Community > Serious Topics
Net neutraility and the FCC
Quemaqua:
https://www.battleforthenet.com/countdown/
I'm not too vocal here about causes, but I know this is one you guys all have a vested interest in. Figured I should do more than just yell at people in IRC about it. So here you go.
idolminds:
This is looking good.
--- Quote ---That is why I am proposing that the FCC use its Title II authority to implement and enforce open internet protections.
Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone’s permission.
--- End quote ---
Title II for broadband, including mobile networks? I figured they wouldn't touch wireless.
Quemaqua:
It's definitely looking good, though god knows what may happen between now and the 26th. You know Comcast is in the middle of shitting itself and will be mustering their forces to do whatever they can between now and then. Along with all the other companies.
scottws:
I am a staunch supporter of the federal government's regulation of the Internet. While ISPs started out as dumb pipes, here is small list of some crap they've been doing lately:
* Adding special tracking information in HTTP headers leaving your home network.
* Injecting their own adds in unencrypted HTTP sessions.
* Purposely bottlenecking traffic for large bandwidth services like Netflix in order to extract payment to alleviate the bottlenecks.
* Throttling traffic from services that compete with a service the ISP provides. Of course the ISP's version of the service is unthrottled and even has QoS rules that make it prioritized over other types of general traffic.
* Selling consumers higher bandwidth plans in order to alleviate service slowness issues when the actual problem is the ISP's throttling of services and they already have plenty of bandwidth to run the service. Example: My mother-in-law works from home and does all meetings and phone calls via Microsoft Lync (like a corporate version of Skype, but it also includes features from GoToMeeting and WebEx like screen sharing and presentations). She had a 20 Mbit plan from Comcast, but had lots of jitter on her Lync calls (VoIP). According to this page that describes the bandwidth required for Lync audio calls, even 1 Mbit is more than enough, but Comcast tried to sell her a 30 Mbit plan. She switched to an AT&T U-Verse 12 Mbit plan and the problem disappeared.
* Pressuring states into writing laws that prevent municipalities from setting up their own ISP for their residents.
* Forcing municipalities into exclusivity agreements that make certain ISPs the exclusive provider in certain areas.
The biggest problems are the lack of regional competition and the fact that virtual every ISP is also a content provider of some sort. When your ISP is a cable company, they really don't want you to be a cord-cutter and will punish you by jacking up the cost of your Internet access and throttling video streaming way down if you cut the cord on the cable services. If ISPs were just like the water company, there would be no threat to net neutrality because they wouldn't be trying to constantly monetize you, promote their own service to you while harming competitors, etc.
The recent saber-ratting by the FCC chairman is a step in the right direction and it does preserve at least some aspects of net neutrality by limiting a lot of the paid prioritization stuff, but I don't think it goes far enough. ISPs really need to be forced to split from their content companies and last mile unbundling needs to happen to open the door for regional competition.
Quemaqua:
Completely agreed.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version