FCC votes in favour of net neutrality

Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by We Are Borg, Feb 26, 2015.

  1. Nova

    Nova livin on the edge of the ledge Writer

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    49,058
    Ratings:
    +37,187
    isn't that a consumption tax, much like a sales tax, which is considered a more conservative form of taxation?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. gturner

    gturner Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2014
    Messages:
    19,572
    Ratings:
    +3,648
    Dude. I was there. I used 110 kbs teletype machines, and yes, we put them in a closet, and I had to read, over the airwaves, around the errors in the UPI feed. We used that machine for twenty years. It was from a telecommunications company, before we ingeniously invented the idea of an information company. From the time I was a small child I had to help with FCC proof of performance reviews. I hated that, though we aced them all.

    What the FCC has done is open all the Internet to the old rules of public review, where really stupid people show up and get to voice their opposition to whatever it is you are doing. When my dad started out, a woman he was wiring up for radio said, "I'm not stupid, even I know the difference between direct and indirect current." That was when average people understood electrical communications, and when college electrical engineering curricula were premised on the idea that incoming freshmen had already build working radios from scratch, understanding tuned circuits and reactance and bandpass filters in ways not seen since. Now we have drooling morons driving policy, who can't conceive that bandwidth isn't infinite and that all messages don't have the same priority, formatting, or context, much less that those traits can be distinguished. God help us all.
  3. Ancalagon

    Ancalagon Scalawag Administrator Formerly Important

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    51,346
    Location:
    Downtown
    Ratings:
    +57,469
    As usual you are completely and totally lying. Starting the moment after the government broke up the AT&T monopoly the telecommunications companies unleashed a torrent of innovation. Microwave, Fiber Optics, Cellular. All a decade if not decades before this sudden change in 1996 you are pulling out of your ass.

    However, just for shits and giggles, lets pretend you aren't completely full of shit. Let's pretend we had no technological advances from 1930 until 1996... you are now claiming that 20 years ago Congress fixed the problems keeping us in the dark ages for those 80 years. So problem solved no?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. gturner

    gturner Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2014
    Messages:
    19,572
    Ratings:
    +3,648
    This gets into some very important questions, as all states will be free to tax it. If your state taxes bandwidth, it will be reviled as non egalitarian in some circles, but not in others. If your state taxes by connection, it will attract Google and other high bandwidth providers, who will collude with your legislators to maintain that they really only have the one connection - to 20 million customers. However you do it, it will determine whether companies flee or arrive, and there will be a massive jostling of the status quo based on tax incentives, rates, and a whole lot of money is in play. Massive corruption is a given, and the winners will be those who can avoid the appearance of it.
  5. gturner

    gturner Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2014
    Messages:
    19,572
    Ratings:
    +3,648
    Lets talk the difference between a Colpitts and Hartley oscillators, move to differences in vacuum tube loigic, TTL technologies, and move from there.

    There's a fascinating alternate reality where the transistor was invented as an freakish behavior in the obvious development of a voltage variable capacitor for tuning circuits, now called the varicap, because for common use it was routine to use two varicaps in series with the tuning voltage run to the common cathode or anode, begging for a single device solution with a single N or P connection and an opposite set of terminals for the tuned circuit. Reverse biased is would be a voltage variable capacitor, worth a fortune in the radio market. Forward biased it would drive engineer insane until they figured out how a bipolar transistor worked.
  6. Ancalagon

    Ancalagon Scalawag Administrator Formerly Important

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    51,346
    Location:
    Downtown
    Ratings:
    +57,469
    As usual you are completely and totally lying. Starting the moment after the government broke up the AT&T monopoly the telecommunications companies unleashed a torrent of innovation. Microwave, Fiber Optics, Cellular. All a decade if not decades before this sudden change in 1996 you are pulling out of your ass.

    However, just for shits and giggles, lets pretend you aren't completely full of shit. Let's pretend we had no technological advances from 1930 until 1996... you are now claiming that 20 years ago Congress fixed the problems keeping us in the dark ages for those 80 years. So problem solved no?
  7. gturner

    gturner Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2014
    Messages:
    19,572
    Ratings:
    +3,648
    I lived the era. All the innovations were taking place without a net. I using packet radio over the airwaves, because land lines wouldn't work. The Trek BBS was called the Trek BBS because it was a BBS - over phone lines regulated byte Title II. Under those regulations, you can't have hotbeds of innovation because resources and investments must be aimed at getting good service to the hinterlands of Alabama and Appalachia, not creating massive innovation in Boston and San Francisco. Thus the early hackers hacked to cheesy, and worldwide, secret tone system of AT&T. Everything those hackers did was illegal, and is still illegal under Title II, because what the wrought wasn't regulated government fairness. It was chaos.
  8. John Castle

    John Castle Banned Writer

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Messages:
    21,748
    Ratings:
    +8,142
    Ha! I still remember the COCOT test codes. 10-10-80-20-1 was my pre-"paid" phone card of choice! :D
  9. Ancalagon

    Ancalagon Scalawag Administrator Formerly Important

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    51,346
    Location:
    Downtown
    Ratings:
    +57,469
    As usual you are completely and totally lying. Starting the moment after the government broke up the AT&T monopoly the telecommunications companies unleashed a torrent of innovation. Microwave, Fiber Optics, Cellular. All a decade if not decades before this sudden change in 1996 you are pulling out of your ass.

    However, just for shits and giggles, lets pretend you aren't completely full of shit. Let's pretend we had no technological advances from 1930 until 1996... you are now claiming that 20 years ago Congress fixed the problems keeping us in the dark ages for those 80 years. So problem solved no?
  10. gturner

    gturner Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2014
    Messages:
    19,572
    Ratings:
    +3,648
    When the government broke up AT&T, you just got a bunch of baby AT&T's, for about decade. A few companies like Sprint already existed, but they were prohibited from providing switched phone service because of FCC regulations, even though they already had their own microwave and fiber optic lines run along their railroad lines (to keep the trains running). So they had to sell private fax lines and such. They didn't get into the wireless market until 1993. Telenet already existed, but it had to be run separate from phone service and was not regulated as a telecommunications company.

    The whole process was one of getting away from the decades of regulatory burdens, and both Republicans and Democrats agreed on it wholeheartedly. But by the 2000's some Marists became convinced that we'll never have true freedom as long as corporations are deciding on the upgrades and services, and those are the people who founded the groups that pushed for "net neutrality" and "internet freedom" that finally pressured the FCC into doing something the FCC was loathe to do, and which Congress prohibited. Welcome to the 1970's. Now even Telenet gets treated just like AT&T did back then, because it's suddenly a telecommunications company to managed by the government for the public good.
  11. steve2^4

    steve2^4 Aged Meat

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    15,797
    Location:
    Dead and Loving It
    Ratings:
    +13,861
    No, but if Netflix isn't allowed to pay Comcast for the fastlane service that they're getting now (placing their servers in Comcast's data centers is biased data handling), these servers will either be removed, or Comcast will shoulder the cost.

    If the latter, how do you think Comcast will divide the cost among their customers?

    If the former (removal of Netflix's servers from ISPs' data centers) the quality of service for Netflix's streaming will be reduced as a matter of technical reality.

    As 50% of bandwidth is consumed by users of Netflix streams it's not a trivial change. Placing their servers remotely means all data rates will suffer that use the backbones for remote servers.

    The real reason Comcast wanted more money is Netflix wanted to place their servers physically in Comcast's data centers. This clearly depends on Comcast's services. It's clear why Netflix doesn't like that idea. It was realized and Comcast has been paid. At that moment, customers and new companies were not disadvantaged because Netflix and other huge players were no longer competing for resources over the internet's backbones. This increases bandwidth available to a sector that, so far, was one of the few areas of our economy that was truly innovative.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. K.

    K. Sober

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    27,298
    Ratings:
    +31,281
    We've been over this an estimated 1,024 times. That's not about net neutrality.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  13. steve2^4

    steve2^4 Aged Meat

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    15,797
    Location:
    Dead and Loving It
    Ratings:
    +13,861
    Infrastructure 1101: you build for peak period forecasts. This isn't for 5, 10, 15 years, it's for the next peak period. There is no accurate prediction either for use or current hardware capacities farther in advance than that. This is more for switches. Fiber is predicted a bit farther out due to the enormous costs of laying it. But no one can predict the next Netflix.
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2015
  14. steve2^4

    steve2^4 Aged Meat

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    15,797
    Location:
    Dead and Loving It
    Ratings:
    +13,861
    Netflix may be forced to remove their equipment, or Comcast may be forced to no longer require payment as a result of net neutrality. It's up to the courts to decide once someone sues somebody.

    Net neutrality isn't universal. It's different according to which country you're in.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. steve2^4

    steve2^4 Aged Meat

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    15,797
    Location:
    Dead and Loving It
    Ratings:
    +13,861
    Either someone made a mistake, deliberately tried to defraud you of service you contracted for, or it's coincidence. Of those three possibilities, which ones will be eliminated by net neutrality?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. steve2^4

    steve2^4 Aged Meat

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    15,797
    Location:
    Dead and Loving It
    Ratings:
    +13,861
    Sirius' satellites aren't adaptable to Internet traffic. They work fine for one way radio broadcast over a large (half of north america?) footprints.

    Other existing satellite internet services are improving, but there are laws of physics that make them slower than ground based internet. They can't compete in cost, and are only practical when there's no ground based alternative. I'm not sure any of them could be used to stream video. Here's more information if you're curious.

    Not sure what Quest and Dinner were agreeing with. Maybe the $200 outrage for bundled services.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Dinner

    Dinner 2012 & 2014 Master Prognosticator

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Messages:
    37,536
    Location:
    Land of fruit & nuts.
    Ratings:
    +19,361
    http://arstechnica.com/business/201...already-trying-to-overturn-fccs-latest-votes/

    Corrupt Republicans (are there any other type) are already jumping at the command of Telcom lobbyists saying they want to strip the FCC of its powers to regulate industry. Fortunately, this will not pass in the Senate much less survive a Presidential veto.

    The heart of the net neutrality rules are that carriers are now regulated as common carriers (much like telephone service providers) and this gives then a heck of a lot new legal protects but alsoears they cannot mess with or modify what is being sent or received. Specifically they cannot block, throttle, or tear service which is fine with most reasonable people. Other than that the rest of title 2 is not applied here.

    There are a few minor changes to the 2010 net neutrality rule, the rump which still stands and didn't get killed by the court, and that is a rule to make make competition easier. Power companies, cable companies, and Telcoms will now have to charge each other lower prices for "poll fees".
    The FCC determined that the companies were indeed trying to stifle competition by charging excessively high fees for competitors to run wires on their polls or 7nder ground pipes so now those fees will be regulated at a low price. This will make it much cheaper for competing ISPS to expand which is a very good thing.

    Lastly, the FCC struck down corrupt laws in a few red states which blocked munisiple ISPS from being formed. The cities already got partial relief in the courts for terrible industry backed rules passed at the state level which were designed to block competition but the industry struck back with terrible rules which made it extremely hard for cities after the court ruled states could not specifically block municipal ISPs entirely.

    All of this is great news for the consumer and will mean they can expect increased choice and competition because of these regulations. That is good for everyone.
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Diacanu

    Diacanu Comicmike. Writer

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    101,078
    Ratings:
    +81,581
    Oh, now the cocksucking Repugs want to tear down the FCC!!! :lol:
    All those decades of me wanting swears and tits on TV didn't do it, but this did!!!! :rotfl:
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. gturner

    gturner Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2014
    Messages:
    19,572
    Ratings:
    +3,648
    And as MIT's media lab folks try to patiently explain, all data is not equal. Only idiots would believe it was. About the only rights granting all these companies common carrier telecommunications status gets is rights against you. Now I can become an ISP and run my cables through your house under the power of eminent domain, bulldozing it if I have to.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Archangel

    Archangel Primus Peritia

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    Messages:
    4,663
    Location:
    Gathering Place
    Ratings:
    +3,582
    Stop, you really are embarrassing yourself at this point.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. gturner

    gturner Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2014
    Messages:
    19,572
    Ratings:
    +3,648
    So you think all data has equal priority? :loltears:

    Or did you not know that telecommunications companies are allowed power of eminent domain?
  22. steve2^4

    steve2^4 Aged Meat

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    15,797
    Location:
    Dead and Loving It
    Ratings:
    +13,861
    GT, I wish you would avoid packaging nuggets of wisdom in nonsense. Net Neutrality will not result in your house being bulldozed any more than title 2 caused the phone companies to raze entire cities to build networks of twisted copper.

    The nugget in this case is "all data is not equal" as espoused by MIT Media Lab's former director. It took a while to find it. Nicholas Negroponte said it. The right wing media has taken it as its anti net-neutrality mantra which distorts the truth, I feel. The man has his chops in computer and communications even though his formal education is architecture.

    Here's a link to the video. It's 6 minutes long and the net neutrality statement is about halfway. It's a bit wandering and goes off into a discussion of GMOs that's worth listening to.

    Big Think

    Big Think seems neutral so you won't get poo on you going there. Ha, I said neutral with an aura of goodness. Negroponte's main point (he has too many) seems to be that people are hanging on to Neutral for the word's inherent goodness rather than any rationale for net neutrality being good.
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. steve2^4

    steve2^4 Aged Meat

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    15,797
    Location:
    Dead and Loving It
    Ratings:
    +13,861
    Interesting point, Steve. It also builds on something Negroponte says about the world of bits, and the world of atoms. He characterizes countries as the world of atoms. Legislating bits country by country (which is what is happening), the US will have no effect on China's polices, who will have no effect on Europe's polices. You really don't know or care where your bits come from. It could be a server in Mumbai, Chicago or Munich. Or it could be Diacanu's basement. Bits don't really care about legislation.

    Hardware does care about legislation. Allowing politicians and the public to influence network design is laughable.
  24. gturner

    gturner Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2014
    Messages:
    19,572
    Ratings:
    +3,648
    The phone and telegraph companies used to run wires across people's land with or without permission. That's how the trunk lines got put in. Some of the innovators in the 1980's like Sprint had relied on the eminent domain that railroads already established to provide an alternative to AT&T, but they could offer service to the general public until Congress started exempting them from the full FCC regulatory regime. Well, now Google can play that game, and not only will they bulldoze your house, they'll do it with your family inside because they're Google and they don't give a fuck - as long as they get it on video. All that street-view data they've been collecting will just let them pick which houses to tear out first.

    I think the greater danger is that the FCC is establishing broadband as a public good. There are millions of busybodies who love managing "the public good", they suck at it, and they never stop. They don't feel remorse or shame - because their hearts are in the right place and so what if they don't know an ATM from a relay or think the spectrum is infinite. Those are the people who demand hearings, and then go to the hearings, and assume anything a tech company wants to do must be an evil plot. And all 50 states have courts and public utility commissions where lots of lawyers are going to soon be making a lot of money off the tech sector.
  25. steve2^4

    steve2^4 Aged Meat

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    15,797
    Location:
    Dead and Loving It
    Ratings:
    +13,861
    I agree that the public sucks at managing computer networks. I said so above. The rest is pretty tinfoil hat territory.

    Here's a cool video where Negroponte argues that Internet access is a human right. I agree. (how does that make you feel, GT?)

    Negroponte on human rights and the internet (and satellites too!)

    I think most people are confusing net neutrality with something approaching a human right. Networks have to be biased according to the type of data being transmitted and how it's used. It's necessary for the efficient distribution of data. Netflix sends it's media at off peak times, and sends it only once per server, to servers located in ISPs data centers. Netflix is biasing their data by type, time, and use. Not allowing them to do this in the name of net-neutrality will cause disruptions in service; it's not going to help. This is just one example. All high volume data streams have to be controlled in a similar way. Oh, "control" is a good thing in computer science but frowned on in the real world.
  26. gturner

    gturner Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2014
    Messages:
    19,572
    Ratings:
    +3,648
    I disagree strongly. Rights are pre-existing and endowed by our Creator. If Thomas Jefferson had a right to Internet access, how come he failed to write it down? You have a right to free speech, but you don't have the right to broadcast for free. You have a right to an attorney, but only if the government is trying to prosecute you, and you don't have the right to keep him.

    If broadband is a right and must serve the public interest, then the public has an interest in making sure such a right is not used frivolously or in ways that harm the greater good, such as spreading dissent, questioning authority, playing violent video games, or denigrating religion or the greatness of this nation. Just as no one was allowed to use the public good of the phone system to make harassing phone calls, no one should be allowed to use the Internet to harass, annoy, or mock. People who would agree with that show up at all the hearings - and they are loud and numerous.
  27. steve2^4

    steve2^4 Aged Meat

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    15,797
    Location:
    Dead and Loving It
    Ratings:
    +13,861
    I wouldn't say broadband is a right, maybe uncensored 54Kbps.

    So now that the internet has entered the realm of a public utility, you think harassing posts will become illegal?
  28. NAHTMMM

    NAHTMMM Perpetually sondering

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    14,643
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Ratings:
    +9,774
    Maybe you won't be allowed to smoke while online!
    • Funny Funny x 1
  29. Order2Chaos

    Order2Chaos Ultimate... Immortal Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    25,185
    Location:
    here there be dragons
    Ratings:
    +21,378
    And if that's all the new regulations did, it would be less intrusive, but gturner is right that Title II regulation is pretty much the nuclear option for net neutrality. This will have more unintended consequences than if Congress decided to, say, apply all regulations on fish to horses.

    Sorry, how is the system broken? It may be trending towards broken, it may be only a few contracts breached away from broken, but it's most certainly not broken yet. To the extent that anything is broken, it's in the lack of competition due to monopolies granted by local and state governments. The other FCC ruling helped on this front, but didn't go nearly far enough. And now where there is competition - and yes, there is competition in places - the smaller players, not having institutional experience with how to deal with the myriad of state, federal, and case law that Title II status applies to them, will be at a significant disadvantage to AT&T and Comcast. A concrete example. I know my ISP, another WISP, is concerned about this. And regulating mobile internet access the same way as landline voice service can only be based on a willful ignorance of the technologies involved.

    The only good news in this ruling, as far as I can tell, is that this only applies to retail broadband providers, and not to tier 1 and 2 ISPs. If I'm wrong about that, a very large swath of the internet's interconnection providers could find themselves being price-set or regulated out of existence. Utterly unintentionally to be sure, but bureaucracy and the courts below a certain level behave mechanically.

    Oh, and Ancalagon is being an utter moron in refusing to recognize that telecommunications companies could be simultaneously regulated in different ways for the different services they offered.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  30. Dinner

    Dinner 2012 & 2014 Master Prognosticator

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Messages:
    37,536
    Location:
    Land of fruit & nuts.
    Ratings:
    +19,361
    The detractors just keep lying. There are exactly three things and three things only which are required by this regulation. They have been listed multiple times; 1) They may not block 2) They may not throttle 3) They may not have a fast lane where they attempt to profit off of congestion.

    That is it.