Have twenty minutes to learn what it's actually all about. The Truth vs Bullshit about Net Neutrality.

Good lord people. When will we learn when the government is not here to protect us?

This is funny. That's Sleepy-Groper-Al. https://youtu.be/0cLWgTIsMLM?t=112

quote:

Originally posted by Davenator:
Have twenty minutes to learn what it's actually all about. The Truth vs Bullshit about Net Neutrality.

Good lord people. When will we learn when the government is not here to protect us?

EXCELLENT article ~ (video).
Thanks!

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:

quote:

Now, they may engage in non-public discussion, negotiation, conferences, consultations, etc., but FCC Rules, once they become rules, must be published.

Now why does that remind me of Obamacare?

Because you don't know and understand the FCC rule-making process?

When there's a Proposed New Rule there's a Proposed New Rule Making process. Part of that process allows for public comment. See Rulemaking at the FCC

In fact Ajit Pai's plans to do-away with Network Neutrality is going through that process. (The overwhelming public sentiment is opposed to doing away with NN, as is the majority of industry opinion [last I knew], but they apparently plan to disregard all that. How's that for irony?)

(I'm beginning to understand how the lawyers here feel, sometimes...)

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
Because you don't know and understand the FCC rule-making process?

When there's a Proposed New Rule there's a Proposed New Rule Making process. Part of that process allows for public comment. See Rulemaking at the FCC

(I'm beginning to understand how the lawyers here feel, sometimes...)

Rulemaking at the FCC










Each time Congress enacts a law affecting telecommunications, the FCC develops rules to implement the law. The Commission takes various steps to develop these rules. Typically, these steps offer consumers an opportunity to submit both comments and reply comments to the FCC.

Are There Special Terms I Need to Know?

Yes. Knowing your "ABCs," or specifically, one’s NOIs, NPRMs, and R&Os is key to understanding the Commission’s decision-making process. Exactly what do these letters mean? Below is a guide to understanding the "alphabets" of the FCC.


◾Notice of Inquiry (NOI): The Commission releases an NOI for the purpose of gathering information about a broad subject or as a means of generating ideas on a specific issue. NOIs are initiated either by the Commission or an outside request.
◾Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM): After reviewing comments from the public, the FCC may issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. An NPRM contains proposed changes to the Commission’s rules and seeks public comment on these proposals.
◾Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM): After reviewing your comments and the comments of others to the NPRM, the FCC may also choose to issue an FNPRM regarding specific issues raised in comments. The FNPRM provides an opportunity for you to comment further on a related or specific proposal.
◾Report and Order (R&O): After considering comments to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (or Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking), the FCC issues a Report and Order. The R&O may develop new rules, amend existing rules or make a decision not to do so. Summaries of the R&O are published in the Federal Register. The Federal Register summary will tell you when a rule change will become effective.

Changes After the R&O

Petition for Reconsideration: If you are not satisfied with the way an issue is resolved in the R&O, you can file a Petition for Reconsideration within 30 days from the date the R&O appears in the Federal Register.



Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O): In response to the Petition for Reconsideration, the FCC may issue a Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O) or an Order on Reconsideration amending the new rules or stating that the rules will not be changed.

Do I Need a Lawyer to File Comments?

No. When the Commission proposes new rules, a period of time is established for the public to comment on the proposed rules. Anyone can file comments. You don’t need to be an attorney or to hire one. Each of the Commission’s documents containing proposed rules clearly details the specific dates, deadlines and locations for filing comments and reply comments.



Comments are just that. In your comments, you tell us what you think about the subject topic and why you support or oppose the Commission’s proposals.



After initial comments are filed, there is an additional period for responding to the first set of comments. During this second phase, you can file reply comments. In your reply comments you can review what others have said in their initial comments, and then support or disagree.

Does My Docketed/Rulemaking Filing Need to Include Specific Information?

Yes. Visit the Office of the Secretary website for instructions.



Docket Number

Rulemaking proceedings at the Commission are assigned docket numbers. Each docket number lists a Bureau, a year and a specific number assigned to that proceeding (e.g., MM #99-001= 1999 Mass Media Proceeding Number 1). If you are submitting a document that pertains to a docketed proceeding, you must put the docket number on your filing.



Notations

If your document contains information you wish withheld from public inspection, you must write "Confidential, Not for Public Inspection" on the upper right hand corner of each page. The documents should then be placed in an envelope also marked "Confidential, Not for Public Inspection."



You can also file documents with the FCC for all docketed and rulemaking proceedings through our Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), with the exception of Hearing Cases and Table of Allotments. However, you must first obtain the instructions for doing so by sending an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov with the following words noted in the body of the message: "get form <jsmith@domain.com>." ECFS accepts documents 24 hours a day with a midnight filing deadline. The official receipt for electronic filings will reflect Monday through Friday dates, except legal holidays.




OK, thanks for the link.

quote:

Originally posted by Davenator:
Have twenty minutes to learn what it's actually all about. The Truth vs Bullshit about Net Neutrality.

Unless the remaining 19-1/2 minutes are any better than the first 30 seconds: Don't bother. 1. Obama didn't empower the FCC to do what they did. They already had the authority. 2. Yes, the FCC was avoiding implementing NN by FCC Rule. They were hoping Congress would act. Preferably in a bipartisan fashion. What a concept, eh?

RichardC, you're welcome.

Rush discussed this today and explained better than anyone else has.
Title 2 which obama got the FCC involved in was made in 1932 so the feds could make money off the phone companies, does anyone need any more explanation as to what side to fall into?

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:
Rush discussed this today and explained better than anyone else has.
Title 2 which obama got the FCC involved in was made in 1932 so the feds could make money off the phone companies, does anyone need any more explanation as to what side to fall into?

The first assertion is provably false, as I've already explained. The 2nd is merely opinion. (Given the source: Not one to which I'd be inclined to give a lot of credence.)

Have you actually read Title II of the Communications Act of 1934?

Here ya go: Communications Act of 1934

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:
... does anyone need any more explanation as to what side to fall into?

Nope, KEEP the Gov't out.
Its that simple.

Some recent gems from the gov, with catchy names just like Net Neutrality.

quote:

Originally posted by 2012BOSS302:
Some recent gems from the gov, with catchy names just like Net Neutrality.

Except the term "Network Neutrality" did not originate from the government.

quote:

"The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003 as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier" Source: Net neutrality (Wikipedia)

Cite: Where did the concept of net neutrality come from?

(Though Wu appears to be a liberal policy wonk, so that may be of cold comfort to most here.)

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
All one needs to know.

"All one needs to know" about government is that it gets some things wrong, therefore it gets everything wrong?

Should we abolish government, then? You're an anarchist, Q?

Btw: For those of you asserting ISPs have never blocked or throttled network traffic by type, source or destination:

quote:

On 1 August 2008, the FCC formally voted 3-to-2 to uphold a complaint against Comcast, the largest cable company in the United States, ruling that it had illegally inhibited users of its high-speed Internet service from using file-sharing software.

It also used to be in the Terms Of Services or Acceptable Use Policies of many consumer ISPs that customers were prohibited from using VPN services.

The ISPs, of course, used "for the sake of optimal experience for users and services" as a justification for all these things. When challenged to explain how restricting use of the product for which their customers were paying improved the product for customers, they were unable to justify these measures.

What they were really doing was attempting to force users into higher-end plans (pseudo-business plans) that allowed such uses.

Which brings me to...

I have no horse in this race. I already have expensive pseudo-business-class Internet service. With that and servers on multiple networks at my disposal: I have the knowledge, tools and ability to work around throttling and blocks, if need be.

The average consumer? Yeah... not so much.

quote:

"All one needs to know" about government is that it gets some things wrong, therefore it gets everything wrong?

I believe you are on to something.

The MORE they control, the worse life is for all Americans, just look at how Obamacare is destroying healthcare.

It was proven they are already spying on us.

Would you trust the Government to register ALL guns and always do the right thing?

quote:

Should we abolish government, then?

YES ... THAT kind of government should be abolished.

quote:

"All one needs to know" about government is that it gets some things wrong, therefore it gets everything wrong?

It is getting a lot wrong lately, in addition to those listed (that have really done the opposite despite their focus group names), they have an out of control spending problem, $20T deficit, a 15 year war that they don't seem to want to win, a broken immigration system, social security is essentially out of funds, veterans not being cared for yet there is money to hand to refugees, an interstate transportation system is desperate need of repair, a corrupt FBI, NSA spying on its own citizens, a tax organization targeting citizen groups they don't agree with, a fourth rail of government they can't control and that rail doesn't seem to be on the same page at the majority citizen voters, a health care system they are breaking ... I could go on.

So right now priorities say this is low. They have earned the reputation for not being trusted and screwing up most everything they touch, the most recent example being the ACA that is bankrupting customers and businesses and yet it steamrolls those that are paying (dearly) for it. So count me in as one they doesn't want any help from this crowd to fix a problem that barely exists. And to be even more cynical, where is the money for them, where are they getting some kickbacks? They don't do much if there isn't anything in it for them.

Limbaugh is Right, Net Neutrality Is An Attack On Free Speech -- So Why Is Comcast For It?






Frank Miniter , CONTRIBUTOR
I question what influences our character.
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
As they move to merge, Comcast and Time Warner Cable have decided to back the Obama administration’s desire for “net neutrality.” They know the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has to approve their merger. They know the FCC’s five-member board once voted in favor of net neutrality. They know that net neutrality polls well, as most people don’t know what that phrase means. They also need approval from New York State authorities to merge and a lot of New York’s liberal politicians are in favor of net neutrality.

In these political winds, Comcast is now running radio spots saying, “Comcast’s transaction with Time Warner Cable will bring Net Neutrality protection to millions of new customers in cities from New York to Los Angeles. A free and open Internet stimulates competition, promotes innovation, fosters job creation, and drives business. Comcast is the only Internet service provider in America bound by full Net Neutrality rules, ensuring an open Internet and protecting customers.” Comcast’s official position can be seen here.

If net neutrality really does all those lofty things, why did Rush Limbaugh say on March 16, 2010, “[N]et neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine of the Internet”?

The answer is in the details.

In 2010 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) doesn’t have the power to regulate an Internet provider’s network. At the time Comcast had filed suit after the FCC tried to stop it from controlling traffic over its network to a popular file-sharing site. The court ruled that the FCC didn’t have “express statutory authority” from the U.S. Congress to regulate the Internet. At the time, most thought this would stop the FCC cold. However, this court ruling didn’t squelch the FCC’s attempt to regulate the Internet with “net neutrality” regulations.


On December 20, 2010 the FCC’s five-member board approved net neutrality rules. The vote was 3-2, with the two Republican members voting “no.” The Obama administration’s former chairman of the FCC’s five-member board, Julius Genachowski, staged this vote a few days before Christmas to keep it out of the headlines.

In January 2014 the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington. D.C., struck down the FCC’s net neutrality rules. This case was brought by Verizon Communications Inc. Meanwhile, as a condition of its 2011 acquisition of NBCUniversal, Comcast agreed to abide by the political definition of net neutrality—meaning it has agreed to treat all online traffic equally and that it won’t give special treatment to its own video services.

The current FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler, has said he isn’t for regulating broadband Internet in the same way the landline phone system is. Critics point out that such regulations could burden broadband providers with many new federal rules on pricing and services while putting Washington bureaucrats in charge of the Internet. The FCC, however, can still take action on a case-by-case basis.

Meanwhile, the movement behind net neutrality—from President Barack Obama to New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, and reportedly to New York Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand—is coming from the left for political reasons. As liberal dominance of the media has waned under the shadow of FOX News, conservative talk radio and websites such as the Drudge Report, some in the Democratic Party have been looking for creative ways to maintain, or regain, the “mainstream media’s” liberal clout. Net neutrality is one way to attain their goal of dominating the media.

English: Comcast service van, Ypsilanti Townsh...
Comcast is backing net neutrality. The reasons why are deeply political.
Proponents of net neutrality say all they want to do is use net neutrality to make sure Internet service providers (ISPs) can’t prevent consumers from accessing Internet content, applications and services. They also says they don’t want broadband providers to “discriminate” against particular Internet content or applications by giving more bandwidth (speed) to companies that pay for the privilege.

History and common sense, however, show what net neutrality would really do.

Content-based regulation of television and radio have been upheld by the Supreme Court because there is a limited number of frequencies for non-cable television and radio stations, therefore the government is permitted to regulate radio and TV with licenses. In this way, the Supreme Court determined the FCC could restrain radio and TV broadcasters, though only on a content-neutral basis.

A limited number of frequencies, however, does not allow the FCC to infringe on the First Amendment, but some at the FCC have long seen this as a chance to define what “content neutral” entails. The Fairness Doctrine, which President Ronald Reagan’s FCC terminated, was an offshoot of this line of thinking. It allowed the government to decide what was content neutral. This allowed the FCC to fine radio and TV stations, or even to revoke their licenses, if it didn’t think broadcasts were fair and balanced or if the station aired profanity, hate speech or other offenses; as a result, many radio stations had simply stayed out of politics.

Net neutrality is an idea that would give the FCC oversight of every Internet service provider in the country. Government could next expand because each Internet service provider needs clarification when applying new net neutrality regulations. Innovation, naturally would be diminished in such a new regulatory regime, as some of the Internet service providers’ funds would have to go to hiring people to deal with the FCC, as well as to complying with regulations and lobbying for better regulations. Since the late 1990s private companies have spent hundreds of billions of dollars developing America’s Internet. This money could dry up if the companies can’t make profits from their investments.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/f...for-it/#542ff7045fb9

quote:

Originally posted by 2012BOSS302:
Some recent gems from the gov, with catchy names just like Net Neutrality.

Yep. Most of these program names mean the act will have the polar opposite effect, especially if the Dims were involved in writing it. There must be an official sub-organization created specifically for this purpose, i.e. Congressional Naming Obfuscation Committee.

Trust level = 0.

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:
Limbaugh is Right, Net Neutrality Is An Attack On Free Speech -- So Why Is Comcast For It?

I'm beginning to wonder if any of you anti-NN proponents are actually reading anything I write, and checking my cites, or just blindly reposting things that add to your confirmation bias?

Again: The only reason the FCC re-classified broadband under Title II is because Comcast sued the FCC to overturn the previous, weak "gentleman's agreement" NN that Comcast and the other broadband providers essentially designed. And because of Congressional inaction.

Comcast is as much in favour of NN as Michael Bloomberg is the 2nd Amendment.

Being a classical liberal (which is not a leftist, but more akin to a libertarian), I'm generally suspicious of any government involvement in anything. As I noted: I've also got no personal stake in the outcome of this thing. Furthermore: I have investments in the major providers (both backbone and local delivery.)

Given these things one might be inclined to wonder why I'm arguing in favour of it.

This entire subject is not as simple as "private property" or "let market forces rule," because the entire Internet infrastructure, from the backbones to the local delivery, wasn't created in a free-market, competitive environment in the first place.

In A Libertarian Take on Net Neutrality, Mises Wire (can't get much more libertarian than Mises Wire) discusses it all at quite some length.

You know it's complicated when even the EFF can't come up with a monolithic stance.

Bottom line, for this libertarian/classical liberal: Competition does not currently universally, or even widely, exist in the broadband delivery market. In the face of a lack of competition, there must be regulation.

quote:

Bottom line, for this libertarian/classical liberal : Competition does not currently universally, or even widely, exist in the broadband delivery market. In the face of a lack of competition, there must be regulation .

We read you loud and clear.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:
Limbaugh is Right, Net Neutrality Is An Attack On Free Speech -- So Why Is Comcast For It?

I'm beginning to wonder if any of you anti-NN proponents are actually reading anything I write, and checking my cites, or just blindly reposting things that add to your confirmation bias?

Again: The only reason the FCC re-classified broadband under Title II is because Comcast sued the FCC to overturn the previous, weak "gentleman's agreement" NN that Comcast and the other broadband providers essentially designed. And because of Congressional inaction.

Comcast is as much in favour of NN as Michael Bloomberg is the 2nd Amendment.

Being a classical liberal (which is not a leftist, but more akin to a libertarian), I'm generally suspicious of any government involvement in anything. As I noted: I've also got no personal stake in the outcome of this thing. Furthermore: I have investments in the major providers (both backbone and local delivery.)

Given these things one might be inclined to wonder why I'm arguing in favour of it.

This entire subject is not as simple as "private property" or "let market forces rule," because the entire Internet infrastructure, from the backbones to the local delivery, wasn't created in a free-market, competitive environment in the first place.

In A Libertarian Take on Net Neutrality, Mises Wire (can't get much more libertarian than Mises Wire) discusses it all at quite some length.

You know it's complicated when even the EFF can't come up with a monolithic stance.

Bottom line, for this libertarian/classical liberal: Competition does not currently universally, or even widely, exist in the broadband delivery market. In the face of a lack of competition, there must be regulation.

Even if the 'therefore there must be regulation' argument were compelling (for the sake of argument), there is an enormous gulf between the propositions:

'There must be regulation' and 'There must be *this* regulation'.

It was a regulatory power grab. What I saw of it, when I looked into it way back when (which might not be as much as I could or should have, but any one person only has so much time and energy for slogging through bullshit), on a purely technical level there was no way to accomplish what was being claimed. Which means the intentions and claims are a smokescreen, it's a power grab.

And regulatory capture is a thing.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

Bottom line, for this libertarian/classical liberal : Competition does not currently universally, or even widely, exist in the broadband delivery market. In the face of a lack of competition, there must be regulation .

We read you loud and clear.

Come on really? Does he need to be rail roaded? He is a libertarian, sorry. Sadly today we must label everyone and fit them into a box, simpleton style, instead of using our brains.

He is right about the confirmation bias. Instead of reading and understanding what he is typing, and learning from the references we must default to liberal or Republican? I’m not that stupid.

I’ve got 20 years in Comms and have worked for 4 carriers and 3 ISP’s. I know bandwidth and carrier infrastructure better than most, from the CO, POP, serving wire center, data center, right down to the last mile. I know their motivation, and it’s money for their own pockets. Instead of a highway, they want a toll road. Why? They’ll make more money. It is certainly not for the average citizen or customer of the ISP.

This subject is certainly not as simple as Republican vs. Democrat or left vs. right. But that’s always what these discussions always seem to turn into.