Internet censorship and usage taxes coming soon?

[boomerang]

If you like your Internet you can keep your Internet.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/16/tammy-bruce-fcc-fec-look-ruin-internet/

 

[Anubis]

As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices

the only thing fewer then 1 choice is 0
so they are gonna take my internet away?

bastards!

 

[CPA]

I want government protection from predatory ISPs, and want everyone from Netflix to granny to have the same access conditions and pricing. Alternately, I want to be able to go to the ISPs office, and put a bullet into the heads of the guys fucking me over. I'm ok with either solution, but I suspect more people will vote for the government regulation.

Why? Plenty of services have different rates and accesses between residential and business. Should they all be regulated to have the same rate and access?

I will not argue against allowing towns to put in place their own service or monopolistic practices. But, I don't agree that an ISP can't choose what customer pays what price at what speed.

 

[halik]

There's a middle ground there - comcast and other telcos should be able to set their rates, but obviously the fast lane/slow line stuff is bullshit as clearly is a monopolistic behavior.

There is a very good reason why utilities regulated by the government - any time you have infrastructure where a small subset owner can extract rent by blocking the entirety from functioning, it obviously isn't an equitable outcome and thus is regulated. Think private electric company that owns the poles in residential neighborhood charging 10x the cost to deliver the power in the last mile/ gas company last mile of pipes etc.

I see it in the same vein as an easement in real estate - if someone was to buy a thin 20milex1ft wide strip of land blocking access to a lake with existing private property development or with rail road track crossing through it, s/he would be able to extract toll to the amount of whatever the value is of the entire lake development or railroad path. This is not unlike the last mile telcos extracting large amount of money to provide access to some subset of the internet.

 

[Hail The Brain Slug]

Why? Plenty of services have different rates and accesses between residential and business. Should they all be regulated to have the same rate and access?

I will not argue against allowing towns to put in place their own service or monopolistic practices. But, I don't agree that an ISP can't choose what customer pays what price at what speed.

Last time I checked, nowhere in my service agreement with Comcast does it say they are allowed to or that they will provide me with different levels of access and speed based on my activity. I pay them $xx and I get broadband at xx speed, regardless of content.

Pretty sure if Netflix didn't let everyone know Comcast was fucking them and secretly throttling customer access, it would have been kept a secret.

Can you explain why you think it's okay for a company to do things in conflict with their own service agreements in secret that have a direct and measurable affect on the service they provide?

 

[ttown]

xabanakfanatik -- Do you have any evidence to say that Comcast was intentionally throttling Netflix?

I did a google search and found tons of personal opinions, but no real news story.

I did find an article regarding Netflix paying a fee to Comcast to make "more direct connections" with their customers -- but that's a bit different than saying Comcast intentionally targeted Netflix to limit network speed.

Seems to me that Comcast built a network expecting some sort of traffic distribution.
Then Netflix plops down in the middle of it and starts offering everybody a month worth of movies transmitted directly to them for $8/mo. Lots of people sign up.
Traffic is no longer anywhere close to what Comcast expected and built for.
The normal way of business would be to start upgrading/redesigning the network in reaction to reality and future reality. Big money.
Or they can be helped along by having Netflix subsidize that activity -- which they agreed to do.

I don't see any evidence of any "throttling" going on. It seems to me that if that were true, we'd see Netflix complaining about Comcast extorting money from them -- but that hasn't happened.
Every credible article regarding Netflix and Comcast refer to "a more direct route" -- which means traffic shaping for efficiency.
Now the Obama decides to interfere with an independent government agency to ensure efficiency doesn't happen. Yes, I dislike Obama. But I love Netflix -- and will dislike Obama even more the next time I see "buffering..." when I want to watch a movie.

Bottom line: I find no evidence of Comcast secretly (or even openly) "throttling" customer access.

I'd be interested to see evidence showing i'm wrong.

edit: Or as someone else said -- how is the internet/Comcast "broken" ?

 

[Carson Dyle]

xabanakfanatik -- Do you have any evidence to say that Comcast was intentionally throttling Netflix?

Not throttling, but not doing anything to alleviate bottlenecks due to poor peering. It's not the same thing, but the end result for both Comcast's customers and for the content business is the same.

The normal way of business would be to start upgrading/redesigning the network in reaction to reality and future reality. Big money.

No. They just needed to negotiate better peering and routing. Some money maybe, not big money. It didn't require a network redesign, just some business arrangements and some switches to throw. It took just a few days to open the pipes once Netflix made their payment.

I don't see any evidence of any "throttling" going on. It seems to me that if that were true, we'd see Netflix complaining about Comcast extorting money from them -- but that hasn't happened.

That was _exactly_ what Netflix' complaint was.

http://variety.com/2014/digital/new...mand-payment-for-delivering-video-1201312847/

 

[boomerang]

Regardless of the how or why, a 332 page plan the details of which are purposefully being kept a secret is a great solution. It kind of brings to mind these famous words: "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what it is in it, away from the fog of the controversy".

Hmm, secret plans being implemented. What could possibly go wrong? You'd think something as wonderful as this could be shared with the masses in a celebratory atmosphere instead of being cloaked in secrecy. Why its almost like there's something to hide. It's great to be living in the transformed United States of America.

 

[ttown]

I read the variety article... but again, or still, there is no statement by either Netflix or Comcast regarding Netflix being throttled.

The only usable quote from Netflix is that they felt it was extortion that they agreed to pay for Comcast to go out of their way to make a more direct connection between their video streaming service and their customers. They throw the word "extortion" around, but fail to prove or even say that Comcast customers were denied the data-rates they bought.
It is implied... but they don't say it. I suspect that is because Netflix knows it isn't true -- or would be very difficult to prove since no evidence of intentional throttling has been offered (to my knowledge).
It seems like people (consumers) read their Comcast agreement as a contract for data-speed from one point to another. I read the agreement as a "sum total limit" that I bought. The comment from Netflix in the Variety article implies the former -- while ignoring the later.

Full disclosure: Although it may seem like i'm defending Comcast -- I actually hate them with a passion and will happily jump-ship the moment i'm able to.

I'm anti-gov involvement / takeover of the internet -- and get tired of the same "we need the gov to fix it because it's broken" argument, especially when there isn't evidence that it is.
I can *imagine* a world where it's "broken" -- but it isn't. And in that imagined world where it *is* broken -- I can't imagine the break not being fixed with free-market capitalism.

 

[boomerang]

I'm anti-gov involvement / takeover of the internet -- and get tired of the same "we need the gov to fix it because it's broken" argument, especially when there isn't evidence that it is. I can *imagine* a world where it's "broken" -- but it isn't. And in that imagined world where it *is* broken -- I can't imagine the break not being fixed with free-market capitalism.

You speak blasphemy! The .gov has convinced mindless idiots that the Internet is broken and that only the government can fix it. You're OK now but by God if Net Neutrality is implement so help me, thoughts like yours put into written words will be reported! There will be no disparaging of the government on the new government approved Internet! You've been warned!

 

[darkswordsman17]

Regardless of the how or why, a 332 page plan the details of which are purposefully being kept a secret is a great solution. It kind of brings to mind these famous words: "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what it is in it, away from the fog of the controversy".

Hmm, secret plans being implemented. What could possibly go wrong? You'd think something as wonderful as this could be shared with the masses in a celebratory atmosphere instead of being cloaked in secrecy. Why its almost like there's something to hide. It's great to be living in the transformed United States of America.

WTF, it's not a secret. The people that can actually vote on this have full access to the proposal. The FCC has been talking about this for like a year and had an extended comment period where people could offer input.

The Chairman’s comprehensive proposal will be voted on
the FCC’s February 26 open meeting.

Seriously some of you people need to actually read up on this shit before spouting off. Just because you've been living in an ignorant bubble and weren't aware of this doesn't mean it was done in secret.

Ah, fuck, this got moved to P&N, no wonder...

 

[darkswordsman17]

I read the variety article... but again, or still, there is no statement by either Netflix or Comcast regarding Netflix being throttled.

The only usable quote from Netflix is that they felt it was extortion that they agreed to pay for Comcast to go out of their way to make a more direct connection between their video streaming service and their customers. They throw the word "extortion" around, but fail to prove or even say that Comcast customers were denied the data-rates they bought.
It is implied... but they don't say it. I suspect that is because Netflix knows it isn't true -- or would be very difficult to prove since no evidence of intentional throttling has been offered (to my knowledge).
It seems like people (consumers) read their Comcast agreement as a contract for data-speed from one point to another. I read the agreement as a "sum total limit" that I bought. The comment from Netflix in the Variety article implies the former -- while ignoring the later.

Full disclosure: Although it may seem like i'm defending Comcast -- I actually hate them with a passion and will happily jump-ship the moment i'm able to.

I'm anti-gov involvement / takeover of the internet -- and get tired of the same "we need the gov to fix it because it's broken" argument, especially when there isn't evidence that it is.
I can *imagine* a world where it's "broken" -- but it isn't. And in that imagined world where it *is* broken -- I can't imagine the break not being fixed with free-market capitalism.

Notice how things were fine then they dropped significantly that just happened to coincide with when the major telecoms started demanding Netflix pay them for direct connection?

http://arstechnica.com/information-...zon-and-comcast-has-been-dropping-for-months/
http://arstechnica.com/business/201...att-get-raw-deal-have-little-reason-for-hope/

Once Netflix finally caved and paid off Comcast performance improved basically immediately (weird since you'd think it would take them a decent amount of time to resolve all the congested links they claimed were the problem...), but Verizon took longer because they suck ass. 10 weeks after Netflix paid Verizon they were still having problems.

http://arstechnica.com/information-...izon-says-despite-continued-netflix-problems/

Also know that this happened after the telecoms tried to force the intermediaries (like Cogent and Level 3) to pay for traffic even though those were typically free peering agreements (since it was after all the ISPs customers who wanted access to the companies that the intermediaries served). When that started to fall apart the telecoms went straight to Netflix to demand payment for direct connection.

Also know that Netflix offers a free service where they provide servers (for free) with their content to ISPs to put on their network to alleviate interconnect bandwidth from Netflix. The telecoms refused this (although many smaller ISPs are more than happy to take Netflix up on it). I think Cablevision actually did take them up on that offer which is why they were one of the few major telecoms to have issues with Netflix.

But lastly, considering it's the telecoms customers requesting the bandwidth, and they already paid the telecoms for this access, it's blatantly obvious that if anyone should be paying for the interconnects (that reside on their network by the way) it should be the telecoms. And let's not forget that they've all also advertised how great their networks are, making claims of speed and robustness, while telling the FCC that it would cost too much money for them to upgrade their networks (again odd since they had been advertising they had been upgrading their networks for years...), despite basically record profits.

You have to be willfully obtuse to think that the major telecoms have not been intentionally causing problems.

Oh, and also something to keep in mind is that they have been picking and choosing, claiming they already are common carriers when it would suit them, but then claiming the FCC can't enforce certain things because they aren't common carriers.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...s-from-government-while-avoiding-regulations/

One of them also claimed that Google already had pole access since it's a common carrier since they do service just like they do, even though they've been claiming that being classified with Title II will do so much harm to them. So either Google is common carrier and is out innovating them (weird since Title II will supposedly kill all innovation...), or they're not common carriers. They've been doing double speak and lying throughout all of this.

 

[werepossum]

Something that really pisses me off is that lawmakers in more than 20 states have caved in to (or taken money from) the ISP lobby to either completely ban municipal broadband services or severely limit them.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/

If your town wants to build a fiber network and deliver Gbit broadband to the residents? Tough. Can't do it. You're stuck with the cable monopoly and shitty DSL.

This is something that the FCC is trying fight, for the good of the consumer. The ISP lobby is spending tens of millions of dollars fighting it.

http://arstechnica.com/business/201...ing-state-laws-that-harm-municipal-broadband/

.

I don't think it's quite that simple. Here in Chattanooga (the Gig City) our EPB did an incredible job. Every single EPB electricity residential customer in Hamilton County, no matter how far out, has access to gigabit Internet service for $70/month. (High usage businesses like gaming centers, call centers, etc. pay more and are sometimes better off with Comcast or AT&T.) It's self-financing via a bond issue and it does quite well, which is why the EPB was able to drop the cost of gigabit Internet service from $300/month to $70/month. But pretty much every other utility in Tennessee that did the same is hemorrhaging money.

Regardless of the how or why, a 332 page plan the details of which are purposefully being kept a secret is a great solution. It kind of brings to mind these famous words: "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what it is in it, away from the fog of the controversy".

Hmm, secret plans being implemented. What could possibly go wrong? You'd think something as wonderful as this could be shared with the masses in a celebratory atmosphere instead of being cloaked in secrecy. Why its almost like there's something to hide. It's great to be living in the transformed United States of America.

Agreed. There is absolutely no acceptable reason for something like this to not be freely available to every American. Politicians don't hide the details of things that are honestly going to help people.

 

[nickqt]

There is absolutely no acceptable reason for something like this to not be freely available to every American. Politicians don't hide the details of things that are honestly going to help people.

If only big gub'mint wasn't hiding the details!

http://www.fcc.gov/document/protecting-and-promoting-open-internet-nprm

http://www.fcc.gov/blog/setting-record-straight-fcc-s-open-internet-rules

https://www.eff.org/guide-to-the-fcc-net-neutrality-proposal

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/...trality-proposal-pros-cons-and-question-marks

They're readying the black helicopters and FEMA trains as we speak.

 

[boomerang]

Seriously some of you people need to actually read up on this shit before spouting off. Just because you've been living in an ignorant bubble and weren't aware of this doesn't mean it was done in secret.

Typically I don't bother to respond to people like yourself who are essentially clueless. But I'm going to make an exception in this case because I think it's an important issue and your misinformation needs to be corrected.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech...an-for-sweeping-net-neutrality-rules-20150204

One paragraph should do it. From an article dated 2/4/15.

Wheeler will share his draft regulations with the four other FCC commissioners Thursday, with a final vote set for Feb. 26.

I suggest you actually read up on it along with the nincompoop that posted directly above me. We're not talking about the May 2014 plan, we're talking about the plan the public has not seen and will not see unless Wheeler decides to release it. The vote is in nine days. You at least got that part right.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech...ing-misled-about-net-neutrality-plan-20150210

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, who unveiled his plan last week, has denied that it would impose new fees or regulate prices. But it's difficult to determine who is right, because the commission won't release the actual text of the regulations until after it approves them on Feb. 26.

"I believe the public has a right to know what its government is doing, particularly when it comes to something as important as Internet regulation," Pai, one of two Republicans on the five-member commission, said. "I have studied the 332-page plan in detail, and it is worse than I had imagined."

Pai said he would like to release the document himself, but that only the commission chairman has that authority. Wheeler has refused to release the draft rules, saying it would violate long-standing FCC procedures. It's not even clear how much leeway Pai has to publicly discuss the draft, but he argued that he has an obligation to "correct the record."

 

[Blanky]

Telecommunications have lobbied hard. You're just seeing the result of that, their elected lap dogs communicating the bidding of their masters. Net neutrality is a good thing, basically the entire tech industry thinks so, too.

 

[fskimospy]

This genius also said that if we impose title II regulations on ISPs that it will help North Korea.

The guy is a clown.

 

[michal1980]

Ajit Pai has been saying all sorts of ridiculous bullshit lately and sorry but a right wing blog is shit for a source.

http://arstechnica.com/business/201...les-the-fccs-net-neutrality-regime-explained/



Fact is it really won't change much of anything but give the FCC the ability to enforce the rules that they had implemented back in 2010 until Verizon sued to have it overturned (wherein the Federal Court basically said, the FCC has those powers but first must classify them with Title II).

Honestly, while it's something, it's not likely to do a whole lot. We'd need something like local loop unbundling to actually make this the competitive market that the Republicans claim it is.

Our best hope is that municipal broadband will catch on, although it's fucking ridiculous how many states passed laws banning it (on behalf of the telecoms), although the FCC is working to try and do something about that as well. That or Google will find some way to start rolling out their fiber service much more widespread.

Hell you only have to look at what Google has done to see how full of shit the telecoms are with regards to their so called innovations. On top of that they are consistently some of it not the worst companies when it comes to customer service. They've basically been admitting to it and promising to improve it (which even if they do improve it it'll still likely be shit), but their promises are worthless.

http://arstechnica.com/business/201...ervice-unacceptable-says-cables-top-lobbyist/

And the NSA isn't spying on every American.

I'm not saying the comcraps of the world are right.

But just because some government asshole says its going to be ok, doesn't make it so. Government only works to expand its own power/control.

 

[WHAMPOM]

And it'd be great if they fixed JUST that.

I assure you, it didn't take 332 pages to outlaw fast lanes, monopolies, and price gouging. There will be hidden gems in these pages.

Twenty pags defining the proper use of "is".

 

[Subyman]

roflcopter.gif

Haha, hard to have fewer choices than just one per area. I don't know many areas that have a buffet of ISPs to choose from. Even my previous college town only had one DSL provider and one cable provider. They already have regional monopolies, now they want to tier their service like cable TV to extract even more money.

 

[fskimospy]

Haha, hard to have fewer choices than just one per area. I don't know many areas that have a buffet of ISPs to choose from. Even my previous college town only had one DSL provider and one cable provider. They already have regional monopolies, now they want to tier their service like cable TV to extract even more money.

I thought this was particularly salient:

But yeah, listen to the guy who says that if we pass net neutrality laws that it will help North Korea. He's totally on the up and up.

 

[werepossum]

If only big gub'mint wasn't hiding the details!

http://www.fcc.gov/document/protecting-and-promoting-open-internet-nprm

http://www.fcc.gov/blog/setting-record-straight-fcc-s-open-internet-rules

https://www.eff.org/guide-to-the-fcc-net-neutrality-proposal

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/...trality-proposal-pros-cons-and-question-marks

They're readying the black helicopters and FEMA trains as we speak.

I know reading is hard, but c'mon, it's not THAT hard. Door handles and seat belts must drive you absolutely insane. (Come to think of it, that would explain a lot . . .)

The first link is not the actual 300+ page proposal referenced, it's an overview of the May 2014 with commissioners' pro and con statements attached. The second link is a short cheerleading blog telling us how wonderful it will be. The third and fourth are guides telling us how wonderful it will be. Nothing in here tells us exactly what IT says.

Title II regulation of the Internet service providers (assuming the courts allow it) will likely have some very good things, possibly some bad things, and a lot of meh things carved out for specific interest groups. But I'll repeat; politicians are not in the habit of hiding the text of proposed bills because they would make their subjects too happy.

And if you're content knowing that the people who will vote on this proposed law can read it even if you can't, you are exactly what is wrong with this nation as we transition from citizens to subjects.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Good thing I just bundled/upgraded my Uverse service. Even with upgrading from 18 Mbps down/ 2 Mbps up to 45 Mbps down/ 6 Mbps up I will still be paying $60 less a month for TV (U450)/Internet/Voice.

 

[brycejones]

Good thing I just bundled/upgraded my Uverse service. Even with upgrading from 18 Mbps down/ 2 Mbps up to 45 Mbps down/ 6 Mbps up I will still be paying $60 less a month for TV (U450)/Internet/Voice.

They still have their BS caps in the T&Cs?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

It's still 250GB/month, I've never exceeded it in the 7 years I've had UVerse internet service. Then again my family doesn't download tons of movies, just the occasional international TV show (Indonesia), son playing CoD, or phone/computer updates.