Net Neutrality is Not Neutral and it Will Radically Change The Internet

[rgray222]

I feel compelled to start this thread because net neutrality is vastly misunderstood and it quickly slipping under the radar. First off the name "net neutrality" is very dishonest. Net neutrality actually means government control of the internet. This would ultimately result in higher cost, slower speeds, slower technological innovations and government control of delivered content

Obama wants to regulate the internet as a public utility under the Title II Common Carrier Law of 1934. Just ask yourself how that is working out with land lines and cell phones. It is a mess, confusing and for the most part expensive. There are a small handful of companies that have a strangle hold on service. They are huge corporations that can hire lobbyist, manipulate lawmakers and make billions in the process.

The government and the media no longer have the control of all the news being delivered to mainstream population. The internet has allowed the public to decided what is important content, to decided what they want to read and view. The public can now share that information with millions of others instantly. This change is hard for the government to accept and it is killing off entrenched mainstream media outlets one at a time.

Make no mistake about it, net neutrality is an effort to regain control by government and tax us along the way. Net neutrality may sound like a good idea but in the end it amounts to nothing more than total control of the information that the public consumes.

[yelik]

The illuminati / cabal must censor the Internet to prevent the truth from spreading and awakening the sheeple. David Cabal Cameron, UK Prime Puppet has said in plain English that is what he has been told to do.

[Innocent Warrior]

http://cdn-fcc.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/Comcast_Verizon.jpg

Screenshot of the future...

http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/53762378ecad04e77db9d104-800-/screen%20shot%202014-05-16%20at%209.55.28%20am.png

https://www.battleforthenet.com

[Limor Wolf]

indeed, control and regulation on the internet is one of those moves that were expected and predicted quite a while ago, and the current earth government with it's controlling attempts tactics is going for it.

In one of his posts (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/feds-hold-hearing-whether-regulate-sites-like-drudge-infowars-economic-collapse-blog)Wade Frazier's linked and commented on this news item


Feds Hold Hearing On Whether They Should ‘Regulate’ Sites Like Drudge, Infowars And The Economic Collapse Blog

The control freaks that run our government always seem to want to “regulate” things that they do not like. And so it should be no surprise that there is a renewed push to regulate independent news websites. Sites like the Drudge Report, Infowars.com and The Economic Collapse Blog have been a thorn in the side of the establishment for years. You see, the truth is that approximately 90 percent of all news and entertainment in this country is controlled by just six giant media corporations. That is why the news seems to be so similar no matter where you turn. But in recent years the alternative media has exploded in popularity. People are hungry for the truth, and an increasing number of Americans are waking up to the fact that they are not getting the truth from the corporate-controlled media. But as the alternative media has grown, it was only going to be a matter of time before the establishment started cracking down on it. At the moment it is just the FEC and the FCC, but surely this is just the beginning. Our “Big Brother” government ultimately wants to control every area of our lives – and this especially applies to our ability to communicate freely with one another.

The Federal Election Commission is an example of a federal rule making body that has gotten wildly out of control. Since just about anything that anyone says or does could potentially “influence an election”, it is not difficult for them to come up with excuses to regulate things that they do not like.

And on Wednesday, the FEC held a hearing on whether or not they should regulate political speech on blogs, websites and YouTube videos…"

See the link:

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/feds-hold-hearing-whether-regulate-sites-like-drudge-infowars-economic-collapse-blog

[ponda]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YNGCniiAisI/VOS46532jlI/AAAAAAAAEkI/98t1I-OnTAA/s1600/net%2Bneutrality.png

[Alpha141]

I have contemplated this deeply myself. It, the Internet and our access is a bit of an assumption to life now. I visualise myself what it must have been like 500yrs ago when this stuff was of beyond dreams. It is an enormous blessing and privilege to have. The access to the human collective on any topic you are curious about to me cannot be anything but such a thing.

For me i consider access to the Internet a human right now. Not a luxury. For all no matter where each person are. It is an aspect of exploring freewill. It is one of the greatest ways to find your soul family who are here to break the incarnation system to achieve the purpose you chose to be here. And, why it is to become a battleground (more-so that it already is). Meeting soul family is like a completion of who you are. We have all had those instances of meeting someone who rocks our world for many days....that is soul family reunion in the physical. Many areas that have been devastated by war in the past for no seemingly valid reason is when that region's soul group link up threshold gets to around 10%...because that is when amazing things happen. So, this particular battle ground for those reasons make the internet a prime target also. As, time, space and location are also no longer a limitation to this. Perhaps challenging concepts if you have not heard them. Perhaps also challenging as the efforts to not get it to have your radar on for others to find you is important to restrict.

Thanks for exploring a great topic

[Maunagarjana]

The FCC already has regulatory oversight over the internet. The change is to Title II from Title I. Also, telecoms are all FCC licensees because they use telco infrastructure and public airwaves. My prediction: the sky will not fall. The larger threat to the internet comes from the telecoms, imho.

About the tax issue, see these articles:

http://www.freepress.net/blog/2014/12/02/claims-real-net-neutrality-would-result-new-internet-tax-skew-math-and-confuse-law

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/dont-call-them-utility-rules-the-fccs-net-neutrality-regime-explained/

[rgray222]

The neutrality aspect of this bill means that the government wants to insure that content is delivered neutrally. You need to ask yourself what is wrong with the way the content is being delivered today. Yes, Google and some of the big search engines have algorithms that might make it difficult for some content to be found, maybe even impossible for some content to be found. But what you would be getting with this bill is content that the government deems to be neutral using algorithms that the government decides are politically correct.

The government would be regulating something that changes by the week, day, minute and second. Even now the government is proposing to regulate the internet as a utility with a bill written and approved in 1934. How could they possibly regulate the internet in a way that would satisfy the masses. The answer is they couldn't. Even if they create a huge bureaucratic division to handle the internet they will inevitably make a mess of it. Don't believe me just look at the IRS, Dept of Homeland Security etc.

There is nothing "systemically" wrong with the way content is being delivered today. Why do we need the government to regulate it? Making and regulating the internet as a utility will not make the internet experience better for anyone on planet earth. Internet content is being delivered about as neutral as it gets, why do we need the government involved?

By the way this is not just an American issue, net neutrality bills are also being proposed in the EU.

[ponda]

The FCC already has regulatory oversight over the internet. The change is to Title II from Title I. Also, telecoms are all FCC licensees because they use telco infrastructure and public airwaves. My prediction: the sky will not fall. The larger threat to the internet comes from the telecoms, imho.

About the tax issue, see these articles:


http://www.freepress.net/blog/2014/12/02/claims-real-net-neutrality-would-result-new-internet-tax-skew-math-and-confuse-law

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/dont-call-them-utility-rules-the-fccs-net-neutrality-regime-explained/

You might find this article interesting


Who’s Going to Sue the FCC Over ‘Net Neutrality’? The Cable Lobby! (http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/02/14/whos-going-to-sue-the-fcc-over-net-neutrality-the-cable-guys/?utm_source=21stCenturyWire.com+Subscriber&utm_campaign=0af05a4cb5-21st+Century+Wire+Daily&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1dfb7233cb-0af05a4cb5-72337945)

Whatever your interest is in the internet and world wide web, it’s important to take a few minutes of your time to learn about Net Neutrality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality)…

Make no mistake – this issue is all about monopolies. The big players are hoping to lock-down the market (http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/13/5713828/americas-biggest-internet-providers-urge-fcc-not-to-turn-their) for themselves in the US, fix prices across the board, and then allow Central Government to do what it likes, and when it likes – when it comes to spying and stealing data from its citizens (subjects). Google, Yahoo and Facebook control the front of house, while telecoms giants Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner and Verizon control the back of house, and we should expect that this cartel will want to charge us whatever they collectively decide and we are willing to cough up for access to their “new super highway”.

Digital rivers are flowing with riches and the richest mega corporations will buy out the smaller ones – guaranteeing monolithic decision-making for the digital cartel.

As long as lobbyists are controlling our elected officials like marionettes, then this problem will only persist and threaten the internet as we know it…

http://21stcenturywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/1-NET-NEUTRALITY-3.jpg

The Switch (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/02/12/whos-going-to-sue-the-fcc-over-net-neutrality-probably-the-cable-lobby/)

A top lobbyist for the cable industry is signaling that his organization will probably sue the government over its proposed net neutrality rules when the time comes.

Although board members at the National Cable and Telecommunications Association haven’t resolved to sue, it’s “highly likely” the trade group would join a lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission, said NCTA president and chief executive Michael Powell.

“I think it’s just too dramatic, too serious a change not to ask the court to review the propriety of what the commission did,” said Powell, in a forthcoming interview with The Washington Post on C-SPAN’s “The Communicators,” “particularly when so much of it rests on whether it had the authority to do it in the first place.”

The FCC will vote Feb. 26 on a controversial proposal to apply strong new rules (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/02/04/the-fcc-just-proposed-the-strongest-net-neutrality-rules-ever/) to Internet providers. The draft regulation, which is modeled after the same legal tool used to oversee phone companies, would seek to ban discriminatory treatment of different Web services such as Netflix and Amazon. The aggressive rules are sought by consumer advocacy groups and President Obama, who have argued that strong oversight is the only way to preserve a free and open Internet.

Critics of the plan have called it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/02/10/republicans-are-about-to-benghazi-all-over-again-on-net-neutrality/) a politically motivated “power grab” by the federal government that could lead to regulation of the prices Internet providers charge consumers. It could also result in the regulation of end-user services such as Google and Facebook, they warn.

Republican opponents of the proposal have also demanded that FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler release his draft rules to the public weeks ahead of the agency’s vote. Powell — a former Republican chairman of the FCC — said Thursday that he would comply with the request if he were in Wheeler’s shoes.

“The chairman’s correct in saying that past practice is generally not to do so,” said Powell. “But it’s also equally true that nothing prevents him from doing so should he choose.”

Powell is partly responsible for kickstarting a lengthy fight over net neutrality. In 2005, his commission approved a series of Internet principles (https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243556A1.pdf) that were later used by other FCC chairs against a number of companies, including Comcast.

Several court battles later, the FCC is about to vote on the strongest rules ever (http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality/) for Internet providers. It’s expected to be a partisan affair, with the commission’s three Democrats supporting the move over objections from the agency’s two Republicans and from conservative lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

Powell said that when he initially proposed his open Internet principles, he didn’t anticipate the political firestorm that net neutrality has become…

Continue this story at The Switch (http://www.fastcompany.com/3041974/fast-feed/strongest-internet-rules-ever-proposed-fcc-chairman-tells-isps-they-are-public-uti)

READ MORE NET NEUTRALITY NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Net Neutrality Files (http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/net-neutrality/)

[Maunagarjana]

It's not what's wrong with the way content is delivered today that is the issue. Things are fine.....for now. But if nothing is done, it will not stay like it is now. The issue is how the telecoms want to change things in the very near future. Net neutrality is intended to head this off before it happens. It's intended to preserve the internet as it is now, not overhaul it. A lot of the fear mongering about net neutrality is just industry propaganda. Some of it is ideological objections by people who don't like the government doing anything ever.

[rgray222]

It's not what's wrong with the way content is delivered today that is the issue. Things are fine.....for now. But if nothing is done, it will not stay like it is now. The issue is how the telecoms want to change things in the very near future. Net neutrality is intended to head this off before it happens. It's intended to preserve the internet as it is now, not overhaul it. A lot of the fear mongering about net neutrality is just industry propaganda. Some of it is ideological objections by people who don't like the government doing anything ever.

I really have to disagree with you. You are asking for government regulation for something that may or may not happen. This is the attitude that lets the government creep in and take control of something that is working just fine. Today, the Internet is essentially unregulated and unfettered by the federal government. But President Obama is calling for the FCC to reclassify the Internet as a utility and heavily regulate ISPs as if they’re monopolies, which they’re not. He’s using the debate to give the FCC enormous power over Internet pricing, products and service.

Net neutrality is not an issue. Federal regulation of the Internet is. That is the only threat consumers need to worry about.The government will inevitably dumb down the internet, increase the price and control content. If you think that operating at the speed, efficiency and cost of government is a good things then by all means let the government regulate your internet. Be careful what you wish for, you may actually get it!

[rgray222]

The Chairman of the FCC is refusing to appear in front of congress to discuss net neutrality. Also Obama and the Chairman of the FCC refuse to release details of this new bill. Their silence speaks volumes and should be a red flag to everyone that uses the internet.

[Maunagarjana]

Again, the government already regulates the internet. This is a fact. So your scaremongering about this is nothing more than beating on a strawman. This issue is about whether it remains classified as an information service, or is reclassified as a telecommunications service. Either way, it is regulated by the FCC. It's just a matter of how. But this fact is obscured by the snake oil salesmen and hucksters that propagandize for the telecoms, because the telecoms want to set themselves up as gatekeepers that people will have to pay up the wazoo to get privileged access.

The internet does not belong to the telecoms. It belongs to ALL OF US. It was created as a DARPA/Department of Defense project, funded by taxpayer dollars. Corporations have helped build on the infrastructure, but we didn't need them to do that. We allowed them to. The telecoms should consider themselves lucky that they were allowed to participate and profit from this amazing resource. But when they overreach, as they have been trying to do, they need to be checked, and hard. Reclassifying the internet as a utility, as the White House and FCC chief is recommending, can prevent this abuse by the telecoms from happening. It is a very elegant solution. I'm actually amazed that they are doing something right for once. I've been saying this needs to be done for years.

[rgray222]

Again, the government already regulates the internet. This is a fact. So your scaremongering about this is nothing more than beating on a strawman.

The only snake oil salesmen I see in this crowd work for the government. 330 pages of new regulations that they are insisting to be voted on by Congress before they release the details is not only bizarre but obscene. Please explain how you think the internet is already regulated. I read the links you post and there is no explanation there. Most of their "fearmongering" in those links is the sky will fall on the internet if we don't get these new secret regulations. Accepting more government regulation for something that may or may not happen is a position that I would never be willing to take. I am curious as to how you think 330 pages of new law, from a bill written in 1934, treating the internet as a public utility will help the internet. This is not an elegant solution this is an secretive disaster being perpetrated by Obama that many people are accepting with their eyes wide open.

Again, how exactly is the internet regulated today and how will 330 pages of new secret regulation make the internet better for all of us. Also why would you be willing to accept regulations that you know nothing about, the government refuses to release any detailed info. The four page summary they released is vague and deceptive.

[Maunagarjana]

It regulates it as an information service.
http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/2002/nrcb0201.html

Rush Limbaugh is fighting this with the same rhetoric as you. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (non-profit digital rights watchdog group) is in full support of net neutrality. They are the group that I trust the most when it comes to internet freedom. That tells me all I need to know.

Why do they have 330 pages? Because they want it to hold up in court. I think once this passes, as it inevitably will because it has bipartisan support, people will see it's largely a non-issue, and pretty much a no-brainer.

http://www.cnet.com/news/net-fix-8-burning-questions-about-net-neutrality/

[Dennis Leahy]

The word "regulation" deserves its own topic. Freedom-seeking people, Libertarians, Anarchists...all have promoted the idea that ALL regulation is bad, all freedom is good. The problem as I see it is a matter of semantics and scope, and if the freedom-seeking people, Libertarians, and Anarchists would simply modify their call for the least top-down regulation possible for individual PEOPLE, acknowledging that CORPORATIONS need to be regulated, then I'd agree.

Corporations are - by charter, by law - greed-based and (if corporate charters are compared with the definition for "sociopath" in the DSM IV (http://www.psychiatry.org/practice/dsm)), corporations qualify as sociopathic. Much of the insanity and ecocide in the world today is the result of the LACK OF regulation on corporations. Corporations buy legislation to disempower "the people" and to empower themselves.

"The government" deserves its own topic too, and (though I know I sound like a 'broken record'), the problem, as I see it, is that the Elite have commandeered the entire electoral paradigm and can thus apply strict filtration to the election process ensuring that the Elite are completely represented and that "the people" have absolutely no representation whatsoever. No one alive on this planet can even imagine what a "government of the people" would be like, because none of us have ever experienced it. Assumptions are made that "government is bad" based on fascist/corportocratic/oligarchic governments. The meme has been passed around that "power corrupts", and most people believe it - even though they have never experienced a government that was made up of ordinary citizens not tied to the Elite and corporations.

The specifics of the "Net Neutrality" laws that the current Elite-aligned, corporate-controlled US government will pass (it makes no difference whatsoever how much citizen protest or petitions are tendered, whatever the Elite-aligned lawmakers want to pass they will pass) will not protect citizens nor protect 'net neutrality' - but telecommunications corporations will not protect citizens nor protect 'net neutrality' either. It's a lose-lose for citizens. Until and unless some movement (such as The Reset Button Movement) gives ordinary citizens control of the government and permanently flushes the minions of the Elite from all governance positions, these are the kind of lose-lose proposals that will be presented to the public. Siding with allowing the US government to pass a Net Neutrality law (Orwellian-named, and will at least erode if not destroy net neutrality) may be a tiny bit better for citizens than having the telecom corporations to do whatever they want, which will destroy net neutrality. With the current Elite-controlled government and corporations as the only two choices, there's not much of a gray zone between the "lose" and the "lose" of the lose-lose that will be the result.

In my view, the government needs to regulate these corporations, and net neutrality - real net neutrality - needs to be the goal. If we actually had a government that was composed of ordinary citizens with no corporate ties, then I'd breathe a sigh of relief if the (citizen-centric) lawmaking body was writing legislation to protect the Internet from corporate greed. So, I think rgray222 has a point to be extremely skeptical of a corporate-controlled government writing any laws. I also think that Maunagarjana has a point that these corporations need to be regulated by the government (the "free market" cannot and does not regulate monopolistic corporate giants), and the law (that the government will pass) may be the least smelly pile of poop in citizen's lose-lose on this issue.

[The Lawnman]

Net Neutrality = Internet [anti] neutrality - Just like the "Affordable Healthcare Act" has nothing to do with being "affordable", its all about gaining control over your "physical" body. There is always an adverse agenda when things are done behind closed doors, in secret and it usually doesn't end up well for the general public. The UNITED STATES Corp and its subsidiary [private] CORPORATE partners are the only ones who will benefit from "Net Neutrality" legislation. Follow the money, somebody is paying somebody back for their campaign contributions or future private sector employment opportunities.

[ThePythonicCow]

It's not what's wrong with the way content is delivered today that is the issue. Things are fine.....for now. But if nothing is done, it will not stay like it is now. The issue is how the telecoms want to change things in the very near future. Net neutrality is intended to head this off before it happens. It's intended to preserve the internet as it is now, not overhaul it. A lot of the fear mongering about net neutrality is just industry propaganda. Some of it is ideological objections by people who don't like the government doing anything ever.

I really have to disagree with you. You are asking for government regulation for something that may or may not happen. This is the attitude that lets the government creep in and take control of something that is working just fine. Today, the Internet is essentially unregulated and unfettered by the federal government. But President Obama is calling for the FCC to reclassify the Internet as a utility and heavily regulate ISPs as if they’re monopolies, which they’re not.

...
Net neutrality is not an issue. Federal regulation of the Internet is. That is the only threat consumers need to worry about. The government will inevitably dumb down the internet, increase the price and control content.[/B]


The Chairman of the FCC is refusing to appear in front of congress to discuss net neutrality. Also Obama and the Chairman of the FCC refuse to release details of this new bill. Their silence speaks volumes and should be a red flag to everyone that uses the internet.


Again, the government already regulates the internet. This is a fact. So your scaremongering about this is nothing more than beating on a strawman. This issue is about whether it remains classified as an information service, or is reclassified as a telecommunications service. Either way, it is regulated by the FCC. It's just a matter of how.
...
I'm actually amazed that they are doing something right for once. I've been saying this needs to be done for years.



The only snake oil salesmen I see in this crowd work for the government. 330 pages of new regulations that they are insisting to be voted on by Congress before they release the details is not only bizarre but obscene. Please explain how you think the internet is already regulated.

...
Again, how exactly is the internet regulated today and how will 330 pages of new secret regulation make the internet better for all of us.

Please get a couple of your key facts straight, rgray222 :).

The Internet in the US is regulated by the FCC at present, as an information utility.

The FCC, not Congress, will be voting on this (yes, large and secret) regulation change.

Cable companies do have a de facto monopoly over broadband Internet for most Americans. For example, I presently have the following choices: Continue to do business with Charter, my local broadband Internet provider, at whatever price and on whatever terms they impose.
Convert to dial-up, DSL or satellite, which are sufficiently slower and/or more expensive that I could no longer be the primary backup service for this forum.
Move to another location with some other location, with some other broadband provider, equally subject to monopolistic tyranny, which is not a practical option for me except under extraordinary duress.
I of course cringe when I find myself supporting one large entity, in order to protect myself from another large entity.

I of course cringe when I hear some large entity saying they have to keep something secret from me, for my own good.

But, in this case, to keep a few de facto near-monopolies of the back end (such as Google, Amazon, Skype, Facebook, Netflix) and the even more dominant de facto monopolies (a cartel, more accurately, of a few large companies splitting up the US Internet market) of the critical infrastructure from holding the Internet for ransom, the FCC is the essential counter-balance, in which role it appears that they are about to act, tomorrow.

The US Courts were quite clear that the FCC had the legal authority to reclassify Internet providers as common carriers to be regulated under Title II of the Communications Act, and that the FCC would need to make such a reclassification in order to have the authority to impose some of the net neutrality regulations they supported.

[rgray222]

Why do they have 330 pages? Because they want it to hold up in court. I think once this passes, as it inevitably will because it has bipartisan support, people will see it's largely a non-issue, and pretty much a no-brainer.


The question is not why it is 330 pages, the question is why are they insisting on a vote before the information is released to lawmakers or the public. Why do they have a need to be secretive about this bill.

You probably can answer the question yourself if you're honest.
It will not holdup to public scrutiny. It would change the internet in ways that the public would not accept otherwise they would be eager to share this information.

Trying to politicize this issue is a backhanded way of getting people to choose sides. A long used favorite tactic of mainstream media and politicians There is no way, shape or form that this is a political issue. This is government control of the internet. It is not regulated now and it works extremely well even with its flaws. These regulations will apply to democrats, republican. libertarians and independents. These regulations could care less about your politics. Do you really think the government can do a better job of deciding which content you should be viewing than you can do on your own.

Also, why should bills ever be passed without lawmaker or public inspection? This is absurd. How can anyone even pretend to be for or against something if you really have no idea what is in it. Yes, the talking heads and the media have launched their pro and con campaigns but that is beyond idiotic when we don't have any of the details. I am against more government regulation. I am bitterly against secret, undisclosed, backdoor, sleazy government regulation. This is exactly what this bill is.

[ThePythonicCow]

The question is not why it is 330 pages, the question is why are they insisting on a vote before the information is released to lawmakers or the public. Why do they have a need to be secretive about this bill.

You probably can answer the question yourself if you're honest.
It will not holdup to public scrutiny. It would change the internet in ways that the public would not accept otherwise they would be eager to share this information.

Trying to politicize this issue is a backhanded way of getting people to choose sides. A long used favorite tactic of mainstream media and politicians There is no way, shape or form that this is a political issue. This is government control of the internet. It is not regulated now and it works extremely well even with its flaws. These regulations will apply to democrats, republican. libertarians and independents. These regulations could care less about your politics. Do you really think the government can do a better job of deciding which content you should be viewing than you can do on your own.

Also, why should bills ever be passed without lawmaker or public inspection? This is absurd. How can anyone even pretend to be for or against something if you really have no idea what is in it. Yes, the talking heads and the media have launched their pro and con campaigns but that is beyond idiotic when we don't have any of the details. I am against more government regulation. I am bitterly against secret, undisclosed, backdoor, sleazy government regulation. This is exactly what this bill is.

It is NOT a Bill -- The proposed laws that our US lawmakers in Congress vote on are called "bills". This is not such.

This is a FCC regulatory action, apparently within the scope of their legal authority, and apparently done, as usual, without public review prior to the vote. That practice, and that authority, may indeed be worth criticizing, but let's at least get our facts straight.

What we are being told, that this is a move to make basic broadband Internet service, like water, electricity and telephone service, basic services provided on regulated fair terms to almost everyone by what are for all practical purposes monopolies, prohibiting abuse of that monopoly to extract exorbitant fees, tolls and restrictions, is one of the more reasonable uses of central government power in my view.

Yes, this action pushes many alarm bells, with its secret use of central power for purposes unknown to us.

But we do not know, are not allowed to know, at this time, what are the real problems of this action, be they hidden in other parts of this proposed regulation, or in other seeming unrelated actions not publicized at all.

We do not serve our purposes well by repeatedly pushing the obvious alarm bells, with inaccurate claims. Fear tends to narrow one's vision. Such might be useful if the fear is correctly focused on the actual threat. Fear is usually harmful when misdirected.

Rgray222 - please don't keep pushing the buttons of fear on this issue using incorrect information. We need to stay alert and calm, not jumping at shadows (granted some menacing and well known shadows.)

Please help us focus our energies, which are substantial, to figuring out what is really going on here.

[ThePythonicCow]

We need to stay alert and calm, not jumping at shadows (granted some menacing and well known shadows.)

Please help us focus our energies, which are substantial, to figuring out what is really going on here.
The Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) (https://www.eff.org) might have an idea what the more serious, more covert, problem is with this anticipated regulatory change (anticipated in about 24 hours from now).

In their article Dear FCC: Rethink The Vague "General Conduct" Rule (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/dear-fcc-rethink-those-vague-general-conduct-rules) posted yesterday, they wrote:

==========



For many months, EFF has been working with a broad coalition of advocates to persuade the Federal Communications Commission to adopt new Open Internet rules that would survive legal scrutiny and actually help protect the Open Internet. Our message has been clear from the beginning: the FCC has a role to play (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/fcc-and-net-neutrality-way-forward), but its role must be firmly bounded.

Two weeks ago (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/huge-win-open-internet-fcc-officially-embraces-title-ii), we learned that we had likely managed (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/fccs-latest-net-neutrality-proposal-pros-cons-and-question-marks) the first goal—the FCC is going to do the right thing and reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, giving it the ability to make new, meaningful Open Internet rules. But we are deeply concerned that the FCC’s new rules will include a provision that sounds like a recipe for overreach and confusion: the so-called “general conduct rule.”

According to the FCC's own "Fact Sheet (http://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-wheeler-proposes-new-rules-protecting-open-internet)," the proposed rule will allow the FCC to review (and presumably punish) non-neutral practices that may “harm” consumers or edge providers. Late last week, as the window for public comment was closing, EFF filed a letter (https://www.eff.org/files/2015/02/23/14-28_09-191_eff_ex_parte_2.19.15.pdf) with the FCC urging it to clarify and sharply limit the scope of any “general conduct” provision:

[T]he Commission should use its Title II authority to engage in light-touch regulation, taking great care to adhere to clear, targeted, and transparent rules. A “general conduct rule,” applied on a case-by- case basis with the only touchstone being whether a given practice “harms” consumers or edge providers, may lead to years of expensive litigation to determine the meaning of “harm” (for those who can afford to engage in it). What is worse, it could be abused by a future Commission to target legitimate practices that offer significant benefits to the public . . .

Accordingly, if the Commission intends to adopt a “general conduct rule” it should spell out, in advance, the contours and limits of that rule, and clarify that the rule shall be applied only in specific circumstances.

Unfortunately, if a recent report from Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/20/usa-internet-neutrality-idUSL1N0VU01W20150220) is correct, the general conduct rule will be anything but clear. The FCC will evaluate “harm” based on consideration of seven factors: impact on competition; impact on innovation; impact on free expression; impact on broadband deployment and investments; whether the actions in question are specific to some applications and not others; whether they comply with industry best standards and practices; and whether they take place without the awareness of the end-user, the Internet subscriber.

There are several problems with this approach. First, it suggests that the FCC believes it has broad authority to pursue any number of practices—hardly the narrow, light-touch approach we need to protect the open Internet. Second, we worry that this rule will be extremely expensive in practice, because anyone wanting to bring a complaint will be hard-pressed to predict whether they will succeed. For example, how will the Commission determine “industry best standards and practices”? As a practical matter, it is likely that only companies that can afford years of litigation to answer these questions will be able to rely on the rule at all. Third, a multi-factor test gives the FCC an awful lot of discretion, potentially giving an unfair advantage to parties with insider influence.

We are days away from a final vote, and it appears that many of the proposed rules will make sense for the Internet. Based on what we know so far, however, the general conduct proposal may not. The FCC should rethink this one.
==========

[LivioRazlo]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/26/389259382/net-neutrality-up-for-vote-today-by-fcc-board

Tis is bad day for America...

[EWO]

Ive heard about this recently but haven't fully understood the impact of it.
Could you post a few summarizing PROS and CONS so I can get a better picture of what this means for the world?

Thanks

[ThePythonicCow]

From: Net neutrality becomes the law of the land (ZDNet.com) (http://www.zdnet.com/article/net-neutrality-becomes-the-law-of-the-land/?tag=nl.e589&s_cid=e589&ttag=e589&ftag=TREc64629f):

==========



Summary: With Congress washing its hands of the matter, the FCC voted to regulate Internet Service Providers as utilities.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted today to accept FCC chairman Tom Wheeler's proposal that the Commission "use its Title II authority to implement and enforce open Internet protections." Or, to put it in plain English, your ISP must provide equal broadband access to you or any site -- Amazon, Netflix, etc. -- without slowing down or speeding up sites for additional fees.

As expected, the vote to treat ISPs as common carriers passed by a party line vote of three Democrats over the two Republicans. Under this regulation, broadband Internet services will be governed by Title II (http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40234.pdf) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Mobile broadband vendors, such as 4G providers AT&T, Sprint and Verizon Wireless will also be regulated as common carriers based on Title III of the Communications Act. It should also be noted that since Wheeler made his proposal, the FCC has redefined broadband (http://www.zdnet.com/article/fcc-to-define-broadband-as-minimum-25mbps/) as delivering at least 25-Megabits per second (Mbps).

The Republicans claimed that the FCC was over-reaching its authority by putting in a secret Obama plan for net neutrality (http://www.zdnet.com/article/obama-calls-for-net-neutrality-internet-service-as-a-utility/). Wheeler dismissed this as nonsense in his final speech. He summed up, "This is the FCC using all the tools in our toolbox to protect innovators and consumers; to ban paid prioritization, the so called fast lane. [This] will not divide the Internet into haves and have-nots."

Specifically, the FCC will use this new authority to define a new "Open Internet." This consists of three fundamental building blocks.

No Blocking: Broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.

No Throttling: Broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.

No Paid Prioritization: Broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration -- in other words, no "fast lanes." This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates.

This last provision serves notice to Comcast, Verzion, and other last-mile ISPs that they can no longer charge Netflix, or other content providers, for Internet access (http://www.zdnet.com/article/netflix-comcast-is-charging-us-for-access-to-our-subscribers/). It's a safe bet that these contracts are now on their way to the courts. In addition, even as Internet technologies evolve, ISPs are forbidden to harm consumers or edge providers.

The FCC is also claiming for the first time to have authority to hear complaints and take appropriate enforcement action if it determines the interconnection activities of ISPs are not just and reasonable. This will enable the FCC to address conflicts over traffic between mass-market broadband providers and edge providers.

In the commercial Internet's first days in 1992, the ISPs of the day formed the Commercial Internet Exchange (CIX). One of its guiding principles was net neutrality -- that no sites would be blocked and no traffic would be metered or slowed.

This has ceased to be the case. In 2014, Verizon won a case against the FCC. In it, they showed that the FCC did not have the right to regulate Internet traffic (http://www.zdnet.com/article/net-neutrality-rules-nixed-by-appeals-court/). This was a kick in the teeth for net neutrality (http://www.zdnet.com/article/net-neutrality-gets-a-kick-in-the-teeth/) at the time. The Tier 1 backbone ISP Level 3 (http://www.level3.com/en/) has shown that last-mile ISPs with a monopoly in some areas have deliberately slowing down Internet traffic (http://www.zdnet.com/article/level-3-accuses-major-isps-of-forcing-internet-traffic-into-the-slow-lane/).

So, what will this mean for you? Wheeler declared that this new stance "will ensure the Internet remains open, now and in the future, for all Americans." We'll see. As Mark Cuban, serial entrepreneur, said on CNBC, "Let the lawsuits begin."

==========

[LivioRazlo]

What the PTB would have you believe is that big companies such as Comcast, Verizon and AT&T would be regulated under the FCC so they can't throttle the content you view or how you use it.

My theory, which will resonate with some here is that the U.S. government will hide under the Net Neutrality guise and do the exact opposite that they propose to do.

[EWO]

That article paints this as a great thing and ISPs as evil corporations.
This video shows the other side of the argument.

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/198226/THE_ACTUAL_TRUTH_ABOUT_NEW_NEUTRALITY/

I have to agree, when governments get involved the bureaucracy and paper work always tends to slow things down and make them complicated.
Even if some ISPs start doing weird things in some cases, this can be resolved case by case basis, or simply switch ISPs.

My internet price went UP 3 times this year, i was pissed, but when I found out my speed also went up 2.5 times, it made me feel better. :)

[T Smith]

What the PTB would have you believe is that big companies such as Comcast, Verizon and AT&T would be regulated under the FCC so they can't throttle the content you view or how you use it.

My theory, which will resonate with some here is that the U.S. government will hide under the Net Neutrality guise and do the exact opposite that they propose to do.

I refer you here to the concepts, "doublethink" and "doublespeak", e.g. WAR is PEACE, SLAVERY is FREEDOM, etc.

If there is ever such a thing as the Nobel Peace Prize for Non-Fiction, George Orwell will surely be the first recipient of such an award posthumously.

[jagman]

I'm seriously considering leaving the net...

[ThePythonicCow]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/26/389259382/net-neutrality-up-for-vote-today-by-fcc-board

Tis is bad day for America...
I merged this "FCC Net Neutrality Vote" thread in with the existing thread that was discussing the same topic.

[ThePythonicCow]

In my view, this hot debate of the week over net neutrality and what the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will rule (now has just ruled) is yet another hyped up controversy.

Perhaps the ones orchestrating this controversy of the week were publicity experts hired away from World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) <grin>:


In this corner we have the challenger "Pro Net Neutrality", who promises to keep the Internet unblocked, unthrottled, and not selling favored access to evil NetFlix or Yahoo.

In this corner we have the reigning champion "Pro Net Freedom", who promises to keep the never to be trusted US Federal Government from seizing tyrannical control over the Internet, our last bastion of freedom.

I honestly don't know what's really going on here, or elsewhere on this planet this week, that I should really be worried about. But for dang sure, it's not either of the above two hyped up, fear mongered, positions.

There might however be something or someone hiding below the above fear mongering and hype that I should really be concerned with ... perhaps.

[lucidity]

The news isn't good.

http://rt.com/usa/235823-fcc-votes-net-neutrality/

[ThePythonicCow]

The news isn't good.

http://rt.com/usa/235823-fcc-votes-net-neutrality/

The news is that the FCC adopted net neutrality rules, as further described in my Post #24, above (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?79808-Net-Neutrality-is-Not-Neutral-and-it-Will-Radically-Change-The-Internet&p=937267&viewfull=1#post937267).

Whether this is good or not ... or whether it even matters ... I don't know. This might just be another show being put on to distract us, while whatever does matter proceeds, behind the scene. I don't know.

I like the color blue more than the color red, and I like the claimed public positions of the "Pro Net Neutrality" side in this contest (the side that just won.) But those are both superficial preferences, which might or might not have deeper relevance.

[T Smith]

The word "regulation" deserves its own topic. Freedom-seeking people, Libertarians, Anarchists...all have promoted the idea that ALL regulation is bad, all freedom is good. The problem as I see it is a matter of semantics and scope, and if the freedom-seeking people, Libertarians, and Anarchists would simply modify their call for the least top-down regulation possible for individual PEOPLE, acknowledging that CORPORATIONS need to be regulated, then I'd agree.

In a fascist society, calling for corporate regulation is the same as asking the fox to guard and regulate the hen house. Of course I want to check the giant corporations... in that sense I'm pro regulation. But can we honestly be comfortable empowering the FCC with that role? The very idea gives me agita.

Until we know exactly what is in this 330 page secret regulation I don't feel qualified to comment on this development with any authority, but I do know with almost 100% certainty that there is (or most certainly will be) a revolving door between the FCC and the Comcast's, Netflix's, and Verizon FIOS's of the world, such that the information cartel--the so-called "bad guys" here, will abuse its "governmental" powers to its own advantage.

Call me a cynic, but I can't see any world where this is good thing for a free Internet and the consumer of free information...

[Maunagarjana]

I'm glad at least Paul is not buying the hype. I think it's a pretty straightforward logical move, and not that big of a deal. And yet, we should remain vigilant. Is there possibility for shady loopholes? Sure. But the sky is not falling, Chicken Littles. There is what this is in actuality, and what people imagine it is. Folks are so used to everything being a Trojan horse for tyranny, and that's something I certainly can relate to, but I don't think this is it. And the alternative would have been far worse.

[grannyfranny100]

In our so called capitalist economic society, why not have the big boys compete in each area for customers? If they had won, the big boys would just worry about profit and not about quality of service. Already there is talk about pressuring the Republicans to introduce bills since the big corporations didn't get what they wanted.

Those of us who have cared, have been writing the FCC for almost a year. That did get their attention. Now we must pay attention to the lawsuits and possible bills in Congress. In fact we need to decide if we even want agencies. So many hot topics seem to be pushed into agencies rather than Congress. Think about who decides so many things that matter to us: GMOs, water quality, big Pharma med approvals, et al.

We have to be vigilant every day, not just the day the decision comes in. The heck with sports stats, we need to pay attention to what will impact us, our children and our world.

[grannyfranny100]

The NY Times has published some clear cut, easy to understand articles. Of course over 300 pages were not released to the public...... Could be that they hope we will lose interest whle lawsuits begin and Congress debates the situation.

The Push for Net Neutrality Arose From Lack of Choice
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/technology/limited-high-speed-internet-choices-underlie-net-neutrality-rules.html?rref=technology&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Technology&pgtype=article

Why the U.S. Has Fallen Behind in Internet Speed and Affordability
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/upshot/why-the-us-has-fallen-behind-in-internet-speed-and-affordability.html?contentCollection=technology&action=click&module=NextInCollection&region=Footer&pgtype=article&abt=0002&abg=1

F.C.C. Approves Net Neutrality Rules, Classifying Broadband Internet Service as a Utility
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-vote-internet-utility.html?action=click&contentCollection=Technology&region=Footer&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=article

I don't know if these links will work. If not go to http://www.nytimes.com and search for the articles by title.

[ponda]

In a fascist society, calling for corporate regulation is the same as asking the fox to guard and regulate the hen house. Of course I want to check the giant corporations... in that sense I'm pro regulation. But can we honestly be comfortable empowering the FCC with that role? The very idea gives me agita.

Until we know exactly what is in this 330 page secret regulation I don't feel qualified to comment on this development with any authority, but I do know with almost 100% certainty that there is (or most certainly will be) a revolving door between the FCC and the Comcast's, Netflix's, and Verizon FIOS's of the world, such that the information cartel--the so-called "bad guys" here, will abuse its "governmental" powers to its own advantage.

Call me a cynic, but I can't see any world where this is good thing for a free Internet and the consumer of free information...


Tom Wheeler the FCC Chairman is an ex-Cable and Wireless lobbyist (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/ex-cable-and-wireless-lobbyist-confirmed-as-fcc-chairman/)

[Dennis Leahy]

The word "regulation" deserves its own topic. Freedom-seeking people, Libertarians, Anarchists...all have promoted the idea that ALL regulation is bad, all freedom is good. The problem as I see it is a matter of semantics and scope, and if the freedom-seeking people, Libertarians, and Anarchists would simply modify their call for the least top-down regulation possible for individual PEOPLE, acknowledging that CORPORATIONS need to be regulated, then I'd agree.

In a fascist society, calling for corporate regulation is the same as asking the fox to guard and regulate the hen house. Of course I want to check the giant corporations... in that sense I'm pro regulation. But can we honestly be comfortable empowering the FCC with that role? The very idea gives me agita.

Until we know exactly what is in this 330 page secret regulation I don't feel qualified to comment on this development with any authority, but I do know with almost 100% certainty that there is (or most certainly will be) a revolving door between the FCC and the Comcast's, Netflix's, and Verizon FIOS's of the world, such that the information cartel--the so-called "bad guys" here, will abuse its "governmental" powers to its own advantage.

Call me a cynic, but I can't see any world where this is good thing for a free Internet and the consumer of free information...

I agree..."In a fascist society..." the government is corporate/Elite controlled, and "regulation" really is just a stinky pile of doublespeak. (A good example was GW Bush's "Clear Skies Initiative" which actually weakened the Clean Air Act and let polluters get away with more air pollution.)

The rest of my post (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?79808-Net-Neutrality-is-Not-Neutral-and-it-Will-Radically-Change-The-Internet&p=936847&viewfull=1#post936847) that you didn't quote fleshes out my agreement with you.

I don't want to live in a fascist society, but I am the only one.* Everyone else likes it, or they are comfortable with it, or they are too frozen in fear to even talk about actually doing something effective to stop fascism/corporatocracy.

*(Of course, I am not the only one - it just feels that way. I have a strong argument with activists that are chanting, protesting, petitioning, and voting within the context that "the monsters in power get to stay in power, but this one issue needs to be fixed." No rule changes, laws, or policy changes that come out of the fascist corporatocracy are going to be anti-fascist and anti-corporatocracy.

The pivotal issue isn't surface changes, but rather deep systemic change to oust the corporatocracy and make it impossible for the minions of the Elite to retain or regain puppet positions for their Elite lords and masters. That next phase - where the government had the same "form" but was staffed with an entirely citizen-based group of representatives with a single term - is the next big area of argument with most activists: Each sees the changes to the "form" of government that they ultimately want, and are deluded into thinking that we could get there in one fell swoop, and so are uninterested in any plan or strategy that does not specifically name their desired new form of governance as the ultimate goal.

So, nothing is accomplished, nor will it be. There will now be a lot of hootin' and hollerin' and backslapping and dancing from the activists that think this FCC ruling was a big "win" for the people. They aren't even aware that they are still completely controlled by fascists, with no chance of escaping fascist tyranny.)

[ThePythonicCow]

I'm glad at least Paul is not buying the hype. I think it's a pretty straightforward logical move, and not that big of a deal.
I've been doing what I could to not buy into the hype ... however that doesn't mean I have concluded it's not a big deal. Rather I've been looking at this from various angles, trying to figure out what's really going on. When you see this much Sturm and Drang over something in the popular media, you just know that something is up.

Here's my take on this.

There are four "battles", as two pairs, going on here, in both of which, victories for the "little guy" are being used as smoke screens to cover major losses elsewhere. That's Battles A1 and A2, each with their two sides, and Battles B1 and B2, each with their two sides.

The end result will become government controlled content of a Web that is used, as newspapers, radio and television before them, to control the masses.

Battles A1 and A2 center around who controls the data pipes and their content.



Battle A1: The Internet Service Providers (ISPs) is on one side versus their customers on the other side. This is a battle over the quality and pricing of Internet service. This is the main cover story, going under the name of "Net Neutrality". The lead story, except for the "crazy right wing Republican" press, was that the little guy, the customer and the small Internet content providers won. The US FCC has assumed for itself the authority to prevent ISPs from using their de facto monopolies in most broadband markets to gorge the consumer or their content providers. This sounds good, but as is usually the case, any government powerful enough to make our lives (apparently) better in some arena is powerful enough to make it worse in that arena.

Battle A2: The US Federal Government is one side versus American residents, on the other side. This is a battle over the content of what is on the Internet. This is the enormous overreach that could lead to the end of the free Internet in the US. The camel's nose is in the tent with a vague "General Conduct" phrase.

As ArsTechnica.com (http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/fcc-votes-for-net-neutrality-a-ban-on-paid-fast-lanes-and-title-ii/) describes today's FCC ruling: "There is also a "general conduct" standard designed to judge whether future activity not contemplated by the order harms end users or online content providers.".

The US FCC has assumed for itself the authority to determine what is acceptable "General Conduct" on the Internet.

The big corporations running the data pipes can't use their de facto monopolies to extort excess profits, but the big government can use their overwhelming force to impose their self determined standards of "General Conduct" on the content.

Oops. If the bastards can get away with it, the day may well come when much of what is posted here on Project Avalon is not considered acceptable "General Conduct."

===

Meanwhile ... Battles B1 and B2 center around whether the US government can and does monitor and control the (B1) private and (B2) public uses of the Internet.



Battle B1: Privacy adocates, cryptography experts, and whistleblowers are fighting a pitched battle with the government intelligence agencies over whether or not private individuals can have private conversations, out of reach of prying eyes, on the Internet. Privacy is scoring some important victories here, with an ongoing series of high profile leaks of intelligence agency capabilities, and with increasing awareness of the usefulness of cryptography for keeping communications secret. This sounds at least hopeful, if not outright good, but this long running battle is providing a smoke screen for the other, perhaps more important, battle.

Battle B2: The Internet is being co-opted. It has been, in large part, a shared "Commons", used by thousands, even millions, of small and medium groups of people, coming together for days or decades, to further an amazing variety of efforts. The Bastards in Power are battling this, compelled to co-opt the Internet as were books, newspapers, radio and television before them, into weapons of mass delusion and control. With sufficient monitoring of just the publicly visible web, and with extensive analysis and correlation of that data, the bastards in power can adapt mass surveillance and propaganda for the Internet.

The Internet will become the most effective tool yet developed to control the public activities of humanity.

===

Battles A1 and B1 are the more publicized battles, and the "little guy" seems to score some important victories, such as the victory for "Net Neutrality" (limiting the monopoly powers of the dominant ISPs over the US Internet) a few hours ago.

Notice for example that (see How Google’s Silence Helped Net Neutrality Win (Wired.com) (http://www.wired.com/2015/02/google-net-neutrality/)) the big corporations that had earlier come out in support of Net Neutrality, such Google, Facebook, and Microsoft, who stand to gain from not having to pay extra to the ISPs for premium access, did not make a major public stand this time, unlike the last time the FCC considered this question five years ago. This helped frame Battle A1 as big guy (major ISPs, such as Comcast and AT&T) versus little guy (other smaller supporters of "Net Neutrality"). We have a tendency to favor the "little guy" in a contest, we identify with the "little guy."

But Battles A2 and B2 are the more important battles, over the transformation of the Internet into a reliable means of mass propaganda and control. Battle A2, which was lost today with the "General Conduct" mandate assumed by the FCC, gives rise to the critical policing arm of the larger battle B2, the use of the Internet as a means of mass control. If some rascally rebel or popular idea is getting too bothersome, attracting too much attention, on the Internet, then that can be ruled in violation of the "General Conduct" rules, and shut down. One might still be able to whisper such revolutionary thoughts in secret, but it will be shut out of the public commons.

===

The transformation of the Internet as a means of propaganda and control just took a major step forward today.

Damn.

[Snoweagle]

Whilst I consider the NET Neutrality decision as good for the global population it is of grave concern that those 300 pages are not released to the public.

There can only be one reason for this public exclusion - we are not going to like whatever is contained there.

We can debate of course the influence of security and intrusion by authorites as been the network spectacle for the last few years, with countless examples of privacy breeches though I feel we are now way past this.

My intuition tells me those 300 pages are "tools" for legal enforcers to mandate the use of the NET for the mandatory MICROCHIPPING of the population. So yes, you can have super internet but at the cost of zero privacy.

So if anyone can take a sneak peek or reveal the contents of those pages it would be extremely helpful in determining the scope and purpose.

Coincidentally, CERN will be activated at full power soon, it's ultimate test and the One Kilometer Data Array in Orange State, Africa is nearing completion. Both work hand in hand in data transfer and management. One transmits the other recieves. So lets read those 300 pages and see how this model builds around our lives.

[grannyfranny100]

I agree that the lack of transparency about the 300 pages may imply nasty hidden stuff. We need to be vigilant about what they have "up their sleeves."

[betoobig]

Snoweagle i see you know some stuff and i like to ask you something...
WIll the outernet change anything??? Thanks in advance
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_internet186.htm

[rgray222]

The government has shown time after time that it is ineffective at managing much of anything. There is a bright line between private industry and government regulated business. Think of any industry with major to severe problems:

Public schools
Health care
Higher education
Student loans
Housing
Banking
Physical infrastructure (including that ever so efficient power grid)
Immigration
Space program
The military
The police
The post office
The worst of the bunch Public Utilities
Now the internet

What do all these industries and/or organizations have in common? They are all heavily regulated or controlled by the government. On the other hand we see that where deregulation has occurred, innovation has bloomed. Do you think we’d all be walking around with smartphones today if the government still ran the phone system?

Some seem to think that the government is full of people on a mission to make our lives better and protect the little guy. Since when did the government become a benevolent parent with it's children's best interest at heart. Lets call the government for what it truly is, the largest monopoly in the world, a dangerous tyrant that is influenced by large corporate interests seeking to control almost every aspect of your life. Even though the government 'may' (I don't use that word lightly) have the best of intentions, those intentions have never ever been realized. Governments cannot move fast enough to effectively regulate technology companies because by the time they move, the technology has changed and the debate is irrelevant. Also governments always move in favor of big business, regardless of the political party in power. This is not idle speculation this is just a proven fact.

I have a horrible disdain for how much power the telcoms have. Make no mistake they don't have this power because they lack government regulation they have this power because of government regulation. The companies that can play the government game with lobbyist and influence will always win. Our politicians and government bureaucrats bend, change and corrupt the system through this influence. People that supported net neutrality are demanding the same corporate/government corruption be put into the internet.

Found in the New York Times

Today, it was revealed by FCC commissioner Ajit Pai that the proposed Net Neutrality plan the FCC is considering is 332 pages long. It will not be released to the public until after the FCC has voted. Pai claims this regulation will give “the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works.”

Anyone who thinks it is fear mongering to rail against such government behavior should have a rethink on what they want from their government. Anyone who thinks that governments encourage young start up companies and entrepreneurial behavior has gotten it wrong. Government always favors big business, always has and always will. Also it makes absolutely no difference if net neutrality was passed by 5 un-elected FCC regulators or Congress the effect is the same. It becomes law.

Allowing the government to pass massive secret regulations before anyone has a chance to understand or examine those regulation is behavior that no one should accept even for one minute. Anyone thinking that this may be a non event only needs to look at the history of utilities. They are slow, non adapting, backward thinking monopolies protected and controlled by the government.

The government is about to implement a one size fits all policy on a dynamic changing technology. I hope you like cheese pizza because that is the only thing on the menu and that is the only thing that will ever be on the menu. I think that old saying is very appropriate here. Be careful what you wish for.......................

[Maunagarjana]

In our so called capitalist economic society, why not have the big boys compete in each area for customers? If they had won, the big boys would just worry about profit and not about quality of service. Already there is talk about pressuring the Republicans to introduce bills since the big corporations didn't get what they wanted.

Those of us who have cared, have been writing the FCC for almost a year. That did get their attention. Now we must pay attention to the lawsuits and possible bills in Congress. In fact we need to decide if we even want agencies. So many hot topics seem to be pushed into agencies rather than Congress. Think about who decides so many things that matter to us: GMOs, water quality, big Pharma med approvals, et al.

We have to be vigilant every day, not just the day the decision comes in. The heck with sports stats, we need to pay attention to what will impact us, our children and our world.

Sorry, but Net Neutrality *is* true capitalism, which is a level playing field. Enforcing this is one of the few legitimate roles of government, imho. I'm amazed by you folks who think government is the devil incarnate and the source of all woe, but you seemingly give these greedy pathological corporations a full pass no matter how egregious their trespasses. Maybe if like myself you have had corporations severely negatively impact your personal life in irreparable ways, you wouldn't be so quick to give them free reign.

Also, bear in mind that big government and big business in many cases work together in partnership to screw over the public. Say what you want about government, but at least the jerks in it can be replaced by voting people out of office. The same can't be said for corporations. If you have evil rapacious scoundrels sitting on a board of directors or as major shareholders and stakeholders, you cannot replace them by voting them out.

[TargeT]

I'm glad at least Paul is not buying the hype. I think it's a pretty straightforward logical move, and not that big of a deal. .

that's exactly how tip-toe-totalitarianism works ;) you never see it comming...



Today the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), a non-elected federal government agency, voted three-to-two to reclassify broadband Internet as a common carrier service under Title II of the Communications Act. This means that – without the vote of Congress, the peoples’ branch of government – a federal agency now claims the power to regulate the Internet. I am surprised that even among civil liberties groups, some claim the federal government increasing regulation of the Internet somehow increases our freedom and liberty.

The truth is very different. The adoption of these FCC rules on the Internet represents the largest regulatory power grab in recent history. The FCC’s newly adopted rule takes the most dynamic means of communication and imposes the regulatory structure designed for public utilities. Federal regulation could also open the door to de facto censorship of ideas perceived as threatening to the political class – ideas like the troops should be brought home, the PATRIOT Act should be repealed, military spending and corporate welfare should be cut, and the Federal Reserve should be audited and ended.

The one bright spot in this otherwise disastrous move is that federal regulations making it more difficult to use the Internet will cause more Americans to join our movement for liberty, peace, and prosperity. The federal government should keep its hands off of the Internet!

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2015/february/26/internet-rip/

in fact, as I read the "headlines" it sure seems that the "HYPE" is all about how the internet was saved (or will be) via net neutrality.

I think the oppisite.

[Maunagarjana]

I'm glad at least Paul is not buying the hype. I think it's a pretty straightforward logical move, and not that big of a deal. .

that's exactly how tip-toe-totalitarianism works ;) you never see it comming...

The way it works is for the government and corporations and wall street to take turns screwing the people over. Or haven't you right wing ideologues figured that out yet?




Today the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), a non-elected federal government agency, voted three-to-two to reclassify broadband Internet as a common carrier service under Title II of the Communications Act. This means that – without the vote of Congress, the peoples’ branch of government – a federal agency now claims the power to regulate the Internet. I am surprised that even among civil liberties groups, some claim the federal government increasing regulation of the Internet somehow increases our freedom and liberty.

The truth is very different. The adoption of these FCC rules on the Internet represents the largest regulatory power grab in recent history. The FCC’s newly adopted rule takes the most dynamic means of communication and imposes the regulatory structure designed for public utilities. Federal regulation could also open the door to de facto censorship of ideas perceived as threatening to the political class – ideas like the troops should be brought home, the PATRIOT Act should be repealed, military spending and corporate welfare should be cut, and the Federal Reserve should be audited and ended.

The one bright spot in this otherwise disastrous move is that federal regulations making it more difficult to use the Internet will cause more Americans to join our movement for liberty, peace, and prosperity. The federal government should keep its hands off of the Internet!

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2015/february/26/internet-rip/

in fact, as I read the "headlines" it sure seems that the "HYPE" is all about how the internet was saved (or will be) via net neutrality.

I think the oppisite.

I was referring to the hype of *both* sides. As was addressed by Paul in his earlier post.

[TargeT]

The way it works is for the government and corporations and wall street to take turns screwing the people over. Or haven't you right wing ideologues figured that out yet?

not sure if they have or not, but yes... this is the well established pattern (except I'd say Corporations and Banksters, "wall street" is more of a tool used by them, and so it seems is the government)



I was referring to the hype of *both* sides. As was addressed by Paul in his earlier post.

anything with this much media attention has more going on than is on the surface, I was just delineating where I stood (because I guess I thought everyone was dying to know... haha)

[ThePythonicCow]

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2015/february/26/internet-rip/

in fact, as I read the "headlines" it sure seems that the "HYPE" is all about how the internet was saved (or will be) via net neutrality.

I think the oppisite.
As do I - think the opposite.

As I quoted the Electronic Freedom Foundation above in this post (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?79808-Net-Neutrality-is-Not-Neutral-and-it-Will-Radically-Change-The-Internet&p=936927&viewfull=1#post936927), and as I elaborated in more (perhaps too much) detail in my post of the many battles, above (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?79808-Net-Neutrality-is-Not-Neutral-and-it-Will-Radically-Change-The-Internet&p=937446&viewfull=1#post937446), while one battle with the big Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in the US (Comcast, AT&T, ...) was supposedly decided in the favor of the people, a more important battle over control of the content of the Internet was decided in favor of central control of the Internet.

In short - yesterday's ruling by the FCC essentially said:

We, the FCC, an agency of the US government, hereby mandate

that Internet customers will not be abused by the ISPs de facto monopoly power, and
that we, the FCC, now have, by our own reinterpretation of existing law, the right to control the content of the Internet (aka the "General Conduct" on the Internet.)

All the publicity was focused on the first item above, with even the objections from Rascally Republicans and Right Wing Nut Jobs like Rush Limbaugh (or that's how they appear to my more liberal, Democrat, oriented friends and family), being presented to the public as objections to the first item above - whether or not the ISP's could abuse their de facto monopoly.

The second item above is the more important, and it was hidden by the smoke screen of the battle over the first item.

While the magician dazzles you with his slight of hand, assisted by his lovely assistant, and even throwing in some apparent mistakes ... his other assistant wanders through the crowd, picking pockets, or, in this case, enacting a critical step in converting the Internet into yet another reliable media of mass control, joining books, radio and television in that re-purposing.

'Tis a sad day in Webville.

Hey - You - FCC - You have no proper authority to govern the "General Conduct" on the Internet.

[ThePythonicCow]

It is entirely fitting and proper that the FCC govern the "General Conduct" of whatever happens on their own FCC website.

It is entirely fitting that Bill Ryan, the owner of ProjectAvalon.net govern the "General Conduct" on ProjectAvalon.net.

Similarly Richard, Malcolm, Charles and anyone else who sets up a website ... on their own website.

Nor is it particularly surprising that those will vast power over the nations laws, courts, regulations, and mass media would assume tyrannical power over all Internet activity ... that's what power does ... it corrupts.

But such tyranny must not stand!

[Maunagarjana]

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2015/february/26/internet-rip/

in fact, as I read the "headlines" it sure seems that the "HYPE" is all about how the internet was saved (or will be) via net neutrality.

I think the oppisite.
As do I - think the opposite.

As I quoted the Electronic Freedom Foundation above in this post (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?79808-Net-Neutrality-is-Not-Neutral-and-it-Will-Radically-Change-The-Internet&p=936927&viewfull=1#post936927), and as I elaborated in more (perhaps too much) detail in my post of the many battles, above (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?79808-Net-Neutrality-is-Not-Neutral-and-it-Will-Radically-Change-The-Internet&p=937446&viewfull=1#post937446), while one battle with the big Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in the US (Comcast, AT&T, ...) was supposedly decided in the favor of the people, a more important battle over control of the content of the Internet was decided in favor of central control of the Internet.

In short - yesterday's ruling by the FCC essentially said:

We, the FCC, an agency of the US government, hereby mandate

that Internet customers will not be abused by the ISPs de facto monopoly power, and
that we, the FCC, now have, by our own reinterpretation of existing law, the right to control the content of the Internet (aka the "General Conduct" on the Internet.)

All the publicity was focused on the first item above, with even the objections from Rascally Republicans and Right Wing Nut Jobs like Rush Limbaugh (or that's how they appear to my more liberal, Democrat, oriented friends and family), being presented to the public as objections to the first item above - whether or not the ISP's could abuse their de facto monopoly.

The second item above is the more important, and it was hidden by the smoke screen of the battle over the first item.

While the magician dazzles you with his slight of hand, assisted by his lovely assistant, and even throwing in some apparent mistakes ... his other assistant wanders through the crowd, picking pockets, or, in this case, enacting a critical step in converting the Internet into yet another reliable media of mass control, joining books, radio and television in that re-purposing.

'Tis a sad day in Webville.

Hey - You - FCC - You have no proper authority to govern the "General Conduct" on the Internet.


Regulations can be changed and fine tuned with pressure put on by the public, you know. This isn't a constitutional amendment or something. People are having nightmare visions of the FCC interpreting that as broadly as possible, when everything they've said so far indicates that they have no interest in micromanaging the internet. Also, after all the legal challenges to this regulatory change is finished, and as soon as a Republican administration comes in, they may try to undo what has been done here. And then people can celebrate that liberty has prevailed and they get the tiered system they didn't know they hated.

[ThePythonicCow]

Regulations can be changed and fine tuned with pressure put on by the public, you know. This isn't a constitutional amendment or something. People are having nightmare visions of the FCC interpreting that as broadly as possible, when everything they've said so far indicates that they have no interest in micromanaging the internet. Also, after all the legal challenges to this regulatory change is finished, and as soon as a Republican administration comes in, they may try to undo what has been done here. And then people can celebrate that liberty has prevailed and they get the tiered system they didn't know they hated.
They will interpret their laws, regulations and our Constitution as broadly and tyrannically as they can get away with ... Democrat or Republic, makes little difference.

The ultimate antidote to tyranny is an aware and informed public.

[rgray222]

This isn't a constitutional amendment or something. People are having nightmare visions of the FCC interpreting that as broadly as possible, when everything they've said so far indicates that they have no interest in micromanaging the internet.

Well yes, the government says a lot of things. Some of us don't believe many of the things that the government puts forward. The most recent blatant lie that I can remember is..........if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Believe or not I am not against health care but I am against government lying to get it passed. Read on


Today, it was revealed by FCC commissioner Ajit Pai that the proposed Net Neutrality plan the FCC is considering is 332 pages long. It will not be released to the public until after the FCC has voted. Pai claims this regulation will give “the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works.”



Sorry, but Net Neutrality *is* true capitalism, which is a level playing field. Enforcing this is one of the few legitimate roles of government, imho.

All I can say to that is wow!

[TargeT]

Regulations can be changed and fine tuned with pressure put on by the public, you know. This isn't a constitutional amendment or something. People are having nightmare visions of the FCC interpreting that as broadly as possible, when everything they've said so far indicates that they have no interest in micromanaging the internet. Also, after all the legal challenges to this regulatory change is finished, and as soon as a Republican administration comes in, they may try to undo what has been done here. And then people can celebrate that liberty has prevailed and they get the tiered system they didn't know they hated.

Government control is a one way ratchet that never rarely "releases" with out bloodshed, coup or economic devastation (aka, bad stuff)..

very rare are the moments in the history of government control (baring the above "with out" conditions) where a government has lessened or removed regulation of something once it is regulated.


that's my main concern, plus who in their right mind thinks they have the authority to control thoughts and ideas; the audacity of that is at issue as well.

[Snoweagle]

Snoweagle i see you know some stuff and i like to ask you something...
WIll the outernet change anything??? Thanks in advance
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_internet186.htm

Yes it will change everything - For the worse!
As it states, they are creating an electromagnetic smog for all the devices to work from a centralised control. The problem they have is Gaia and the Cosmos is a bigger player than them and thwarts their perfect system, this is why they define limits or boundaries for the smog levels but to no avail.

Will post more on this later, but the outernet is not designed for our benefit and as with all these things, the talking heads will appear of retard television and the sheep will bleet their approval, cest le vie

[Anchor]

FCC has redefined broadband[/url] as delivering at least 25-Megabits per second (Mbps).


Therefore these constraints:


No Blocking: Broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.

No Throttling: Broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.

No Paid Prioritization: Broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration -- in other words, no "fast lanes." This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates.

now apply to something most people do not have.

I think the motive for putting those users on Broadband just evaporated, and finally the growth curve in internet speed for most users in America just got retarded even more than it already was.

[ThePythonicCow]

The NY Times has published some clear cut, easy to understand articles. Of course over 300 pages were not released to the public...... Could be that they hope we will lose interest whle lawsuits begin and Congress debates the situation.

I posted this on a thread I started (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?79808-Net-Neutrality-is-Not-Neutral-and-it-Will-Radically-Change-The-Internet) a while back but i think it is appropriate here as well.

The government has shown time after time that it is ineffective at managing much of anything. There is a bright line between private industry and government regulated business.
Yes, very much the same discussion on both threads ... so I just merged them :).

[T Smith]

People are having nightmare visions of the FCC interpreting that as broadly as possible, when everything they've said so far indicates that they have no interest in micromanaging the internet. Also, after all the legal challenges to this regulatory change is finished, and as soon as a Republican administration comes in, they may try to undo what has been done here. And then people can celebrate that liberty has prevailed and they get the tiered system they didn't know they hated.

In sorting out the thought process on this, you need to substitute whatever oligarchy or cartel you envision or whatever party or ideology you dislike, e.g. Republican, Democrat--it doesn't matter--with the FCC. These power centers are all interchangeable with the FCC. You don't like George Bush? Then just envisage George Bush as as the FCC. You don't like Barack Obama? Then Barack Obama might as well be the FCC. You don't like Monsanto, Walmart, Netflix, Comcast... they are all interchangeable with the FCC. The point is, whoever has an agenda can easily usurp and commandeer the FCC. It doesn't matter what the FCC professes to be -- it matters what it is.

That said, what the FCC is not is a body with a higher vision or a noble cause to protect the people.

I shall be very happy to be wrong about this... and if I am, please correct me.

But to assert the FCC (insert whatever controlling interest applies here) has no interest in micromanaging the internet?

Really?

[ThePythonicCow]

The regulations are now public. From 400-page net neutrality order includes 80 pages of Republican dissents (ArsTechnica.com) (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/03/400-page-net-neutrality-order-includes-80-pages-of-republican-dissents/):

==========



The Federal Communications Commission voted on February 26 to reclassify broadband as a common carrier service and enforce net neutrality rules, but the commission's entire ruling didn't become public until this morning.

Now you can read the entire ruling (https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf), all 400 pages of it, including the dissents from Republican commissioners. That includes a 64-page dissent from Ajit Pai and 16 pages from Michael O'Reilly. We'll be reading it ourselves for potential followup articles.

Republicans on the commission and in Congress had urged FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler to make the rules public before the vote, but the commission adhered to past practice by not releasing them until the final touches were ready. Wheeler explained on the day of the vote that the majority was required to include the minority's dissents and "be responsive to those dissents" in order to make the ruling complete.

The process took longer than the last time the FCC issued net neutrality rules in 2010; there was just a two-day gap (https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1_Rcd.pdf) in that case. Those rules were largely thrown out (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/01/net-neutrality-is-half-dead-court-strikes-down-fccs-anti-blocking-rules/) in court after a Verizon challenge, forcing the FCC to start over.

There are still some more steps before broadband providers can start filing lawsuits. Opponents can get the court process rolling once the rules are published in the Federal Register. FCC expert Harold Feld, the senior VP of advocacy group Public Knowledge, notes that the FCC cannot control the publication date, but he thinks that will happen in seven to 10 days. He has an extensive breakdown of the process here (http://www.wetmachine.com/tales-of-the-sausage-factory/today-is-fcc-net-neutrality-order-day-what-happens-now/).

The rules do not actually go into effect until 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. There's one exception to that, as new network management disclosure requirements for Internet providers require an additional approval by the Office of Management and Budget to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
==========

[ThePythonicCow]

Here's the FCC page announcing the release, with the full text in-line: http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-open-internet-order

Here's a PDF of the ruling, from the FCC's website: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

Here's the document on Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/258494173/FCC-15-24A1

Here are the first more detailed comments on the ruling that I've found, taken from These are the FCC's full rules for protecting net neutrality (TheVerge.com) (http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/12/8116237/net-neutrality-rules-open-internet-order-released):

============



One of the big questions this document answers is which Title II regulations the commission won't be applying to internet service. It turns out to be quite a lot: more than 700 rules aren't going to be applied. "This includes no unbundling of last-mile facilities, no tariffing, no rate regulation, and no cost accounting rules, which results in a carefully tailored application of only those Title II provisions found to directly further the public interest in an open internet and more, better, and open broadband," the order says. The idea that this proposal is a so-called "light touch" approach to regulation has been touted again and again, basically as a way to quell concerns from those who oppose regulation. Of course, it hasn't exactly done that, and we're still seeing plenty of complaints from the internet providers that are now having their services classified under Title II.

The order focuses on three specific rules for internet service: no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. "A person engaged in the provision of broadband internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management," the order states, while outlining its rules against throttling. For paid prioritization, the order explains the practice as:

"Paid prioritization" refers to the management of a broadband provider’s network to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic, including through use of techniques such as traffic shaping, prioritization, resource reservation, or other forms of preferential traffic management, either (a) in exchange for consideration (monetary or otherwise) from a third party, or (b) to benefit an affiliated entity
Notably, the order does not place regulations on interconnect points, which are what Netflix has been arguing with internet providers about for the last year. Instead, the order simply states that the FCC has the authority to hear complaints regarding interconnect, which will seemingly be addressed on an individual basis. "While we have more than a decade’s worth of experience with last-mile practices, we lack a similar depth of background in the internet traffic exchange context," the order says. "Thus, we find that the best approach is to watch, learn, and act as required, but not intervene now, especially not with prescriptive rules."

The commission does still allow internet providers to perform "reasonable network management," which might affect service. However, there are also strict rules as to what is and is not "reasonable." The commission says that reasonable management is something that primarily has a technical justification, not something that has a business purpose. It also specifically calls out Verizon's attempt to throttle the speeds of people on its unlimited data plans — that, seemingly, will not fly under these rules.

============

My personal take, so far, is that the main substance of this FCC decision is quite favorable to our interests for a free (as in speech), fair (as in pricing and service) and open Internet, with my main concern remaining one that I posted about, here, earlier in this thread (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?79808-Net-Neutrality-is-Not-Neutral-and-it-Will-Radically-Change-The-Internet&p=936927&viewfull=1#post936927), regarding the "general conduct rule", as explained by the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF).

[Ilie Pandia]

There is something which I don't understand here.

If I create a company that offers cloud storage and backup services and I need to offer my clients the ability to have a high speed upload/download link so they can access that storage and backups any time they need I will no longer be able to do that, because I cannot pay to have a larger bandwidth?

Would this make it very easy for someone to flood the network because I would have to share my connection and bandwidth with "free" users that may disrupt the service I am trying to offer?

Currently, I don't see a problem with paying for a so called "fast lane" if my business model demands it. How can an ISP guarantee the speed I need if this is now regulated and not allowed? How can an ISP guarantee "up time" or "quality of service"? Now they can always say: well you're sharing the network with everybody else and we are not allowed to prioritize your traffic... so... tough luck.

What am I missing here? As far as I know, here in Romania, we have always had all kinds of "levels" and "throttling" and "guaranteed bandwidth" and it has never been an issue that required regulation...

[Anchor]

Ilie,

You can supply or buy pipes that are as large as you want or need.

What you as an ISP cant do is prioritize traffic between different endpoints based on charging a fee (or taking a fee from a content provider) based on any criteria at all.

So, if you providing access over the public internet to your cloud, you cant give your service preferential priority over other peoples traffic that you as an ISP must route to me if I want it with no imposed bias.

You can however sell me the capacity on your own terms over a private network - which for "serious" services is what normally happens anyway.

John..

[Ilie Pandia]

So then, if my ISP has subscription levels, and when you pay more you have more speed (larger pipes) that would be illegal now in the states?

I am obviously confused as to when is OK to use small/larger pipe and when this is not OK.

You seem to be saying this:

1. I have a paid subscription to my ISP that gives me say 2MB/s top speed.
2. Within that speed however, none of the content providers are allowed to be prioritized. So for example Vimeo and YouTube (Google) would have the same fair chance to fill up the speed if I open a tab with both of them.

Is that about right?

And the "problem" would be if say Google would pay to have their traffic prioritized and Vimeo would not, then even if I have large pipe, Vimeo would still crawl while Google would be lightning fast.

Did I get this? If not, can you give me some examples :becky: ?

[ThePythonicCow]

If I create a company that offers cloud storage and backup services and I need to offer my clients the ability to have a high speed upload/download link so they can access that storage and backups any time they need I will no longer be able to do that, because I cannot pay to have a larger bandwidth?
Ah - no - if you are in the US, you can definitely pay more, or less, depending on how much bandwidth you want to buy on your end.

But if I am your customer, you cannot make a deal with Charter, my Internet Service Provider (ISP), to get preferred bandwidth to my Texas trailer, at higher priority than whatever else I am downloading, no matter how much you pay. If I want to access your fine services faster, I can purchase a higher bandwidth plan from Charter, which will apply to all sites I access.

But your bits compete equally with all other bits both on the Internet backbone and all your clients local connections. Your extra money can only get you a faster local connection (if you are in the USA ... hopefully Romania plays by its own rules).

We each get to buy however much we want on our end, but must share the backbone and access to whatever is on the other end equally.

[Ilie Pandia]

OK, thanks guys... it starts to make more sense... :)

[ThePythonicCow]

And the "problem" would be if say Google would pay to have their traffic prioritized and Vimeo would not, then even if I have large pipe, Vimeo would still crawl while Google would be lightning fast.
Google and Netflix will definitely have much fatter pipes on their end than say ProjectAvalon.net, but Google bits will have no higher priority than Avalon bits, on the "last mile" of cable that connects my Texas trailer to some local Charter router.

[Ilie Pandia]

So then... net neutrality would be a good thing, unless the gov will use loop holes in that document to close some pipes down in areas that need to go silent or to make sure that only "pro gov" content is actually delivered. Or this is an over simplification?

[ThePythonicCow]

Imagine that electric power companies could label and prioritize electrons, and imagine that they also owned electrical appliance product lines. Without some constraints, such as this FCC "net neutrality" ruling, you could end up with your local electrical power company throttling power to your refrigerator if it was a brand of refrigerator sold by one of their competitors. So if you actually wanted to keep your refrigerator cold, you'd have to buy the brand of refrigerator sold by your electrical power company.

[Ilie Pandia]

Ah, good analogy, yes :)!

[ThePythonicCow]

So then... net neutrality would be a good thing, unless the gov will use loop holes in that document to close some pipes down in areas that need to go silent or to make sure that only "pro gov" content is actually delivered. Or this is an over simplification?
Net neutrality is good in that it prevents Internet Service Providers from abusing what amounts to a monopolistic control of high speed Internet in most places (usually only one broadband ISP is available in any given area in the US) to favor major Web content providers that pay for higher quality access to that ISP's clients.

But buried in this net neutrality ruling is a vague claim by the FCC to have the power to enforce a "general conduct rule". That's potentially dangerous.

In other words, the US government is doing us a favor by keeping big ISP businesses (there are only about 3 or 4 major ISP's in the US) from abusing their power, but the government is also opening the door to enforcing whatever "general conduct rules" on Internet traffic that it might choose to impose in the future. Perhaps, for example, my views on much of what the US government does would no longer be allowed to be posted ... if the bastards could get away with such "rules", I'm sure some of them would gladly do so.

So ... gangsters "A" are doing the right thing by protecting us from gangsters "B", and also promising to "do the right thing by us" in the future, to impose their "general conduct rules" on Internet activity and conduct.

In the short term, I doubt they have the leverage to do much bad this way; in the long term, this will be a long standing battle, as people in China and some other countries have already been actively engaged in.

[Anchor]

Some summary and relevant items from the document:



§ 8.5 No blocking. A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.

Section 8.7 is amended to read as follows:

§ 8.7 No throttling.

A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.

Section 8.9 is redesignated section 8.19.

New section 8.9 is added to read as follows:

§ 8.9 No paid prioritization.

(a) A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid prioritization.

(b) “Paid prioritization” refers to the management of a broadband provider’s network to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic, including through use of techniques such as traffic shaping, prioritization, resource reservation, or other forms of preferential traffic management, either (a) in exchange for consideration (monetary or otherwise) from a third party, or (b) to benefit an affiliated entity. ederal Communications Commission FCC 15-24 285

(c) The Commission may waive the ban on paid prioritization only if the petitioner demonstrates that the practice would provide some significant public interest benefit and would not harm the open nature of the Internet.

New section 8.11 is added to read as follows:

§ 8.11 No unreasonable interference or unreasonable disadvantage standard for Internet conduct.

Any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage (i) end users’ ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet access service or the lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of their choice, or (ii) edge providers’ ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to end users. Reasonable network management shall not be considered a violation of this rule.

Section 8.13 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4), revising paragraphs (b), (b)(1) and (b)(2), removing paragraph (b)(3), redesignating paragraphs (c) and (d) as paragraphs (d) and (e), and adding new paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 8.11 Continues, but for the sake of a TL:DR, I will stop there. § 8.12 and on is your rights to file a complaint, procedures for complaints, confidentiality clause.

If you get the time, I would encourage you to read this document, as the FCC did a great job with it.

A little side note I found funny and a nice little jab at specifically mentioning Verizon, on page 293 a footnote was added: >10 The Verizon court specifically touted the virtuous cycle as a worthy goal and within our authority. Verizon, 740 F.3d at 644 (“The Commission’s finding that Internet openness fosters the edge-provider innovation that drives this ‘virtuous cycle’ was likewise reasonable and grounded in substantial evidence.”).

Also on page 294, the FCC details a little paragraph of how it is using it's rules: >13. The legal basis for the Open Internet rules we adopt today relies on multiple sources of legal authority, including section 706, Title II, and Title III of the Communications Act. We conclude that the best approach to achieving our open Internet goals is to rely on several, independent, yet complementary sources of legal authority. Our authority under Section 706 is not mutually exclusive with our authority under Titles II and III of the Act. Rather, we read our statute to provide independent sources of authority that work in concert toward common ends. Under section 706, the Commission has the authority to take certain regulatory steps to encourage and accelerate the deployment of broadband to all Americans. Under Title II, the Commission has authority to ensure that common carriers do not engage in unjust and unreasonable practices or preferences. And under Title III, the Commission has authority to protect the public interest through spectrum licensing. Each of these sources of authority provides an alternative ground to independently support our open Internet rules.

Full document is here http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

Its only 400 pages, so get cracking :)

[Maunagarjana]

For those wringing their hands about Net Neutrality, there is a new bill gaining some support among Republicans (31 co-sponsors) being called the "Internet Freedom Act". Its champion is Rep. Marsha Blackburn, who is a longtime opponent of Net Neutrality and who has received nearly $262,000 in donations from companies like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon.

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/03/republicans-internet-freedom-act-would-wipe-out-net-neutrality/

[ThePythonicCow]

Aha - one dot connection just fell into place - on January 25, 2015, the FCC defined broadband as 25 Mbps down and 3 Mbps up (https://gigaom.com/2015/01/29/bam-the-fcc-just-defined-broadband-as-25-mbps-down-and-4-mbps-up/), and then on February 26, 2015, the FCC adopted its Open Internet Order (http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-open-internet-order), which order has been the main topic of this Avalon thread.

The cynic in me just knew that these two events were connected, but didn't see how.

It just dawned on me.

I have the cheapest broadband available from the (only) Internet Service Provider (ISP) who covers my location - Charter. My broadband service provides 20 Mbps down and 3 Mbps up, which is less than the new definition of broadband. So what I am purchasing is no longer (legally) defined as broadband by the FCC, and not subject to the new FCC "net neutrality" rules.

What this likely means is that Charter could subsidize their lowest level of service with special deals with backend providers such as Netflix and Google. If I wanted to stream video and movies all the time, from some provider that wasn't lining the back pocket of Charter, and if I then did not like the slow speed that my video streaming was getting (because no one bribed Charter, and consequently, Charter was throttling those video streams), then I would have the option of upgrading my service with Charter to 25 Mbps or better. Charter would still get their money, from me instead of from some backend providers, and I would get my off-brand video streaming at the same speed as Netflix or Google.

It would not be a violation of the new FCC regulations for Charter to make backroom deals with Netflix and Google, to provide service that discriminated against "undesired" competitive backend providers, so long as it just applied to Charter's customers who were not getting broadband (such as myself, at 20 Mbps.)

[ThePythonicCow]

Aha - one dot connection just fell into place - on January 25, 2015, the FCC defined broadband as 25 Mbps down and 3 Mbps up (https://gigaom.com/2015/01/29/bam-the-fcc-just-defined-broadband-as-25-mbps-down-and-4-mbps-up/), and then on February 26, 2015, the FCC adopted its Open Internet Order (http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-open-internet-order), which order has been the main topic of this Avalon thread.Despite all the talk in the FCC net neutrality ruling about the importance of their ruling for both landline and mobile Internet, I suspect that most mobile web plans are under 25 Mbps ... so this FCC ruling won't apply to them :).

===

Granted, it's a little difficult to tell with mobile plans what their bandwidth is, using whatever is the FCC definition of bandwidth.

Landline plans sell by speed (bits per second), whereas mobile plans sell by amount (bytes per month), so the (new) FCC definition of "broadband" as 25 Mbits/sec is easy to evaluate for landline, but not so obvious how to apply to mobile.

My 20 Mbit/sec landline connection reliably maintains 20 Mbits/sec, most times of the day, just under the 25 Mbits/sec that the FCC now defines as "broadband". On the other hand, 4G LTE mobile signaling (one of the faster at present) has peak transfer rates up to 100 Mbits/sec to 1000 Mbits/sec but according to 4G LTE showdown: How fast is your carrier? (C|Net) (http://www.cnet.com/news/4g-lte-showdown-how-fast-is-your-carrier/), might take 39 seconds to download a 49.65 Mbyte file, which works out to only about 10 Mbits/sec, well under the 25 Mbits/sec FCC definition of "broadband".

Given that T-Mobile currently charges about $10/GByte of monthly data, and given that I download up to 200 GBytes/month, it would cost me about $2000/month for my current usage, if done over a mobile connection ... so I am not about to experiment personally on whether or not that falls under the FCC's broadband definition <grin>. A 5 GByte/month T-Mobile plan costs $40/month, and if one wanted to download that 5 GByte at a steady pace, all month long, that works out to 15 KBits/sec ... below dial-up speeds using an old-fashioned modem, and far, far, below any FCC definition of broadband, old or new.

If I could maintain the maximum download rate of 300 Mbits/sec that is theoretically possible for 4G LTE, for an entire month, from a T-Mobile plan costing $10/GByte, that would cost me just under $1 Million dollars. Ouch.

===

So ... ignoring those last four paragraphs (too much information) ... the bottom line is that these new FCC net neutrality rules apparently don't apply to many landline users, and perhaps (I can't tell) they don't apply to almost all mobile users ... because they are too slow to qualify as "broadband" (25 Mbits/sec).

===

Aha - from the ArsTechnica article announcing the FCC decision to define broadband as 25 Mbits/sec (http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/01/fcc-chairman-mocks-industry-claims-that-customers-dont-need-faster-internet/), the FCC stated outright that this decision (that broadband means 25 Mbits/sec) only applied to "fixed" (such as landline) connections, and explicitly "excludes mobile and satellite from counting as broadband because of concerns about reliability, data caps, and latency, even if they can meet the bandwidth requirements."

==> So ... the talk of Mobile access in the more recent FCC "net neutrality" decision (http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-open-internet-order) is almost devoid of meaning, since the FCC has already said (reasonably so) that mobile is not broadband, due to the above concerns.

[Anchor]

The cynic in me just knew that these two events were connected, but didn't see how.

It just dawned on me.


I tried:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?79808-Net-Neutrality-is-Not-Neutral-and-it-Will-Radically-Change-The-Internet&p=937702&viewfull=1#post937702

[ThePythonicCow]

I tried:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?79808-Net-Neutrality-is-Not-Neutral-and-it-Will-Radically-Change-The-Internet&p=937702&viewfull=1#post937702
Ah - yes - even after I thank a post it can take me a while to connect the dots :).

[ThePythonicCow]

Aha - from the ArsTechnica article announcing the FCC decision to define broadband as 25 Mbits/sec (http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/01/fcc-chairman-mocks-industry-claims-that-customers-dont-need-faster-internet/), the FCC stated outright that this decision (that broadband means 25 Mbits/sec) only applied to "fixed" (such as landline) connections, and explicitly "excludes mobile and satellite from counting as broadband because of concerns about reliability, data caps, and latency, even if they can meet the bandwidth requirements."

==> So ... the talk of Mobile access in the more recent FCC "net neutrality" decision (http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-open-internet-order) is almost devoid of meaning, since the FCC has already said (reasonably so) that mobile is not broadband, due to the above concerns.



The cynic in me just knew that these two events were connected, but didn't see how.

It just dawned on me.


I tried:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?79808-Net-Neutrality-is-Not-Neutral-and-it-Will-Radically-Change-The-Internet&p=937702&viewfull=1#post937702

As I read this 400 page FCC "REPORT AND ORDER ON REMAND, DECLARATORY RULING, AND ORDER", it becomes increasingly obvious that they are not using "broadband" in some narrow sense requiring a specific bandwidth. Rather they are discussing and describing, at considerable length, the full spectrum of fixed and mobile Internet access means and intending to apply their Net Neutrality "rules that would prevent specific practices we know are harmful to Internet openness— blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization" (page 3) to all "broadband Internet access services" (BIAS).

They explicitly state this, and explicitly state that they are not using the word "broadband" here in the same way as they did in their "2015 Broadband Progress Report" (which constrained "Broadband" to mean just 25 Mbps or better), in the following footnote on page 10:


We note that our use of the term “broadband” in this Order includes but is not limited to services meeting the threshold for “advanced telecommunications capability,” as defined in Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended. 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). Section 706 defines that term as “high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.” 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1). The 2015 Broadband Progress Report specifically notes that “advanced telecommunications capability,” while sometimes referred to as “broadband,” differs from the Commission’s use of the term “broadband” in other contexts. 2015 Broadband Progress Report at n.1 (rel. Feb. 4, 2015).

So my earlier conclusions that this FCC ruling in favor of Net Neutrality had little significance because most fixed, and almost all mobile, Internet access in the US is at speeds below 25 Mbps were wrong conclusions.

Rather, so far, I am finding this FCC Net Neutrality ruling to be important, relevant, and favorable.

[ThePythonicCow]

All the sites I read discussing this FCC ruling that tend toward the "right wing" or Republican side of views have been lambasting it as the FCC destroying Internet freedom - Obamanet (said as an insult, echo'ing the term Obamacare.)

So far, I have found essentially no basis whatsoever for such outrage, beyond the one mentioned here, earlier in this thread (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?79808-Net-Neutrality-is-Not-Neutral-and-it-Will-Radically-Change-The-Internet&p=936927&viewfull=1#post936927), regarding the "general conduct rule", as explained by the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF).

The red-team versus blue-team, they bad, we good, partisan divide seems to be endemic to even this discussion ... sad.