Help Us Prevent Cable Company F..kery

[+Erik 1,812]

For the next 24 days we will be running a count down timer on all our pages to show you when the most important vote the FCC will ever make is made. If you haven't heard yet, the cable giants want to charge customers who stream movies, videos, play games, video chat, (basically everything the internet is great at) for faster speeds thereby undermining everything the internet stands for. This means not only do you pay for the speed of service you want at home but you will then have the choice of class of service which will cost more money.

 

We need you to get involved.

 

Click the link on the clock and fill out simple information like your name and the app will automatically send your elected officials an email on your behalf. You can read the letter or decide to contact them on your own, but this is something that we can't lose. If we do lose what we know as the open and free internet today will be forever changed. Don't let big business win!

 

Fight with us to defend net neutrality and all it stands for. If you need to know more watch this video and then click the link in the clock above.

 

Do it today we're counting on each of you.

 

[+Dave 2,322]

http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality

[FastCargo 412]

Folks, realize the battle isn't over until the vote is. Keep up the pressure on your local reps.

 

FC

[ironroad 218]

Folks, realize the battle isn't over until the vote is. Keep up the pressure on your local reps.

 

FC

 

Ditto!

 

I hope like most modern day "activist" movements for meaningful change this does not loose steam.

 

Many in this country seem to suffer from some sort of ADD and no one has the patience stick with any issue once it the media coverage stops.

 

People should would not just focus on US Congressional members and the executive appointment members of the FCC and FTC. They need to get at their state/local representatives in on it because were all the obscure locality rules come from and the taxes.

[+Geezer 3,569]

WASHINGTON — Republican Federal Communications Commission Commissioner Ajit Pai hosted a press conference on Tuesday to discuss with reporters about his concern about President Obama’s proposal “to regulate the internet.” Pai cited concerns ranging from the proposal causing heavy-handed FCC regulations on the internet to the plan being a “gift to trial lawyers.”

TheDC: Previous attempts at regulating the internet have been shot down in the courts, why is it that this one seems to be a little scarier than the last ones?

 

PAI: Two different reasons. One is the unprecedented involvement of the executive branch in our decision-making.  Traditionally the FCC has been an independent agency that, even though I and the other chairmen are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, we’re considered to be independent and render expert objective judgment about some of these difficult policy questions.

 

Here what you have is the president in an unprecedented way saying explicitly, “Not only do I want the FCC to do XY and Z, but this is the legal theory I want them to use to support it.” I think once that announcement was made, the trajectory of how our decision-making was proceeding, I think the writing was on the wall and the FCC felt like it was under enormous pressure to do what the president wanted us to do. And so that’s one fact.
 

MORE:  http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/10/fcc-commissioner-unprecedented-involvement-of-executive-branch-in-our-decision-making/

[FastCargo 412]

Nice try. They're trying to say this is a power grab.

 

I'm pretty sure the government would have been happy to have left this alone, if the ISPs hadn't been screwing around.

 

"Regulate yourselves, or we will do it for you" is a phrase ISPs should have heeded...which brings us where we are today. The dissenting members of the FCC are worried because the momentum is there for it to pass. There are simply too many incidents of ISP f*****y to be ignored, too many incidents of ISPs actively screwing over their customers.

 

FC

[+Geezer 3,569]

It may not be a case of one or the other.  The heavy handed intervention by the White House in what should be a straight forward administrative decision implies that it's BOTH.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Geezer

[+Typhoid 231]

I've commented on this before and after being told that my opinion was not desired (content blocked?) have held further comment.

 

But I'll say this once, the proposed regulations are NOT what they are being sold as and this will end up doing the opposite of what many of you think. In effect this will be a massive tax hike on the users, will drive many small ISP's out of business, will stifle innovation and investment, and basically screw over the Internet and all of you.

 

Be careful what you wish for.

 

Out.

[+Erik 1,812]

I've commented on this before and after being told that my opinion was not desired (content blocked?) have held further comment.

 

But I'll say this once, the proposed regulations are NOT what they are being sold as and this will end up doing the opposite of what many of you think. In effect this will be a massive tax hike on the users, will drive many small ISP's out of business, will stifle innovation and investment, and basically screw over the Internet and all of you.

 

Be careful what you wish for.

 

Out.

 

I certainly have never blocked your content or anyone else's (that wasn't being a troll) for that matter. However this is typical politician rhetoric from a position that is unfounded without fact or references. The real story is nobody will know what the FCC rules will look until they are written and reviewed. The FCC does have legal standing under Title II and the expansion to include the internet based on the regulations they wish to adopt seem a reasonable solution. Everything like this is flawed to some extent but this appears at face value to be a win for the people not big business. Whatever the case it's certainly better than letting congress get a hold of it and attaching tons of pork to it for things like bridges from Florida to Africa. Thanks for your "last words" though.

 

PS next time you take personal shots at me don't be so vague, it's annoying.

[+Typhoid 231]

I certainly have never blocked your content or anyone else's (that wasn't being a troll) for that matter. However this is typical politician rhetoric from a position that is unfounded without fact or references. The real story is nobody will know what the FCC rules will look until they are written and reviewed. The FCC does have legal standing under Title II and the expansion to include the internet based on the regulations they wish to adopt seem a reasonable solution. Everything like this is flawed to some extent but this appears at face value to be a win for the people not big business. Whatever the case it's certainly better than letting congress get a hold of it and attaching tons of pork to it for things like bridges from Florida to Africa. Thanks for your "last words" though.

 

PS next time you take personal shots at me don't be so vague, it's annoying.

I certainly have never blocked your content or anyone else's (that wasn't being a troll) for that matter. However this is typical politician rhetoric from a position that is unfounded without fact or references. The real story is nobody will know what the FCC rules will look until they are written and reviewed. The FCC does have legal standing under Title II and the expansion to include the internet based on the regulations they wish to adopt seem a reasonable solution. Everything like this is flawed to some extent but this appears at face value to be a win for the people not big business. Whatever the case it's certainly better than letting congress get a hold of it and attaching tons of pork to it for things like bridges from Florida to Africa. Thanks for your "last words" though.

 

PS next time you take personal shots at me don't be so vague, it's annoying.

wasn't intended to be annoying but rather humorous. no offense was intended and I will refrain from such in the future.

 

we'll see on the regs, I think you all are being sold down the river but we'll see what is actually voted in on the 26th. It should be a red flag that less than two weeks out, no one has seen the actual regs. I suppose it has to be passed so we can see what's in it.......

 

out.

[Do335 382]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/technology/path-clears-for-net-neutrality-ahead-of-fcc-vote.html?ref=business

 

GO Team Internet!

[+Typhoid 231]

Quick question - does anyone really know what actually is in the proposed regulations which will be passed tomorrow?

 

thought not........

 

That should be all of your red flag #1 - they have to pass it before you can see what is atually in it.

[+Erik 1,812]

There's links to outside journalism reporting on the case starting with Dave's post on February 4, 2015. There's plenty of information on this you should read.

Secondly whatever the FCC does will be challenged in a court of law by the cable companies. So by the time this is done it will be combed through with a fine toothed comb. Seems like good steps in the right direction.

[+Typhoid 231]

there is a lot of journalism about what people think might be in the regs, but no link to the actual regs. The minority members of the FCC board have requested that these 323 pages of regs be released, but the chair of the board has steadfastly refused.

 

yes, the safety valve will be the courts. Hopefully there will be full disclosure and a legal review before this goes into effect.

[+Geezer 3,569]

FCC Chair Refuses to Testify before Congress ahead of Net Neutrality Vote

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/414380/fcc-chair-refuses-testify-congress-ahead-net-neutrality-vote-andrew-johnson

 

 

Soros, Ford shovel $196 million to 'net neutrality' groups, staff to White House

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/soros-ford-shovel-196-million-to-net-neutrality-groups-staff-to-white-house/article/2560702

Edited February 26, 2015 by Geezer

[+Dave 2,322]

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

 

There you go.

[Do335 382]

Am I right to understand there will be a lengthy lawsuit, of cable companies vs. FCC, before the rule is finally in effect?

[+Spectre8750 167]

The FCC passed a vote to now regulate (Tax and regulate what can be posted and said on the Internet) by the Government. THIS IS NOT A VICTORY for Freedom on the internet! You've been duped!!!!!!

[+Dave 2,322]

The FCC passed a vote to now regulate (Tax and regulate what can be posted and said on the Internet) by the Government. THIS IS NOT A VICTORY for Freedom on the internet! You've been duped!!!!!!

 

 

Sorry Spec that is not true. It means that the BS practices of limiting internet service to specific regions, and forcing outrageous prices for those outside of those regions IS OVER. The days of internet companies deciding what sites I can visit based on how much I pay, is OVER. It also means that the ISP's can't charge me more because I use "more Internet" just for using Netflix. Or charge me more because I want to multi-player game. It keeps the ISP's from charging unfair rates to areas that are remote because there isn't enough people in a given area. Just to name a few examples. 

[Skyviper 1,101]

My ISP ATT U-verse offers several packages. If I want more speed I have to pay more they press a button and I get it. However in my area ... it's either them or some satellite company that charges damn near 300/month with a limit of watching 2 youtube videos.

 

ATT would equip my area with stuff other cities were tossing out. We're using everyone else's trash and getting subpar service.

 

My understanding is that if Comcast got their way they can charge providers say CombatACE monthly fee so CombatACE can provide content in a timely manner. But since Youtube has more money than CombatACE Youtube's services will be faster and CombatACE will be slow as hell. So CombatACE pays the dues to get up to speed but then charges me for the expense on top of  me already paying for subpar internet services.

 

My thing is that if I have to pay for every site I visit on top of paying for internet. I'll just take my butt back to the stone age.

 

I could be wrong but that's how I understood things.

[+Typhoid 231]

no.  It means  that the FCC can now levy fees and taxes on everyone who uses the Internet.  This is a stealth tax on everyone, and a big one. 

 

it means that under the provisions of "a public service" they have the power to regulate content, service, and override contracts. 

 

"It means that the BS practices of limiting internet service to specific regions, and forcing outrageous prices for those outside of those regions IS OVER."  never existed.  What does exist is that areas that don't have enough people to support a service don't get served.  That's the Free Market and customer base at work, not Restraint of Trade as alleged. 

 

"The days of internet companies deciding what sites I can visit based on how much I pay, is OVER."  never existed.

 

" It also means that the ISP's can't charge me more because I use "more Internet" just for using Netflix. Or charge me more because I want to multi-player game."  it means that those who don't use heavy bandwidth will now be charged more to subsidize the heavy users and make everyone "equal" rather than charged for service. 

 

There was never a "slow lane" as some people alleged.  There were "fast lanes" that gave the option to people who wanted a higher level of service.  That will now go away and everyone will have the same level of sub-par service.  Kiss your fast lanes goodbye because the broader market won't support it. 

 

"It keeps the ISP's from charging unfair rates to areas that are remote because there isn't enough people in a given area."  that isn't unfair.  It is market conditions.  If there isn't a customer base to support extension of wired service then service doesn't go out there to remote areas.  Instead, there are wireless options in some areas or satellite.  Neither will compete with landlines (whether cable, wired, fiber, etc.) but that is a market condition tied to a customer base, not a Restraint of Trade or "unfair" service. 

 

"My ISP ATT U-verse offers several packages. If I want more speed I have to pay more they press a button and I get it." you will lose that. 

 

"My understanding is that if Comcast got their way they can charge providers say CombatACE monthly fee so CombatACE can provide content in a timely manner."  no.  Comcast and other service providers contract with large volume users, such as Netflix, because Netflix is such a large volume.  (I read somewhere that Netflix is about 40% of the Internet).  But nothing that has gone on or was going to go on would have required content provides, such as CombatACE, to have such a contract to carry their content. Contracts do provide assurance of service for large volumes.  Internet Service Providers don't block content (other than porn).  Under the new FCC rules that now will become an issue. 

 

essentially, what many of you all thought you were going to prevent, will now become a very likely probability under that part of the FCC regs.  You all were duped.  Big time. 

 

of course, the above is stated without having seen the actual rules since they still haven't been released and posted for review.  So who really knows what is actually in these secret regs?  I'll wager that there is very little of what some of you all thought were in them and whole lot of taxes, fees and heavy-handed regulation, including potential content regulation.   

 

hopefully the time in court will enable a full vetting of what the regs actually are and sanity may yet prevail.  But I doubt it.  The Obamanet is now here and the free and open Internet will become a thing of the past. 

 

If you liked your Internet, you don't get to keep your Internet. 

[Do335 382]

Seems to boils down to choice of lesser of 2 evils, the evil big corp or the bad gov't.

 

Or the belief that in this net provider market, does free market sort itself out, or is regulation ultimately necessary.

 

Or... is one more left (democrat) or more right (republican)?

 

 

 

I think there's need for regulation here. Internet is becoming more of an infrastructure. Meanwhile whoever controls the last mile of the cable has monopoly, thus free competition fails. So this has to be intervened by government. In Europe, Japan, Skorea the gov't is regulating the ISPs, and they have better net, with lower prices. The US is the most free/capitalistic market even among 1st world countries, but in this instance free market bites back and becomes a hindrance.

 

In China the internet is becoming a national intranet. In the beginning, the communist government did not have the means to cordon off the net other than keyword filtering, but guess what, for several years Cisco supplied them with critical hardware and technology that built the Great Firewall higher and higher. The biggest human rights suppression instrument on the internet is supplied by western big corps, who would do anything to make money.

 

Why do I care? To access web content outside the wall I subscribe to several commercial VPNs, which have become my lifeline. These guys and the servers they rent are start-ups or small businesses. And guess where they're located.

 

Also I love ma internet.

[+Erik 1,812]

You guys are confused it seems like to me. I know it's a difficult topic to handle in one sitting but if you don't think a "class" of service ever existed you never read anything about the Netflix shake down by Comcast. It doesn't matter how big of a package you buy from your ISP to download movies from Netflix if Netflix is throttled on the upstream your download speeds go in the toilet. Personally I'm going to wait until I can read the reclassification by the FCC to draw any conclusions. The two safety valves we now have are congress and the courts where before we had none because it was in private business hands. From what's said this is just a reclassification of the service not the providers. 

[Do335 382]

it means that under the provisions of "a public service" they have the power to regulate content, service, and override contracts. 

 

"It means that the BS practices of limiting internet service to specific regions, and forcing outrageous prices for those outside of those regions IS OVER."  never existed.  What does exist is that areas that don't have enough people to support a service don't get served.  That's the Free Market and customer base at work, not Restraint of Trade as alleged.

Extreme cases are imagined, but a US "state run internet" also feels a bit.. paranoid. I hear ISPs and phone co. have blocked/restricted ports that common P2P transfers use, blocked whatsapp transfers to facilitate SMS usage and bundled in their own IPTV service that doesn't count towards monthly traffic cap etc. Net neutrality should just be considered as anti-monopoly regulation, instead of big brother taking over the net. I'm sure if one pays a higher price one will still get faster connection.

 

Otoh the bill that gets passed before publicly reviewed is weird. I think americans should indeed have a problem with that... But internet has developed to a stage where an ugly decision has to be made, and at the end of day it seems that ones that opposes the bill are ISPs and those support it are google/facebook/smallbiz who provides service for millions of people who are just average guys. So unless one is anti-google might as well go with it for own self I reckon.

 

On the tech side though, a better video compression format that prevents the net from chocking should be really welcomed...

Edited February 27, 2015 by Do335

[+Dave 2,322]

Typhoid

 

I am sorry, but you have this anti Obama thing clouding your judgement. I do not like him either but this is bigger than the who is sitting in the center seat. There is nothing I can find saying the FCC is going to tax anything.

 

Finally you have missed the total point of Net Neutrality. Totally missed it. It's about leaving the internet the way it is now. Nothing more, nothing less. The free market cop out is a bullshit line the ISP's are using in order the f**k people in the ass on what we can see and how fast we can see it. If you think for a sec the ISP's don't regulate what you see, then you are wrong. Legal P2P sites are a prime example. No it is not OK for the ISP's to charge me more because I use Netflix. IT'S THE SAME INTERNET!!!!!!!!!!!

 

The anti Obama/anti Democrat stance makes you just as much of the problem as the Democrats. The current crop of politicians in power today and I mean ALL of them (Dems, Repubs, TP) are the exact problem with the government today. Democrats want a nanny/kumbya state, Republicans do the opposite of anything the PEOPLE want and have zero agenda. Don't get me started about the Tea Party. Not enough rope to hang em all and start over.

To quote Erik

 

 

Personally I'm going to wait until I can read the reclassification by the FCC to draw any conclusions. The two safety valves we now have are congress and the courts where before we had none because it was in private business hands. From what's said this is just a reclassification of the service not the providers.

 

What he said makes the most sense out of all this.