The FCC's Historic Day: Voting Yes For Net Neutrality, Voting No On Protectionist State Telecom Law
from the lobbyists-lose dept
Today was, no hyperbole intended, probably one of the more historic -- albeit at times one of the dullest -- days in FCC history. The agency, led by a former lobbyist for the cable and wireless industries few expected anything from, bucked a myriad of low expectations and voted 3-2 to approve Title II-based net neutrality rules after an unprecedented public-driven tech advocacy campaign. While net neutrality will likely get the lion's share of today's media attention, the FCC also today voted to begin a prolonged assault on ISP-driven, protectionist state telecom law.First, it's important to note that despite a 3-2 vote approving the Title II-based rules, we won't get to see the actual rules today. Despite claims by neutrality opponents that this is some secret cabal specific to net neutrality, the agency historically has never released rules it votes on (pdf) until well after the actual vote. It's a dumb restriction that's absolutely deadly to open discourse, but it's not unique to one party or to this specific issue.
As for when we'll actually get to see and start dissecting the actual Title II rules ourselves, we may be waiting weeks -- in part, ironically, thanks to neutrality opponents on the Commission that spent the last few weeks professing to adore transparency:
"In fact, it could take weeks before the final rules are published, the official said. That’s because the two Republican commissioners, Ajit Pai and Mike O’Rielly—who oppose net neutrality of any sort—have refused to submit basic edits on the order. The FCC will not release the text of the order until edits from the offices of all five commissioners are incorporated, including dissenting opinions. This could take a few weeks, depending how long the GOP commissioners refuse to provide edits on the new rules."Commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Reilly voiced their opposition to the new Title II-based rules by not only voting against them, but by trying to bore meeting attendees to death. Pai, a former Verizon regulatory lawyer, offered a mammoth speech in which he ironically lamented "special interests" and claimed repeatedly to only be opposing net neutrality out of a concern for consumer wallets. O'Reilly tried to top Pai with an even longer, duller speech that continually insisted the FCC was trying to conduct a secret, regulatory takeover of the Internet. A visibly emotional Wheeler was having none of it:
"This proposal has been described by one opponent as, quote, a secret plan to regulate the Internet. Nonsense. This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concepts: openness, expression, and an absence of gate keepers telling people what they can do, where they can go, and what they can think."While the net neutrality rules are incredibly important, the FCC's decision on municipal broadband may actually wind up being more meaningful over the long run. As we've noted for years, neutrality violations are really just a symptom of a lack of competition. Around twenty states now have laws in place -- usually based entirely on ISP/ALEC model legislation -- that prohibit towns and cities from improving their own broadband infrastructure -- even in instances where nobody else will. In some cases these rules even go so far as to prohibit towns and cities from striking public/private partnerships to improve broadband service.
Specifically, the FCC voted 3-2 to approve petitions by EPB Broadband in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Greenlight in Wilson, North Carolina. Those petitions requested that the FCC use its authority to ensure timely broadband deployment using "measures that promote competition in the local telecommunications market, or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment." While some politicians have lamented the FCC's move as a trampling of states' rights, these individuals ironically have had no problem with ISPs writing state telecom law that tramples those same rights. The justifications for these restrictions have never been coherently supported, and Wheeler was quick to highlight the hypocrisy of the position:
"You can’t say you’re for broadband and then turn around and endorse limits on who can offer it. You can’t say, ‘I want to follow the explicit instructions of Congress to remove barriers to infrastructure investment,' but endorse barriers on infrastructure investment. You can’t say you’re for competition but deny local elected officials the right to offer competitive choices."Needless to say, this is likely only a new chapter in the debate over both issues, the precise wording of the neutrality wording will be debated for months if not years, and you can expect ISP legal action on both fronts aimed at protecting the uncompetitive status quo. It also probably goes without saying that opponents of net neutrality and those who like it when AT&T, Verizon and Comcast are allowed to write protectionist telecom law aren't taking the day's events very well. One of the best freakouts of the day belonged to Hal Singer, author of that misleading study we've previously debunked claiming that you'd face $15 billion in new taxes under Title II:
With today's @FCC vote on #NetNeutrality, millions of innovation angels will die. It's our job to document the loss. pic.twitter.com/XGxT8EDx7u
— Hal Singer (@HalSinger) February 26, 2015
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ajit pai, fcc, michael o'rielly, munibroadband, net neutrality, open internet, title ii, tom wheeler
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Undercover Angel, Alan O'Day. Be warned, 70's music. Could cause irreversible damage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-xRMw0NyW0
--
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hear that Sound?
It is the simultaneous sound of internet users rejoicing and Verizon/Comcast Lawyers happy they are about to get a lot of money!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hear that Sound?
It may not happen today or tomorrow but once a regulation system is in place it will grow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hear that Sound?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hear that Sound?
What part of Title II does that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear Imaginary Innovation Angles
Thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dear Imaginary Innovation Angles
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dear Imaginary Innovation Angles
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't cheer just yet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't cheer just yet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't cheer just yet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't cheer just yet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't cheer just yet
It sounds like the big ISPs hate this, so that's encouraging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't cheer just yet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't cheer just yet
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't cheer just yet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't cheer just yet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about the tinfoil hat guys?
This co-worker has a tinfoil hat on and he is convinced this is the beginning of the end for freedom of speech on the internet. He believes the government will take complete control of the internet, and that it's turned the internet into a utility.
Is there a line of thinking that I could communicate back to him that this is a good thing? Until we see the rules we have nothing concrete, but some of this "sky is falling" discussion is ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about the tinfoil hat guys?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about the tinfoil hat guys?
Wheeler's point I think is a good one.You can make it clear to your friend that the goal is maintaining what the Internet is in the face of monopoly power over the last mile, not restricting speech in any way. It's obviously an endless battle to prevent government over-reach, just like it's an endless battle to prevent monopoly abuses. But having some basic rules of the road with teeth is, at least to me, a balance between the two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about the tinfoil hat guys?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What about the tinfoil hat guys?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about the tinfoil hat guys?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks, Tom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He's more of a bureaucrat than a politician (assuming you're talking about Wheeler).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's fitting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're not allowed to smile at work? Where do you work, DHS?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cheering starts now
The losers will probably begin by filing lawsuits all over the federal judiciary complaining that they got robbed.
Hey, guys-you have it wrong. We're the ones you were robbing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cheering starts now
The losers will probably begin by filing lawsuits all over the federal judiciary complaining that they got robbed.
That worked out pretty well for Verizon!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure you can. All it takes is an injection of Libertarian Logic™.
You see, out in Ayn Rand Fantasyland, where carts are put before horses on a regular basis, if there's any way for something to be profitable, that's God-^H^H^H^H Invisible Hand-Given proof that it was meant to be that way and Heroic Entrepreneurs™ have the right to turn it into a profitable business venture, free from the encroachment of Evil Government™.
Competition is good, but only between Heroic Entrepreneurs™. When the Evil Government™ enters into competition with Heroic Entrepreneurs™, the Evil Government™ has an unfair advantage because they have a monopoly on the use of fo-- oh, wait, no, wrong Libertarian strawman argument. Umm... because they're not required to turn a profit to stay in business, and therefore they can undercut the Heroic Entrepreneurs™ and drive them out of business.
Pointing out to the wielder of such an argument that basic infrastructure is not supposed to be a profit center in and of itself, since it's supposed to be basic infrastructure that enables commerce to be built atop it for the benefit of all of civilization, is likely to make their head explode.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This morning, I'm reading Techdirt about how the states throw money at movie/television production despite demonstrated negative ROI. Taking his previous argument, shouldn't the state legislatures be banning subsidies and tax breaks to the studios?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ayn Rand Fantasyland
Not everyone who thinks people ought to be free to live their own lives is your enemy, y'know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ayn Rand Fantasyland
I could get on board with Libertarianism if they'd *just* quit pretending there is such a thing as "the free market" and that the Invisible Hand will intervene to save us when we're caught in the death grip of a monopoly or other anti-competitive situation. There's no such thing and no, it won't.
The profit motive is not and never has been a morally pure jump-off point and usually results in horrific practices such as criminalizing minor offences to guarantee higher occupation rates in for-profit prisons.
That "Libertarian" is currently synonymous with anti-government tinfoil hattery and blue-sky economics based on wishful thinking over consumer choices is the fault of those people who continually promote such views. We rarely hear any others in connection with that group's name. It would be nice to see someone bucking the trend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ayn Rand Fantasyland
As you say, a free market doesn't remain free without intervention, and a free market produces cheap goods, and it could potentially produce quality goods, but it will not produce safe goods, nor environmentally responsible ones. So anyone who cares about safety or the future of the planet must endorse some level of government intervention in the market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ayn Rand Fantasyland
On the contrary, anyone who believes himself free to live his own life without regard for those around him is, pretty much by definition, making himself the enemy of all those around him. I'm just one of the people who's studied the belief system enough to realize this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ayn Rand Fantasyland
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ayn Rand Fantasyland
Just enough to build a straw man I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ayn Rand Fantasyland
Here's another good question: how much of "your" labor would be impossible, or impractical enough as to be useless, without the contributions of everyone around you, which you are entitled to as a civilized member of society?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That didn't take long
And just like that, their cries for 'Transparency!' are exposed for the pathetic attempts to derail or delay the vote that they truly were. They were all for 'transparency' when it would have resulted in a huge delay of the vote, but now the vote has passed, and suddenly they're acting such that the public, the ones they lied about being oh so concerned about, will have to wait even longer to find out the fine details.
And if that wasn't enough, apparently they're throwing childish fits, and refusing to do their gorram jobs just because their attempts at stopping the vote failed. Politics in action ladies and gentlemen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or will the cable monopoly pull an ace out of its sleeve and turn this loss into a win?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The funding question notwithstanding (and that's another subject anyway): most cities don't want a dozen or so different fibers running under the streets or sidewalks where said fibers are owned and maintained by different entities. This is akin to your electric service: you might be able to choose who generates your electricity, but the delivery to your home is strictly regulated to one and only one service cable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's not the way it works. The city pays all the installation costs, owns and runs the "last mile" fiber lines and makes it open access -- allowing any internet service provider to access the system and sell service to end-users. Several small cities have already set up such systems, allowing residents to choose from several different broadband companies.
Alternately, some cities provide their own (monopoly) high speed internet service, which obviously lacks a competitive model but is still better than the usual alternative -- a corporate monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The FCC should never have reclassified broadband internet back in 2002 as just an "information service" despite the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision in the Portland case that cable modem service was both an "information service" and a "telecommunications service".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawrence Lessig
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.the-future-of-ideas.com/download/lessig_FOI.pdf
The quote is on page 15 (or 29 if you go with the PDF document page number).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Dingo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The bad news: Potential trojan horse of government takeover and abuse. Some of NN's supporters include entities that want to lock the Web in DRM and those who see no hangups in throwing users in jail just for viewing a leaked movie screenshot.
Either way, we all lose in the end, and the Internet may never be the same again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For those celebrating the FCC vote seemingly for no other reason than that it discomfits corporation and Republicans, I'd ask you to review previous expansions of government power and judge the results (hint: DHS, DEA, NSA, National Zinc, Weasel and Hydrogen Reserve, etc).
I have the uncomfortable feeling these are the same folks who, while proclaiming to champion reason, logic and fact, disregarded all precedent and historical fact in committing to the absolute belief that Obama was that rara avis, the "honest Chicago politician".
Not saying Obama's really worse than any other politician in regard to lying, misleading, flowery, obscurantist pronouncements. Just pointing out that he has PROVEN to be no exception to our well-founded doubts about the veracity of politicians in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I you really think this, I think that you are severely misunderstanding where people are coming from on this issue. It has absolutely nothing to do with Obama or partisanship. At all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PS. Please give Ajit Pai and Michael O'Reilly a swat on the nose with a rolled up newspaper. They are the dingos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prove that link?
Can anybody cite some sort of source for that? I mean is there any source saying that the other three members have submitted their edits and we are solely waiting on those two members?
That article just seems lacking credibility to me on that front.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prove that link?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Day the Internet Died
I can still remember how the Internet made me smile
And we knew if we had a chance
We could really make the net advance
And maybe it would be free for awhile
But February made me shiver
With every story it delivered
Bad news on my Facebook
I couldn't take one more look
I can't remember if I cried
When I read how the FCC lied
But something touched me deep inside
The day the Internet died
[Chorus]
So bye-bye, This American pride
Tried to get on Netflix but my connection was dry
And the FCC were drinking whisky and rye
Singin' "This'll be the day the net died”
“This will be the day the net died.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Day the Internet Died
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Day the Internet Died
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Day the Internet Died
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Day the Internet Died
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Day the Internet Died
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Day the Internet Died
Title II says you can't throttle, cap, or mess with your user's data.
Wheeler says there is nothing in the write up about taxes.
Quote the text of today's ruling about a tax or you're lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Day the Internet Died
Somehow I'm not feeling the terror. Give me a minute.
--
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Day the Internet Died
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Day the Internet Died
It's hilarious how clowns like you can't tell the difference between the internet and internet providers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Day the Internet Died
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Day the Internet Died
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Day the Internet Died
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's be fair...
Too bad the ISPs and their ilk haven't been forced to sign up for binding arbitration like everyone else that has to use their services.
Circumvent the entire court process with an arbitrator paid for by the FCC.
Sounds fair to me....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Secrecy is never good
FCC negotiating and voting in secret = good?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Secrecy is never good
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Secrecy is never good
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Secrecy is never good
Even without Title II, the FCC has authority under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act to impose price caps on broadband, but it hasn't done so.
FURTHER READING
DON’T CALL THEM “UTILITY” RULES: THE FCC’S NET NEUTRALITY REGIME, EXPLAINED
Not the end of the world: What Tom Wheeler’s proposal will and won’t do.
“The order retains core authority to prevent unjust and unreasonable practices, protect consumers, and support universal service,” Melissa Kirkel, an FCC attorney advisor, told commissioners. “The order makes clear that broadband providers will not be subject to utility-style regulation. This means no unbundling, tariffs, or other forms of rate regulation, and the order does not require broadband providers to contribute to the Universal Service Fund, nor does it impose, suggest, or authorize any new taxes or fees.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Secrecy is never good
Personally, for me the fact that the people who've been throwing out such laughable fearmongering over the whole mess(Ajit Pai and Mike O’Rielly) continue to oppose it seems like a pretty good indication that whatever is in there, it's more aligned with the public than corporations. We still have to wait to see the details, but at this point at least the signs seem to be good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Secrecy is never good
Nice straw man you have there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The 300+ pages seems to be a lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The FCC is doing this all in secret with no public input. Just like Obamacare, we won't know what is in it until they pass it and by then it will be far too late.
Net Neutrality is the Trojan Horse the Obama Administration is using to take control of the Internet. The FCC is about to vote to make the Internet subject to Title II under the Telecommunications Act. An act that is 80 years old and is ill equipped to address issues of Today's Internet but gives the FCC far sweeping power to regulate without Congressional oversight or public accountability. What Title II does is allow Monopolies to exist but regulates them in return. Regulations that will bar any new comers from popping up and keep the existing players as the only players for decades to come. The FCC by law is an independent agency and does not have to answer to the Congress or the White House for their actions.
Like the idea of Google Fiber? Say goodbye to it unless you are lucky enough to already have it. The Internet of tomorrow will require a lot more bandwidth than we have today but regulations will slow that process to a crawl and with it all the benefits we will now wait longer to receive. All so we can get our Netflix which we were never denied anyway.
Wake up people. Tomorrow may be the last day the Internet exists as we have known it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wake up yourself. The Internet extends beyond the US. If the US sank like Atlantis, the Internet would still exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh no! I best spend the rest of my day downloading pron at work. FUD, FUD, FUD
Do you really think Google would be actively supporting Title II if it hindered their plans for fiber?
Title II is exactly how ISPs should be treated, they are carriers, they move packets from A to B. They should not be inspecting the packets or modifying them. Phone companies were placed under these regulations for a reason and it's for their legal protection as well. They can't be sued for what the end user is sending/receiving because they can't touch it, so no liability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You mean like what we currently have, minus the regulation part?
Regulations that will bar any new comers from popping up and keep the existing players as the only players for decades to come.
And again, like what we already have, with ISP written laws locking out any potential competition from even developing in multiple areas/states?
The FCC by law is an independent agency and does not have to answer to the Congress or the White House for their actions.
Given how blatant numerous members of congress are in their support for major companies, the ISP/cable companies included, that's not necessarily a bad thing. If congress was put in charge of putting together the rules and regulations for ISP's and what they could and could not do, then it would be no different than if the ISP's themselves were writing them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How are those newcomers being barred by the FCC's decision today, exactly? I would love to hear your explanation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision in the AT&T vs Portland case already ruled that cable modem service qualified as both an "information service" and "telecommunications service" under the Telecommunications Act (written and passed by Congress), so nothing but an act of Congress (rewriting or amending the Telecommunications Act) or SCOTUS should be able to change that.
Also worth noting, that Ninth Circuit decision in the AT&T vs Portland case prohibited Portland from requiring AT&T to provide open access to all ISPs to its cable network as a condition of being allowed the transfer of control of the TCI cable franchise AT&T bought in Portland and Multnomah County. So basically, the Ninth Circuit ruling said that because the cable franchise AT&T bought to provide broadband internet service also qualifies as a "telecommunications service" under the Telecommunications Act, the city of Portland could not impose any requirements or restriction against AT&T as a common carrier.
If cable internet was not a "telecommunications service", then common carrier rules and Title II could not apply. And if they don't apply, then Portland could require open access for all ISPs on AT&T Broadband (now owned by Comcast) cable networks. I'd actually much rather that be the case, because so far the FCC has forborne the same telecommunications service rules that allowed AT&T (and now Comcast) to keep competing ISPs out of Portland.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sir Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, spoke to the commission via video. He credited the openness of the Internet with allowing him to create the Web 25 years ago without having to ask "permission."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wrote a song
Ballad of the Dingo
(to the tune of “Call Me Maybe”)
[img]http://i.imgur.com/ipJfIfJ.jpg[/img]
Hello my name is Pai,
I'm a real earnest guy,
I don't understand tech policy,
but that ain't stoppin' me.
Title II is the worst thing,
unless you've got a brain,
and give proper credit to claims,
of widespread monopoly.
Comcast say customers be whorin',
Verizon wasted several billion,
Nationwide fiber buildout is totes chillin'.
(But free market can fix all that, really!)
Hey, I'm Ajit Pai,
former Verizon attorney,
the big carriers implore me:
“screw customers, protect our money!”.
Netflix slow?
You're so silly!
Just stream in SD,
its not like we're a third-world country!
Hey I just met you,
and this is crazy,
but I'm Ajit Pai,
consumer misery sustains me!
Logic and rationality,
don’t concern me,
I’m a politician,
I just know better than you, baby.
Redefining broadband,
I tried to make a stand,
a moving target is no way to deploy
ever-evolving technology!
But Big Wheelie-T,
constantly ignores me,
in favor of public commentary,
from people 'smarter' than me.
Comcast won't let you cancel service,
Verizon is getting nervous,
Title II is superfluous!
(Really, it'll destroy America!)
Hey I just met you,
and this is crazy,
but John Oliver was wrong,
the FCC dingo is [i][b]me[/i][/b]!
Its hard to share,
the full text rule, you see,
by longstanding rule,
Big Wheelie-T thwarted me!
Hey I just met you,
and this is crazy,
but I'm the dingo,
I lust for infant mortality!
Hide your babies,
but I shall come and see.
My hunger is as great,
as my sycophantry.
Before Title II the free market was so fine,
it was so fine,
it was so-so fine,
Before Title II the free market was so fine,
it was so fine,
I can't even articulate a single way in which it was so so fine.
Interconnect rot,
its just fantasy,
those squirrely edge providers,
they can’t trick me!
Oh, you can't watch House of Cards,
in QHD?
Don’t blame your ISP,
that’s Netflix’s fault and responsibility!
Title II reclassification,
has enraged me.
I’ll devour all your young,
via lycanthropy.
Outside your house, I’ll be lurking,
waiting and yearning,
eager and squirming,
for the bones of your delicious baby.
Once a Republican is in the White House,
I’ll be a shoe-in,
to be made chairman,
of the FCC.
Hey I just met you,
and its just crazy,
that an unelected dude like me,
was nearly able to slow the progress of humanity!
[img]http://i.imgur.com/6tGJXav.jpg?1[/img]
Commissioner Ajit Pai image from FCC.gov website.
Dingo image by Peripitus (Own work) [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Peripitus] [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html), CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) or CC BY-SA 2.5-2.0-1.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5-2.0-1.0)], via Wikimedia Commons.
“Call Me Maybe”, September 20, 2011, written by Carly Rae Jepsen, Josh Ramsay, & Tavish Crowe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wrote a song
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Discomfit
It's just stunning that they really want the likes of Comcast, Verizon, etc to control the very medium that they're always on-for a price.
Free isn't free, they think-and Comcast wants to make sure they pay for it. The FCC was just trying to make their lives a little bit easier.
Perhaps we should have it all throttled. That way we wouldn't have to put up with the trolls or tin foil hat people because they'd not be able to afford the connection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another reason Pai has no credibility
Perhaps I'm misremembering, but wasn't one of Pai's criticism the fact that the FCC hasn't released the proposed rules yet? However, here we have evidence that not only has Pai read the rules, but he is part of an effort to delay releasing them.
This is pure political gamesmanship, of course, which is more than enough reason to warrant condemnation and ridicule.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another reason Pai has no credibility
This is pure political gamesmanship, of course, which is more than enough reason to warrant condemnation and ridicule.
Looks more like regulatory capture to me. That is, he's playing to his once and future employers, not the public or elected officials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another reason Pai has no credibility
That is, he's playing to his once, current and future employers, not the public or elected officials.
He may be getting paid by the taxpayers, but they clearly aren't the ones he's working for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Educating on how the Internet Works
The Internet is not like the public highway system where anyone who wants to ride the Freeway or any public road can regardless of whether
you drive a beater or a Lamborghini. The Internet is a patchwork of thousands of private networks. Some networks owned
by the big players are called backbone networks and they handle a lot of the traffic but they only take you part of the way.
Go to your command prompt or terminal and type in traceroute followed by a url. You will see how many networks it took to get to your
destination. I did >traceroute youtube.com. I got 10 different networks that were traversed before it got to youtube.com
When you make a request to a server the request and the result of that request can traverse many networks to get
to the server that hosts the information. These networks have cooperative agreements with other networks to allow traffic
to go through them in return they get reciprocated with their traffic. When one network gets overloaded they cut off through traffic and the
packets get rerouted someplace else that can handle the traffic. Sometimes there is no other option so the network has to
throttle some traffic to handle the load. This is going to jeopardize this cooperation since they will want to protect their own
traffic. The Internet cannot work without Inter network cooperation. If all networks circle the wagons nothing will get in or out
and we will be left with thousands of private networks that can only talk to itself.
Why net neutrality will hurt and slow everyone down is because Networks will not be able to manage their networks based
on the priority of the traffic so the result will be more traffic on their systems which means they will have to throttle
Everyone to handle it. The result is it will take longer to receive packets and with streaming services such as Netflix it means you will see more of the dreaded buffering especially at night when most people want to watch Netflix.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Educating on how the Internet Works
Netflix uses a protocol that has a "Best effort" protocol which is lower priority. So net neutrality will actually have no net benefit at all in streaming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Educating on how the Internet Works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Educating on how the Internet Works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Educating on how the Internet Works
Now you're just making stuff up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Educating on how the Internet Works
Netflix is just a prominent example, not the primary concern.
So net neutrality will actually have no net benefit at all in streaming.
That is a complete non sequitur. The fact that Netflix uses UDP or whatever it is does not imply that throttling their traffic has no effect on the quality of their service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Educating on how the Internet Works
Fascinating. (RIP, Leonard N.)
-
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Educating on how the Internet Works
on the priority of the traffic so the result will be more traffic on their systems which means they will have to throttle
Everyone to handle it.
Citation needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Educating on how the Internet Works
Lots of us who are in favor of NN know how the internet works at least as much as you do. Perhaps you could provide an argument that doesn't rely on an insult.
"Why net neutrality will hurt and slow everyone down is because Networks will not be able to manage their networks based on the priority of the traffic"
We'll see what the rules say, but what us "network neutrality people" have been pushing for would not prevent QoS management at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pessimistic all the way...
The Corporate, and thus the Political consensus on this matter, is and always will be :
The Web, as it stands today, is simply too dangerous a tool to be left in the hands of the public.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]