# FCC to take stand on Net Neutrality



## Nocturne (Sep 19, 2009)

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscent...90/fcc_to_take_a_stand_on_net_neutrality.html



			
				PCWORLD said:
			
		

> Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Julius Genachowski is expected to announce a plan on Monday to formalize the idea of net neutrality. The move, which supports a campaign promise made by President Barack Obama, will prevent the information superhighway from becoming a toll road giving preferential treatment to those who pay for it.



Fuck yeah!  Finally some formal ensurance of net neutrality, or so they say anyway.  Is this the end of our worries over toll road internet?  I for one am totally for open access.  What do you guys think?


----------



## LizardKing (Sep 19, 2009)

The internet is better off free
It's good to see neutrality
We don't have to pay?
It's better this way
Now I'm off to get some tea


----------



## ArielMT (Sep 19, 2009)

Wow, the FCC is doing the right thing.  Awesome.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 19, 2009)

Some how, I figger they'll mess it up down the road somewhere.

Free internet = Low kb usage.


----------



## The Walkin Dude (Sep 19, 2009)

ArielMT said:


> Wow, the FCC is doing the right thing. Awesome.


 

It's about damn time.


----------



## ArielMT (Sep 19, 2009)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Free internet = Low kb usage.



I don't see the correlation.


----------



## Carenath (Sep 19, 2009)

I believe an appropriate term for this is: awesomesauce


----------



## net-cat (Sep 19, 2009)

Awesome. Now let's work on broadcast censorship rules.


----------



## SnowFox (Sep 19, 2009)

I never would have expected that, it seems too good to be true. I half expect it to be fucked up somehow.


----------



## Nocturne (Sep 19, 2009)

Carenath said:


> I believe an appropriate term for this is: awesomesauce



We also would have accepted "awesomegravy"


----------



## Surgat (Sep 19, 2009)

This is excellent news.


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 19, 2009)

News headlines on the internet everywhere: Obama finally does something good!


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 19, 2009)

Republican/Right-wing/Cyberfox spin:

OBAMA SUPPORTS FREE PORN


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Sep 19, 2009)

The FCC can still suck a dick.


----------



## CryoScales (Sep 19, 2009)

Lets hope this sticks around. Capitalising the internet is one of the worst ideas in the history of the world. At least Obama has the right idea now.


----------



## RoqsWolf (Sep 19, 2009)

Am I the only one who thinks this will some how end up with the FCC removing any type of free speech on the Internet? I really interpret things weird -.-

I'd rather have fun trolls over boring generic words


----------



## Aurali (Sep 19, 2009)

finally!


----------



## Axelfox (Sep 19, 2009)

RoqsWolf said:


> Am I the the only one this will some how end up in the FCC removing any type of free speech?I really interpret things weird -.-
> 
> I'd rather have fun trolls over boring generic words



Me too,i feel that this is Orweill's 1984.


----------



## Stratelier (Sep 19, 2009)

Nocturne said:


> Is this the end of our worries over toll road internet?  I for one am totally for open access.  What do you guys think?


Now if only they could do that with telephone service....


----------



## ArielMT (Sep 19, 2009)

RoqsWolf said:


> Am I the the only one this will some how end up in the FCC removing any type of free speech?I really interpret things weird -.-
> 
> I'd rather have fun trolls over boring generic words





renaissancefan98 said:


> Me too,i feel that this is Orweill's 1984.



The FCC's actions are about ensuring barriers to free speech and free expression never go up.  These actions, making the net neutrality most of us have now law, are about preventing a corporatised Orwellian network access scenario.

A neutral Internet means being able to access to all parts of the Internet without being required to pay extra fees.  A neutral Internet means being able to Bit Torrent and any other Internet protocols you wish, not just Web and email, and being able to use new Internet protocols as they develop.

That reminds me.  I need to get ready to receive customers fleeing from any national or regional ISPs that pull anti-neutral shenanigans on their customers despite the FCC.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 20, 2009)

RoqsWolf said:


> Am I the the only one this will some how end up in the FCC removing any type of free speech?I really interpret things weird -.-
> 
> I'd rather have fun trolls over boring generic words





renaissancefan98 said:


> Me too,i feel that this is Orweill's 1984.



Stop watching Fox News, both of you.


----------



## Carenath (Sep 20, 2009)

ArielMT said:


> A neutral Internet means being able to access to all parts of the Internet without being required to pay extra fees.  A neutral Internet means being able to Bit Torrent and any other Internet protocols you wish, not just Web and email, and being able to use new Internet protocols as they develop.


Its also a way of forcing ISPs to invest in new infrastructure to cope with increasing bandwidth demand instead of relying on throttling to restrict bandwidth.

That being said, Implementing QoS (e.g. giving priority to time-sensitive traffic like Voice-over-IP over web pages) shouldnt be construed as violating network neutrality.


----------



## Doctor Timewolf (Sep 20, 2009)

Nocturne said:


> We also would have accepted "awesomegravy"



How 'bout awesomebeans?


----------



## Carenath (Sep 20, 2009)

Doctor Timefox said:


> How 'bout awesomebeans?


[root@server: ~]# apt-get install awesome -y


----------



## net-cat (Sep 20, 2009)

Carenath said:


> That being said, Implementing QoS (e.g. giving priority to time-sensitive traffic like Voice-over-IP over web pages) shouldnt be construed as violating network neutrality.


In theory, yes.

In practice, Comcast will give priority to Comcast Voice while beating Skype and Vonage back into the stoneage.


----------



## Irreverent (Sep 20, 2009)

net-cat said:


> In theory, yes.
> 
> In practice, Comcast will give priority to Comcast Voice while beating Skype and Vonage back into the stoneage.



As a consumer, I've overjoyed.  As the guy that's gonna have to architect, procure, provision and operate a network to fiat government standards, I'm not so happy.  I already had job security, thanks.

Forced investment can be a good thing, but with shrinking capital bugets, something has to give.  More network investment means less money for  customer service or service assurance, or higher rates.  If this includes rate capping, then customer service isn't getting outsourced to India.....its gonna go to Elbonia or some country that ends in -stan.

Forget internet, I'm not sure they have pots in some of those countries. :twisted:


----------



## CAThulu (Sep 20, 2009)

awesomesausage!  

I'm kind of curious though...if the network has to deal with increasing bandwidth, and is a 'free' site, how are they supposed to pay for it if they're not a big company?  I'm thinking of FAF here.  Yes, donations can be raised, but not all sites have people who donate, and therefore have to charge membership fees.

Here's another thing to consider:   it sounds like porn sites won't be able to charge membership fees under this act, which means anyone can access the vids.   _anyone_.  This may raise a few ethical dillemas in the future.


----------



## Nocturne (Sep 20, 2009)

CAThulu said:


> awesomesausage!
> 
> I'm kind of curious though...if the network has to deal with increasing bandwidth, and is a 'free' site, how are they supposed to pay for it if they're not a big company?  I'm thinking of FAF here.  Yes, donations can be raised, but not all sites have people who donate, and therefore have to charge membership fees.
> 
> Here's another thing to consider:   it sounds like porn sites won't be able to charge membership fees under this act, which means anyone can access the vids.   _anyone_.  This may raise a few ethical dillemas in the future.



I was under the impression that this only affects internet providers ability to charge for access to certain sites rather than a sites ability to charge for its own content.  They can still do so, I believe.


----------



## CAThulu (Sep 20, 2009)

Ahh....that makes more sense if that's the case *G*


----------



## ArielMT (Sep 20, 2009)

@CAThulu:
Yes, this is about access at the origin network.  Destination networks are still free to operate as they choose, granting access, denying access, or charging for access however they wish within the limits of the law at the destination.

@Irreverent:
You're in Canada, so you won't need to worry so much.  ...Unless your company's network crosses the southern line somewhere.


----------



## Irreverent (Sep 20, 2009)

There's just not enough meat in that article and too many bad analogies (for the most part, ATT et al ARE private companies....they are already privatized) to get a clear understanding of what's going on.  Business already flies first-class or business-class on airlines, why should the net be any different?

And an unintended consequence of this approach may be that peering-points (touch points where different ISP's and backbone providers connect to each other) will become choke points, gettoizing smaller ISP's into virtual islands that can't afford to connect to the larger net because they can't generate enough traffic IN to balance their traffic OUT.....their peering agreement would no longer be revenue neutral.

Which means that larger ISP's will have to subsidize smaller ones at a loss, pass that loss onto their customers, or cut service assurance and........suddenly CRTC.  The Canadian internet business model comes to the US.  You already don't like our social medicine....your gonna love our social internet. 



ArielMT said:


> @Irreverent:
> You're in Canada, so you won't need to worry so much.  ...Unless your company's network crosses the southern line somewhere.



In about 8 or more places in each province........Canadians by and large like to surf US sites.  Its where the good porn stuff is.


----------



## Carenath (Sep 20, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> As a consumer, I've overjoyed.  As the guy that's gonna have to architect, procure, provision and operate a network to fiat government standards, I'm not so happy.  I already had job security, thanks.
> 
> Forced investment can be a good thing, but with shrinking capital bugets, something has to give.  More network investment means less money for  customer service or service assurance, or higher rates.  If this includes rate capping, then customer service isn't getting outsourced to India.....its gonna go to Elbonia or some country that ends in -stan.
> 
> Forget internet, I'm not sure they have pots in some of those countries. :twisted:


Eh how? You already have a network that I would argue is underutilised because the company isnt providing end-user services with the potential to max it out. In other words.. it wouldnt be impossible for you to provide 20Mbit for ~CAD$60/mo with an 'unlimited' connection... no throttling.. and a fair-use cap of 200GB/month. As you've often said.. its a marketing issue.
It shouldnt be that hard with all the 10GigE links you rave about.. and what you said before about the capacious HSPA/EVDO network in place.

Then again.. I dont have any experience in this field, so its just my opinion and naeivity.



Irreverent said:


> There's just not enough meat in that article and too many bad analogies (for the most part, ATT et al ARE private companies....they are already privatized) to get a clear understanding of what's going on.  Business already flies first-class or business-class on airlines, why should the net be any different?


It's one thing to have two tiers... where business customers pay more for extra bandwidth, this is how things are at the moment, I dont see why that should change. It is quite another thing where the lower-paying tier experiences a greatly degraded service when accessing content hosted by a rival ISP and preferential treatment being given to the content-providers (web sites) that pay the ISP for this preferential treatment.



Irreverent said:


> And an unintended consequence of this approach may be that peering-points (touch points where different ISP's and backbone providers connect to each other) will become choke points, gettoizing smaller ISP's into virtual islands that can't afford to connect to the larger net because they can't generate enough traffic IN to balance their traffic OUT.....their peering agreement would no longer be revenue neutral.


How so? The vast majority of ISPs have to pay Tier2 network, and Tier1 backbone providers for bandwidth to begin with. And Tier1 and Tier2 providers dont fall into the 'smaller ISP' category. It is the Tier1 and Tier2 providers that peer at places link LINX.


----------



## Shireton (Sep 20, 2009)

This is very great news, I'm glad to hear about this


----------



## Aden (Sep 20, 2009)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Republican/Right-wing/Cyberfox spin:
> 
> OBAMA SUPPORTS FREE PORN



What voter in their right mind would think of free porn as a BAD thing?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 21, 2009)

Aden said:


> What voter in their right mind would think of free porn as a BAD thing?



Well, what they think, and what they say, are two different things.


----------



## Takun (Sep 21, 2009)

RoqsWolf said:


> Am I the only one who thinks this will some how end up with the FCC removing any type of free speech on the Internet? I really interpret things weird -.-
> 
> I'd rather have fun trolls over boring generic words





renaissancefan98 said:


> Me too,i feel that this is Orweill's 1984.




hahahaha.


----------



## Neybulot (Sep 23, 2009)

> Reacting to the FCC's announcement, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson from Texas, who is the ranking Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, attached an amendment to an appropriations bill that would deny the FCC any funding for "developing or implementing new Internet regulations," according to Eweek.



I hate being in Texas.


----------



## Aden (Sep 23, 2009)

Neybulot said:


> I hate being in Texas.



If Obama is for it, we're against it! whaarrrrgarbl


----------



## krimv (Sep 30, 2009)

I don't mind paying one fee for an internet plan (like I pay about $60 for an 8MB hi-speed connection), but I don't like the idea of having to pay more if I exceed a certain bandwidth/download limit (as I've been hearing companies like Comcast have been testing out).


----------



## Shireton (Sep 30, 2009)

I've got Comcast, and they let you download 250 gigs a month, go over the limit once and they warn you, twice and they shut your service off.


----------



## Sam (Sep 30, 2009)

It sounds intriguing, but until some malleable results come out I'm not buying it.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Sep 30, 2009)

Aden said:


> If Obama is for it, we're against it! whaarrrrgarbl



Time Warner is one of the largest operating internet services in the state of Texas, they're royally flipping the fuck out over net neutrality and the recent actions by the city of Austin to sue the company for as a way to block the experimental caps system. I haven't taken the time to connect any direct donations to her campaign but I'm sure they're backing her.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 3, 2009)

Carenath said:


> [root@server: ~]# apt-get install awesome -y


Holy crud, it actually worked!


----------

