Net Neutrality Issue

[The Vanishing Boy]

-> I just heard about this news and it's not very good at all!



^ I signed the petition and you should too! 👍

http://act.freepress.net/sign/interne...

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/peti...

http://www.savetheinternet.com/sti-home

http://www.fcc.gov/

-> I really don't like this stupid "tiered" system they're proposing, its like having cable! And I don't like cable providers!!! Internet should be neutral and free (of data caps)!

-> Do you agree? Sorry if I act like a protester here...

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

Sounds like something out of a "war leads to apocalypse" type movie, to be honest. I imagine - if this went through - certain companies would almost start to disobey the government and oppress people's rights further... Apparently, according to the regulations of the internet, "[cap] free internet" is almost equivalent to a right (though more of a privilege, since gov't can disallow people the usage of the internet...)


Take away peoples' rights in North America, and you will have protests.

 

[Tornado]

I'd have more stock in how the end of the internet is nigh if the ruling regarding how unrestricted the internet will be hadn't stripped powers from the FCC of all agencies.

 

[FiLaM1989]

It's sad that people here voted for Barack Obama and the majority accused him as a communist. In reality, he's a plutocrat and a poor leader. The damage has been done, so that's what we get now.

 

[Northstar]

Seems the problem is with how the FCC has broadband carriers classified, they have left the door open for the FCC to change that so hopefully it happens.

It's sad that people here voted for Barack Obama and the majority accused him as a communist. In reality, he's a plutocrat and a poor leader. The damage has been done, so that's what we get now.

How on Earth is this Obama's fault? All 3 judges were Clinton appointee's, not to mention Obama has been pro net-neutrality.

Seriously, I have no clue why people grasp at straws to blame Obama for crap that's not his fault when there is an entire mountain of legitimate crap where he has direct involvement in.

 

[FiLaM1989]

How on Earth is this Obama's fault? All 3 judges were Clinton appointee's, not to mention Obama has been pro net-neutrality.

Seriously, I have no clue why people grasp at straws to blame Obama for crap that's not his fault when there is an entire mountain of legitimate crap where he has direct involvement in.

Even when Obama is pro net-neutrality, he is not the powerful president I'm seeing here. So far, he cannot do whatever he wants for his people. Only the congress makes the laws and the congress is already dominated by republicans. Like you said, the judges are Clinton's appointees AND it turns out the democrats unanimously voted not to overturn the rule despite the fact it was widely acknowledged to be illegal. Just to be sure this case is corporate-related.

 

[Liquid]

Well, that's exactly the point.

Without going on a massive tangent on political structure, the President doesn't hold the power to step in and do what he wants, regardless whether it's a noble thing he wants to do or not. The American Whigs believed in the power of the Congress. Taking inspiration from the British Whigs, who believed in the power of the Parliament over the Crown, they believe in the communal power of the Congress over the executive power of the President.

I agree with Justin, this isn't Obama's direct fault. For all he has failed to deliver, it's unfair to lump every bad thing or poor decision on him.

Net neutrality is an interesting argument in itself. It's interesting that the USA has free speech as a legal statute, yet the FCC exists. But under whose jurisdiction does the internet fall? Arguments could be made for the USA or Switzerland, if someone was to believe that one country can regulate the internet, which I personally do not.

 

[FiLaM1989]

I am really angry by his leadership. I want him to be the strongest he can be. Either way, Liquid, the US has gone far right for me. In the UK and the US, we get communication problems in politics. The EU's politics is different than the US and the UK. If we're talking about classical liberalism, it doesn't work in the US anymore. Modern liberalism and plutocracy turns out to be working quite well. We know how it turned out, it's bad. On the topic here, the rule didn't affect me yet; there is nothing what I'm seeing here.

 

[DK]

I'm slightly more worried by the TPP than by the loss of net neutrality. Don't get me wrong, losing net neutrality is still pants-browningly scary.

 

[Ryanswannell]

To be honest, I'm surprised that this whole tier-structure of the internet hasn't been implemented already, with different packages allowing you to access certain sites for a fee.
But then again, surely that business model would fail? I mean, there would surely be one internet provider willing to not use a tier system while all of the others do? This would in turn generate more profit for the company as people would move from one provider who uses a tiered-system to the more traditional internet provider?

 

[The Vanishing Boy]

-> I'm currently use Clear Wireless as my provider on both my Mac (mobile) & my consoles (home), I really do hope it doesn't trickle down soon...

 

[FoolKiller]

Quick show of hands (or whatever); who actually read the ruling rather than taking the word of Kevin Smith's much larger cousin ranting on You Tube?

General rule: If a you think a few biased petition sites and a nerd on You Tube are legitimate sources, you don't have much footing for your moral high ground.

Here is the full text (PDF).

Let's start with one thing. Broadband Internet is not a right. But if you have access in the US you are legally allowed a minimum of 3mbps.

This has not changed. This is law.

Further, any content provider on the Internet must have access to you at that minimum rate. It doesn't have to be free, it can be a negotiated rate, but no content provider can be denied.

The only really noticeable worry is possibly a data cap will get through. But then your local services are controlled by your local municipality. Don't like your service provider? Go to a city council or service commission meeting.

Either way, this ruling is far from the end of the world scenario that guys who spend too much time in their basement paint it as.

Don't panic. Move along. Nothing to see here.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Here is the problem, @FoolKiller, while Francis may be blowing things out of proportion (and I have something to say on his video as well), the problem is that ISPs can now double dip on content. Let's say that your ISP is ATT (one of the big opponents of net neutrality). You are facing a 20 GB data cap. Now let's say that you are surfing GTP, and all of the sudden you are eating data that you may not be even aware of for the the low low price of a mediocre connection of 4 mbps and $50. ATT then turns around and says, "hey webmaster of GTP, I notice that your site gets a lot of traffic. So for the price of $500 a month, we will maintain the status quo, but even better, if you pay us $200 more per month, we will not count your site against our data cap and get the best speed possible for our costumers." That is a whopping $700 a month, in addition to ISP server fees! Where is the costs ultimately going to go? That's right, the end user. The problem that I have with this ruling is more economical more than anything.

As for Francis, I'm sorry, but not all republicans support big business. It may be as a matter of platform to let capitalism and the free markets reign in business decisions, but not all of us support every decision that businesses make in order to make a quick buck. Take for example this issue. If most, not all, ISPs impose caps and throttle content(as described in this post), however there are a handful of ISPs who are willing to stick with the status quo before the ruling was made, you can bet your bottom dollar that customers will flock to those who are willing to stick with the status quo. If enough people do so, it will change the business practices of the 99% of ISPs who imposed caps. That is how the free market is supposed to work, offer products or services and let customers decide which is better.

 

[Ibonibo]

Quick show of hands (or whatever); who actually read the ruling rather than taking the word of Kevin Smith's much larger cousin ranting on You Tube?

General rule: If a you think a few biased petition sites and a nerd on You Tube are legitimate sources, you don't have much footing for your moral high ground.

Common sense, I thought, but yeah 100% agree.

There is a problem with the internet, and that is the flux that goes through. Bandwidth is the key word.
An interesting read on it:
http://arstechnica.com/business/201...nternet-use-soars-can-bottlenecks-be-averted/

Problem is that it always gets pushed on the little people. Why cap the user?
Google (all services) and Facebook probably use a majority of the world bandwidth. They should pay taxes on those, these taxes should be used to upgrade infrastructures. This way the end user would not get handicapped by Datacaps.
But Lobbies,...

But maybe the NSA gets a Data Cap too

In all seriousness, In Germany they wanted to do that too (T-Mobile's Mothercompany) and got a **** storm for it. It's on hiatus at the moment. I even think there wer rulings against it, also pausing the whole process ...

 

[FoolKiller]

Here is the problem, @FoolKiller, while Francis may be blowing things out of proportion (and I have something to say on his video as well), the problem is that ISPs can now double dip on content. Let's say that your ISP is ATT (one of the big opponents of net neutrality). You are facing a 20 GB data cap. Now let's say that you are surfing GTP, and all of the sudden you are eating data that you may not be even aware of for the the low low price of a mediocre connection of 4 mbps and $50. ATT then turns around and says, "hey webmaster of GTP, I notice that your site gets a lot of traffic. So for the price of $500 a month, we will maintain the status quo, but even better, if you pay us $200 more per month, we will not count your site against our data cap and get the best speed possible for our costumers." That is a whopping $700 a month, in addition to ISP server fees! Where is the costs ultimately going to go? That's right, the end user. The problem that I have with this ruling is more economical more than anything.

Yes, this is a risk. But here is the problem for ISPs; they have to answer to someone. The technology and regulations exist for multiple ISPs to exist in one place. Few local municipalities have allowed this to happen as of yet. But assume AT&T does cap data and starts making it hard for local businesses to run a Web site. Do you think local politicians or politically appointed commissions will let them carry on? AT&T only has local services because the city/town lets them, and the town leaders only serve by being elected.

To see the path this stuff takes you only have to look at phones. The moment AT&T's (government created) monopoly was ended the business model changed. Over 20 years it went from everything you do costs a lot, then dirt cheap local calls, then larger local calling areas, then cheap long distance fees, to now where many people I know don't pay per minute long distance fees. Cellular phones were similar. What I pay for data, text, and voice costs about what voice alone used to cost. Every company offers a different approach. They have to. They are one startup away from losing their business.

Do I expect a few early shenanigans? Yep. Do I expect it to last? No. These companies border on competing with mobile data now. They have to worry about local startups, other companies, and losing their other businesses. There will be more lawsuits to come, and even the FCC still retains the ability to create consumer protection rules. Then there is the nuclear option: Congress could reclassify broadband as common carrier.

All this ruling says is the FCC overstepped their authority because broadband does not have common carrier status. The FCC is given authority by Congress. Nearly every industry that has that threat over their head self-regulates before testing market forces, even when it isn't necessary to meet consumer demand.

Also, don't forget, these ISPs will be screwing over other big companies. You think Google wants to pay for premium access? You think other companies will quietly allow their profits to be siphoned? Better yet, what happens when a lower profit site with large clout, like Wikipedia, gets involved?

There are too many variables at play for this to be the end of the Internet. In fact, if ISPs aren't careful they run the risk of being minimized.

 

[Danoff]

Naturally there has been zero discussion on what the government actually has the authority to do when it comes to your contract with your ISP, or their contract with any website....

Of course the answer is none, the government has no actual authority to interfere in these consensual agreements.

 

[FoolKiller]

Naturally there has been zero discussion on what the government actually has the authority to do when it comes to your contract with your ISP, or their contract with any website....

Of course the answer is none, the government has no actual authority to interfere in these consensual agreements.

From a moral standpoint you are correct.

From a US law standpoint Congress just has to declare it common carrier. Even then, the precedent has been mostly hands off outside of war time scenarios.

 

[Danoff]

From a moral standpoint you are correct.

From a US law standpoint Congress just has to declare it common carrier. Even then, the precedent has been mostly hands off outside of war time scenarios.

From a US law standpoint the existence of the FCC violates the constitution.

 

[BobK]

So do all the other agencies that issue reams of regulations that have the force of law. Not that the government gives more than lip service to the Constitution or anything.

 

[FoolKiller]

From a US law standpoint the existence of the FCC violates the constitution.

While I agree, the Communications Act of 1934 got around that by declaring it an interstate commerce issue, and thus under federal constitutional authority. It has stood up in court for these past 80 years. Also being in the lead up to WWII, it was declared as a national security matter.

EDIT: I should add that after WWII the FCC was less about enforcing Congressional rules and more about creating regulation.

 

[Danoff]

While I agree, the Communications Act of 1934 got around that by declaring it an interstate commerce issue, and thus under federal constitutional authority. It has stood up in court for these past 80 years. Also being in the lead up to WWII, it was declared as a national security matter.

EDIT: I should add that after WWII the FCC was less about enforcing Congressional rules and more about creating regulation.

Congress is not allowed to delegate lawmaking authority to unelected officials - regardless of whether or not it falls within the scope of "interstate commerce". All regulatory agencies (FCC, FDA, OSHA, IRS, etc. etc.) are unconstitutional.

Edit: Maybe not the IRS, that's a tough one. Congress usually is willing to work on the tax code themselves. The degree to which the IRS interprets would make it unconstitutional, but I'm not entirely sure they do that.

Anyway, there are many many many more regulatory agencies.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Problem is that it always gets pushed on the little people. Why cap the user?
Google (all services) and Facebook probably use a majority of the world bandwidth. They should pay taxes on those, these taxes should be used to upgrade infrastructures. This way the end user would not get handicapped by Datacaps.

I agree, and that is the problem with the label that republicans get that when they support a free market, everyone else(as exhibited by Francis) says that they support Big Business.

I am going to explain it once so that everyone gets the difference between Big Business and the free market, because ultimately this is what net neutrality will boil down to.

Big business is the belief that you use government to regulate small businesses out of business by passing regulations that favor big corporations because they hire fancy lawyers and lobbyists that work for $100k an hour to get laws passed in your favor. This is how GE pays $0 in income taxes even though they earn billions.

Supporting the free market is a lot like net neutrality for economics. Everyone is to work on a level playing field in their fields, and those who offer the best goods and services would win over consumers. Congress with a sane mind, would pass laws that support growth of the free market.

 

[Danoff]

Big business is the belief that you use government to regulate small businesses out of business by passing regulations that favor big corporations because they hire fancy lawyers and lobbyists that work for $100k an hour to get laws passed in your favor. This is how GE pays $0 in income taxes even though they earn billions.

Citation needed.

Supporting the free market is a lot like net neutrality for economics. Everyone is to work on a level playing field in their fields, and those who offer the best goods and services would win over consumers. Congress with a sane mind, would pass laws that support growth of the free market.

So... not net neutrality then.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

If I had a dollar for every petition I come across directly or indirectly asking for my signature...well let's just say I'd be the fat cat worrying about said petitions.

This sounds interesting but I think I'll do fact checking more just because I want to.

 

[Sanji Himura]

So... not net neutrality then.

I didn't say that. Under article 1 section 8, the constitution gave congress the ability to regulate interstate commerce and commerce with foreign nations, but the internet is an international network that contains servers all over the globe. This should mean that there should be no government on God's green Earth that have the ability to tax, regulate or silence the internet. A handful of states are already collecting sales taxes on items sold on the internet, but they amended laws that were already on the books for TV Marketing (Ronco is a prime example of what I mean). Did the states over step their bounds? I don't know, that is a state matter.

With ISPs, they are working with international commerce, which automatically falls under the control of the federal government under Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution. So what does that mean for net neutrality? This meant that before last week's ruling, the internet was the last beacon of free speech, free assembly, and as close as you are going to get to a free market society that you are going to get. Now the ISPs will impose their will with "dynamic pricing" of the web, creating a internet where speed is dominated by big business.

 

[FoolKiller]

Congress is not allowed to delegate lawmaking authority to unelected officials - regardless of whether or not it falls within the scope of "interstate commerce". All regulatory agencies (FCC, FDA, OSHA, IRS, etc. etc.) are unconstitutional.

The FCC was intended to work like the IRS; an enforcement agency for Congress' laws. It is a group of appointed industry members. They were supposed to advise Congress, process license forms, and track legal violations. Then WWII happened. There was a freeze on communications. The FCC suddenly had control of all communications; phone, broadcast, everything. This is how AT&T gained their monopoly, even HAM radio operators had to be licensed, and Philo Farnsworth died poor and unknown after inventing TV.

And as we know, once a government entity gets power, it is never lost. Now it is a group of appointed political allies. Clinton and Bush appointed Colin Powell's son! He was a lawyer with a military background.

Anyway, stepping off my high horse (my telecom background makes this one of my bigger bugaboos) the FCC went from a questionably legal entity (international commerce be damned, what about the 1st Amendment) to outright power hungry, overstepping their questionable authority, and into non-stop legal battles at their every move.

I'm just explaining the history here and how they managed to avoid Constitutionsl scrutiny, despite clearly overstepping even their stated limits.

 

[Sanji Himura]

You completely cherry picked sentences from my post, @FoolKiller. Yes, I did say that Congress had the power to regulate commerce internationally and interstate, but you completely overlooked the fact that I said that the servers that house the internet are scattered all over the world, and not just at Sillicon Valley. This means that not one government can claim that they own the majority of the internet, though they try. It is by these means that the internet has been relatively neutral in free speech.

Then came this ruling that essentially stated that the internet is property of the ISPs (big business), and not the people in a free market society. I have already explained one possibility of how economics could factor into how fast you access a site, but I have yet to see one shred of proof as to how getting rid of net neutrality could benefit the internet.

 

[FoolKiller]

You completely cherry picked sentences from my post, @FoolKiller.

Interesting, considering I was responding to Danoff's post which was a response to my post. Sorry if I ignored your post, but it wasn't even on my mind when I typed mine.

And my post was about the history of the FCC and how they went from questionably legitimate enforcement agency to somehow having full regulatory authority. I didn't even bring it up to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, when Internet was added to their powers.

That said, net neutrality is not about regulating the Internet. It is about regulating how you gain access to the Internet. Unless you are using an offshore ISP, that is a purely internal situation between US business and US consumer. This is simply regulating a business transaction. If they were to try to block content then we have an international issue, though even then regulating US based content providers is not an international issue (eg child porn, online gambling).

And this does not claim the Internet is the property of big business, merely the server you must connect to in order to access the Internet. That machine is owned by a company, literally. They can determine what and how information passes through it.

 

[Danoff]

This meant that before last week's ruling, the internet was the last beacon of free speech, free assembly, and as close as you are going to get to a free market society that you are going to get. Now the ISPs will impose their will with "dynamic pricing" of the web, creating a internet where speed is dominated by big business.

I'm impressed that you can take the notion of preventing government intervention between private entities and somehow claim that that's anti-free market. Anti-free market would be the government regulating what ISPs can charge and what they can do. ISPs are the free market.

 

[Sanji Himura]

@FoolKiller: My apologies. I guess I should learn how to read.

I'm impressed that you can take the notion of preventing government intervention between private entities and somehow claim that that's anti-free market. Anti-free market would be the government regulating what ISPs can charge and what they can do. ISPs are the free market.

As my position was, and still is, that getting rid of net neutrality is more of an economic problem than government interference. As I said on my first post, if GTP is eating a lot of bandwidth, an ISP such as ATT could come along and say that, "we notice that you are eating a lot of data, pay us $700/month to ensure the best possible speed while maintaining the status quo." Now multiply that number by at least nine(one for every major service provider in the US), that would equal $6300 that GTP would have to shell out just to maintain the status quo.

Is the example a bit extreme? Yes, you could be right, however, one must realize that companies are not willing to eat costs and will pass them down to the consumer every chance they get. They are not willing to "eat" costs when they actually should. That is why net neutrality should always exist.