End of Net Neutrality Approaches though new FCC proposal. - Polidicks

[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/24/net-neutrality-rules_n_5205844.html[/url] [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/24/net-neutrality_n_5206510.html[/url] [url]http://time.com/74703/net-neutrality-fcc-rules-plan-angers-advocates/[/url] [url]http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2014/04/the-end-of-net-neutrality.html?utm_source=www&utm_medium=tw&utm_campaign=20140424[/url] [QUOTE]LOS ANGELES (AP) — The nation's top telecoms regulator is proposing to allow a pay-for-priority fast lane on the Internet for movies, music and other services to get to people's homes. The proposed rules come after a federal appeals court struck down previous "net neutrality" rules designed to prevent Internet access providers such as Comcast from discriminating against certain traffic flowing to their customers. Under the proposal, an access provider could demand that high-traffic services such as Netflix pay for preferential treatment. The proposal would include safeguards to make sure the arrangements don't harm consumers or stifle competition and free speech. Because of that, FCC officials insist it's not a departure from past policy. However, it would now permit something the FCC had discouraged under the old rules. Consumer advocates say the proposed system would inevitably allow deep-pocketed Internet giants like Netflix, Google and Facebook to maintain their edge over startups because they can pay to ensure snappier connections and clearer, uninterrupted video. It could result in higher prices for consumers who pay for Netflix and similar online services, as the cost of speedier treatment could be passed on. It also could create a new revenue stream for Internet service providers like Comcast or Verizon.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]"To be very direct, the proposal would establish that behavior harmful to consumers or competition by limiting the openness of the Internet will not be permitted," he said in a blog post Thursday. "The allegation that it will result in anti-competitive price increases for consumers is also unfounded." Several consumer groups weren't convinced. "A policy that encourages paid prioritization is not network neutrality, and the commission is using a bad legal path to a terrible policy end," said Sarah J. Morris, senior policy counsel at New America, a non-partisan think tank.[/QUOTE] [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-mW1qccn8k[/url]

don't worry, the free market will take care of it :v:

How is this even neutral? Pay for the right to have good speeds to consumers? What the fuck.

How is this even making it as far as it is? Do these corporations seriously have this much power?

[QUOTE=Zareox7;44638122]How is this even making it as far as it is? Do these corporations seriously have this much power?[/QUOTE] well we are an oligarchy.....

Don't they want people to stop pirating?

No way this will last even if it passes, people will fight it tooth and nail.

Net Neutrality is dead, they're just holding the corpse up on strings like a puppet with a man behind the curtain yelling "No look, I'm fine, really!"

The best part is there won't even be any positive benefits for the consumer, it's just there to claw as much money out of their competition so they can keep their outdated cable network relevant.

[quote]"To be very direct, the proposal would establish that behavior harmful to consumers or competition by limiting the openness of the Internet will not be permitted," he said in a blog post Thursday.[/quote] Then why are you limiting the openness of the internet by making some Netflix pay special fees that never existed before now and exist solely to milk money? [quote]"The allegation that it will result in anti-competitive price increases for consumers is also unfounded."[/quote] Except it already has, and it's been this way for ages. We pay tons to Company A for shitty service, or we pay tons to Company B for shitty service. And both Companies are working together to fuck us over for money, so neither has to compete.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;44638239]Net Neutrality is dead, they're just holding the corpse up on strings like a puppet with a man behind the curtain yelling "No look, I'm fine, really!"[/QUOTE] I wish that they would at least stop calling it net neutrality. I mean we're already fucked. We've lost. Game over. There's nothing that we're gonna be able to do about it, and cable companies understand this. Could they at least be good sports about it and openly admit that net neutrality in America is dead? I mean them still calling it net neutrality at this point is like winning the Superbowl and holding up the opposing team's quarterback's dead mother in the stadium as part of the celebration. It's just not in good taste for them to continue insulting us with the corpse of something that we loved.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;44638553]I wish that they would at least stop calling it net neutrality. I mean we're already fucked. We've lost. Game over. There's nothing that we're gonna be able to do about it, and cable companies understand this. Could they at least be good sports about it and openly admit that net neutrality in America is dead? I mean them still calling it net neutrality at this point is like winning the Superbowl and holding up the opposing team's quarterback's dead mother in the stadium as part of the celebration. It's just not in good taste for them to continue insulting us with the corpse of something that we loved.[/QUOTE] for the same reason you have folks in your congress passing laws/acts/whatever with "noble" names that do the exact opposite you would think it would do.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;44638259]Then why are you limiting the openness of the internet by making some Netflix pay special fees that never existed before now and exist solely to milk money? Except it already has, and it's been this way for ages. We pay tons to Company A for shitty service, or we pay tons to Company B for shitty service. And both Companies are working together to fuck us over for money, so neither has to compete.[/QUOTE] But competition with a third company will make it ok right?

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;44639098]But competition with a third company will make it ok right?[/QUOTE] The third company is owned by subsidiaries of the other two companies.