neutrality. The internet is not broken, it doesn't need a government fix. This whole thing started because one company, Comcast, decided to restrict bandwidth for peer to peer services because the people using P2P were slowing service down for everyone else. Then talk of "net neutrality" started because government saw a way to get their foot in the door. Does anyone seriously think that the government that has spent significant resources prosecuting P2P networks and has successfully shut several of them down gives a flying fuck about making sure bittorrent users get equal bandwidth to non-bittorrent users?

Companies themselves can decide how to allocate their resources to provide their customers with the best online experience. For some, that will mean restricting bandwidth for P2P- because it is a bandwidth hog- and will provide a better experience for everyone else. For others, it might mean specializing in offering fast speeds for P2P. If you don't like your ISP, there is some company out there that will offer whatever services you are willing to pay for. If you are primarily using the Internet for work purposes, it is beneficial to have bandwidth for things like streaming tv, P2P and other bandwidth hogs restricted. If you primarily use your internet for watching tv, then obviously you want an ISP that doesn't restrict those things. There are ISP's that specialize in both markets. We don't need government coming through and demanding that every single fucking ISP operates exactly the same. People are not the same and are not seeking the same fucking things on the net.

And again, you have the irony, aside from Comcast the only other organizations I have heard of that significantly restrict or even ban P2P are government. It is pretty common practice for government universities to significantly restrict them. Around the world, when people are prevented from viewing a website, it is invariably a government entity that has put the block in place or required the block to be put in place. It is the FCC that actively attempts to censor content on tv and it is a huge mistake to allow that same organization to have the power to regulate the Internet. Fuck the FCC.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Well to be fair, governments

Well to be fair, governments often do so at the behest of corporations. If governments didn't restrict the abilities of corporations then those corporations would arrange it themselves.

There are no innocent parties in this kind of thing.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Well to be

Vastet wrote:
Well to be fair, governments often do so at the behest of corporations. If governments didn't restrict the abilities of corporations then those corporations would arrange it themselves. There are no innocent parties in this kind of thing.

 

Net neutrality laws are being pushed for by companies like Google and Amazon, but have been opposed by Comcast, AT&T and Verizon. The idea that somehow big government and big business are opposed is ridiculous. Regulations are not written by people who are looking out for the "greater good", they are written by people in the industry that have skin in the game- often with the goal of controlling other businesses in a way that is beneficial to them and making it more difficult for smaller companies to compete. The funny thing is that Brian doesn't even recognize that he is on the side of big business. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm not saying anything like

I'm not saying anything like that, I'm just saying that if the government wasn't making regulations that companies would be. There's always someone's money on the line, and that someone very often does whatever they can to hold on to every penny, even if the cost outweighs the benefit. Business and government are remarkably similar in that respect.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.