|
Senators push resolution opposing FCC net neutrality rules
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 8 November, 2011
The US Senate may be voting to overturn the Federal Communication Commission's net neutrality rules some time this week.
Last week a number of senators drafted a resolution formally disapproving of the rules, which were prompted by a federal court decision overturning a FCC ruling against Comcast over throttling P2P traffic. The court pointed out Comcast had violated no FCC rules.
... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
CarpeSol
Junior Member
|
8. November 2011 @ 15:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
I'm not entirely sure what to make of this. I think it warrants following to see how it pans out.
I would be interested to see how this bill interacts with the e-parasite bit I was reading about previously.
If both pieces of legislation were to come into play, It would create an environment that has not previously existed...the implications of which are a bit frightening.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
llongtheD
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
8. November 2011 @ 23:53 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by CarpeSol:
I'm not entirely sure what to make of this. I think it warrants following to see how it pans out.
I would be interested to see how this bill interacts with the e-parasite bit I was reading about previously.
If both pieces of legislation were to come into play, It would create an environment that has not previously existed...the implications of which are a bit frightening.
It just means more government control of the internet. So long freedom, at least on the internet.
If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.
|
Junior Member
|
9. November 2011 @ 05:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
The ISP should be just that a provider, not a roadblock to free communication, not a traffic cop...and what about the absured claims of connect speed made by ISPs?
Can you imagine if the telephone was metered if you talked too long? Electrons have the velocity of light as a speed limit, why do ISP wish to slow that down?
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
9. November 2011 @ 05:49 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by dp70:
The ISP should be just that a provider, not a roadblock to free communication, not a traffic cop...and what about the absured claims of connect speed made by ISPs?
Can you imagine if the telephone was metered if you talked too long? Electrons have the velocity of light as a speed limit, why do ISP wish to slow that down?
Because bandwidth costs a tiny amount of money...selling $1 worth of bandwidth and $5 worth of service for $50 a month makes a lot of money...but selling $0.50 worth of bandwidth for the same price makes slightly more money.
This is a lot different than all the other stuff being put forward...while ACTA and E-PARASITE and other such rules are designed to prevent innovation and the free exchange of information, the recent court ruling is designed to defend false advertising. Comcast doesn't sell internet by saying, "30MB download speeds, except for P2P"...they say, "30MB Download Speeds"...in reality, the download speeds are usually under 10mb (that is MB in the ads and mb in reality, so actual speeds are 1/24 of advertised speeds)...and as if that were not bad enough, they drop the speeds for certain things even farther...and it seems that the courts approve officially of all of this.
ACTA is totally different; it is designed to prevent anyone who isn't a multi-billion dollar company from releasing anything, and that is all it does.
And E-PARASITE is intended to prevent piracy, but in reality, it will force the creation (or rather, the expansion) of a very strong sub-net that is completely free of regulation, where child pornography will be free to flow right along side that birthday video that happens to have 2 seconds of some movie playing in the background at one point.
The only place where they really get together is that if ISPs can block (or slow to a crawl) certain types of communication, they can block these sub-nets, making the internet useless in the process. However, this wouldn't be very smart because if the internet is useless, why pay for it?
|
|
Interestx
Senior Member
|
9. November 2011 @ 08:03 |
Link to this message
|
|
The internet as one great big shopping mall in your home.
Complete with a rolling tabloid style 'news' (ie comment) feature.
As controlled, conventional & pro the existing western corporate establishment as it can get.
That's the limit & ideal these fools have in mind.
|
|
llongtheD
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
9. November 2011 @ 17:00 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Interestx:
The internet as one great big shopping mall in your home.
Complete with a rolling tabloid style 'news' (ie comment) feature.
As controlled, conventional & pro the existing western corporate establishment as it can get.
That's the limit & ideal these fools have in mind.
Isn't that already here?
|
|
CarpeSol
Junior Member
|
10. November 2011 @ 03:28 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by KillerBug:
Originally posted by dp70:
The ISP should be just that a provider, not a roadblock to free communication, not a traffic cop...and what about the absured claims of connect speed made by ISPs?
Can you imagine if the telephone was metered if you talked too long? Electrons have the velocity of light as a speed limit, why do ISP wish to slow that down?
Because bandwidth costs a tiny amount of money...selling $1 worth of bandwidth and $5 worth of service for $50 a month makes a lot of money...but selling $0.50 worth of bandwidth for the same price makes slightly more money.
This is a lot different than all the other stuff being put forward...while ACTA and E-PARASITE and other such rules are designed to prevent innovation and the free exchange of information, the recent court ruling is designed to defend false advertising. Comcast doesn't sell internet by saying, "30MB download speeds, except for P2P"...they say, "30MB Download Speeds"...in reality, the download speeds are usually under 10mb (that is MB in the ads and mb in reality, so actual speeds are 1/24 of advertised speeds)...and as if that were not bad enough, they drop the speeds for certain things even farther...and it seems that the courts approve officially of all of this.
ACTA is totally different; it is designed to prevent anyone who isn't a multi-billion dollar company from releasing anything, and that is all it does.
And E-PARASITE is intended to prevent piracy, but in reality, it will force the creation (or rather, the expansion) of a very strong sub-net that is completely free of regulation, where child pornography will be free to flow right along side that birthday video that happens to have 2 seconds of some movie playing in the background at one point.
The only place where they really get together is that if ISPs can block (or slow to a crawl) certain types of communication, they can block these sub-nets, making the internet useless in the process. However, this wouldn't be very smart because if the internet is useless, why pay for it?
By referencing that particular piece of legislation, I wasn't trying to imply they were similar. I was simply remarking on the possible circumstances if both were implemented at the same time. The scope of this potential dynamic extends beyond more control on the government's part of the internet.
|
|
Interestx
Senior Member
|
10. November 2011 @ 09:36 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by llongtheD:
Isn't that already here?
The difference being that whilst that is, as you say, 'here already'it is not the only thing the net offers.
|
|
kapkirk
Newbie
|
13. November 2011 @ 18:53 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
It just means more government control of the internet. So long freedom, at least on the internet.
quote]FIFY
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 13. November 2011 @ 18:54
|
|
llongtheD
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
14. November 2011 @ 22:43 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by kapkirk:
Quote:
It just means more government control of the internet. So long freedom, at least on the internet.
quote]FIFY
I'm not sure what you fixed for me, other than putting some words in red. Or was that it?
If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
llongtheD
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
14. November 2011 @ 23:25 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Interestx:
Originally posted by llongtheD:
Isn't that already here?
The difference being that whilst that is, as you say, 'here already'it is not the only thing the net offers.
Yes your right, but the first time or average internet user is guided toward exactly that.
If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.
|
