Net Neutrality voted in favor 3-2 - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Glaber;47219555]I don't know if they actually have the same idea. But I do have a couple articles that warned againt this thing. [url]http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-regs-will-make-internet-slow-as-in-europe-warn-fcc-fec-commissioners/article/2560567[/url] [url]http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/02/09/republican-fcc-member-warns-net-neutrality-is-not-neutral/[/url] Look, I don't want to get screwed over for my internet any more than you guys do. [B]I just Don't Trust the government.[/B][/QUOTE] Neither do I, but the simple fact is the Gov't can do whatever the fuck they want with or without this bill, only now there's less red tape involved. Atleast ISP's cant dick us over now.

[QUOTE=cody8295;47220035]That fact also worries me but the people on my facebook wall are beyond stupid in their disagreement. They dont want it because obama said it was good[/QUOTE] As I said above, this is completely normal for the FCC. The fact that everyone's attention is being called to this conventional FCC procedure now is for scaremongering purposes. The big ISPs have major Republican names in their pockets, and former FCC commissioners and chairs are now employed in the highest levels of the industry and its industry lobby associations. And if you didn't know the FCC did this on a regular basis, wake up and learn how your own regulatory bodies work, kids.

If anyone has missed one of fox's latest articles on net neutrality, they have dubbed it "ObamaNet".

[QUOTE=Period;47220083]If anyone has missed one of fox's latest articles on net neutrality, they have dubbed it "ObamaNet".[/QUOTE] oh god your serious arn't you i can't contain my laughter holy shit

[QUOTE=Period;47220083]If anyone has missed one of fox's latest articles on net neutrality, they have dubbed it "ObamaNet".[/QUOTE] It begins already. Brace for weeks/months of hearing about how the FCC is a living, breathing example of government waste and overreach and Tom Wheeler (who, remember, is a career cable industry man and is now 'betraying' his 'people' in service to The People) is literally Obama's butt buddy and also Hitler.

[QUOTE=Glaber;47219555]I don't know if they actually have the same idea. But I do have a couple articles that warned againt this thing. [url]http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-regs-will-make-internet-slow-as-in-europe-warn-fcc-fec-commissioners/article/2560567[/url] [url]http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/02/09/republican-fcc-member-warns-net-neutrality-is-not-neutral/[/url] Look, I don't want to get screwed over for my internet any more than you guys do. I just Don't Trust the government.[/QUOTE] Long time no crazy-right-wing-nonsense post Glaber! Glad to have you back! Linking to Breitbart is a difference for you, gotta say. Notice how the only people actually opposed to this motion seem to all largely be right wing, or have some stake in ISPs being able to skullfuck your wallets? I can't say I've seen many Democrats or independent citizens come out and say net neutrality is a problem so far. Data [B]is[/B] equal. No matter the contents, amount or communicators, data is nothing but the same ones and zeroes when in transit. Why would it be a good thing to allow ISPs to decide which data is suddenly allowed to go faster than "unimportant*" data? Is it really fair to allow an ISP to charge someone extra money to access bandwidth allocated to them, but arbitrarily restricted because they aren't subscribed to the "social" package when trying to use Facebook? The bandwidth you receive should really be the same for all data, no ifs or buts, restricting it for certain usages is absurd (ISPs tried this with packet shaping to lower torrent usage, it didn't really work out). I'm not gonna say your government is 100% kind and fair, there is likely something questionable slipped into this from someone opposed to it, or someone who knows how it could help them and fuck everyone else over (hmm...sounds a bit similar to how the ACA got fucked up actually). But net neutrality as a whole is nothing but benefits for the end user. The FCC will be able to take action against ISPs clearly playing unfairly. *as decided by our shareholders, who probably barely use the Internet for entertainment

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;47220060]As I said above, this is completely normal for the FCC. The fact that everyone's attention is being called to this conventional FCC procedure now is for scaremongering purposes. The big ISPs have major Republican names in their pockets, and former FCC commissioners and chairs are now employed in the highest levels of the industry and its industry lobby associations. And if you didn't know the FCC did this on a regular basis, wake up and learn how your own regulatory bodies work, kids.[/QUOTE] I'm not going to go into debate with this, but 332 pages worth of regulations could have a lot of things. Not knowing what the fuck they are is just unsettling, regardless of whether this is "normal" for the FCC to do. Call me a scaremonger if you must, but I don't give a damn who backs this or not. It's not a good thing for government to go passing things without any transparency whatsoever. Ignorance is dangerous. That is all I can say.

[QUOTE=Snowmew;47219905] - Romania (63.46 Mbps) - Sweden (55.01 Mbps) - Netherlands (46.34 Mbps) - Lithuania (45.97 Mbps) - Denmark (44.17 Mbps) - Latvia (42.82 Mbps) - Switzerland (42.61 Mbps) - Iceland (candidate) (41.13 Mbps) - Estonia (39.62 Mbps) - France (36.41 Mbps) - Luxembourg (36.41 Mbps) - Finland (35.72 Mbps) - Norway (35.62 Mbps) - Bulgaria (34.43 Mbps) - Hungary (33.30 Mbps) US average speed: [b]33.26 Mbps[/b] EU average speed (by population): [b]27.5 Mbps[/b] List of EU member countries with speeds [b]slower[/b] than US: - Belgium (32.89 Mbps) - United Kingdom (29.68 Mbps) - Portugal (29.63 Mbps) - Germany (29.07 Mbps) - Spain (28.12 Mbps) - Czech Republic (27.40 Mbps) - Ireland (27.14 Mbps) - Austria (26.45 Mbps) - Slovakia (25.85 Mbps) - Malta (24.49 Mbps) - Poland (23.06 Mbps) - Slovenia (22.72 Mbps) - Croatia (10.63 Mbps) - Greece (10.06 Mbps) - Italy (9.16 Mbps)[/QUOTE] i can't believe the US average is even that high, like 70% of the US doesn't even have access to 4/1 megs that used to be broadband, i guess population centers boost that [editline]26th February 2015[/editline] there are a lot of libertarian nutjobs saying how regulation always leads to terrible things, on the simplest level this is the government codifying legally that the internet should work like the internet has for the last 20 years. today's vote was a vote to keep the internet the way it is, not radically change it, and i think the media fucking dropped the ball on that with headlines like "fcc will change the way all americans use the internet". if everything goes into affect, the end user will never notice it

[QUOTE=Sableye;47220223]i can't believe the US average is even that high, like 70% of the US doesn't even have access to 4/1 megs that used to be broadband, i guess population centers boost that[/QUOTE] 17% is above 15 Mbps, 36% is above 10 Mbps, 73% is [b]above[/b] 4 Mbps. Those are average actual subscriptions, not maximum availability. Those are conservative results based on actual subscriber data, not Ookla's aggregate test results (which are typically 2-3x faster than "true" numbers). So, no...

what a nice guy [t]http://i.imgur.com/dZqiFrX.png[/t]

If they [i]are[/i] keeping it secret because there's some "the NSA can have all your data" law in it, then they might as well not bother because everyone in the goddamn country knows the NSA has been hoarding all our data regardless of whether it's legal for a long time now. Making it legal literally wouldn't change shit. Sure, you could argue "but if it's illegal we have ground to fight them on!", but think of it this way: if the government is already grabbing the data illegally, what's stopping them from taking civilians who try to fight them and hauling them off somewhere on some "classified intelligence" bullshit? Whatever we do with this Title II bill ain't going to stop the NSA so we might as well drop the subject for now and focus on what we can affect with this bill, and on those things we just achieved a major victory.

So does this prevent ISPs from charging you for data usage? Like Cell Phone carriers?

[QUOTE=cody8295;47219060]So many obama hating bandwagoners saying how bad this is for the US.. HAHAHAH[/QUOTE] I mean fuck I'm conservative and I think title II being passed is like friggen Jesus walking the earth. Who gives a flying duck if Obama proposed it? The point is that now ISPs can't assrape everything (as much) anymore. Pretty much anyone with a dozen or more brain cells, liberal, conservative, republican, democrat, neo-nazi or otherwise should at least support that bit (not including the parts of the bill we aren't allowed to see yet).

I wonder what this will mean for QoS features that aren't money grabbing schemes

Good news. [QUOTE]@netflix @HouseofCards Fast lanes? Frank has no patience for useless things.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Kidd;47220585]So does this prevent ISPs from charging you for data usage? Like Cell Phone carriers?[/QUOTE] Unless the text has been posted somewhere, we don't know yet, but likely not. However, what it's expected to prevent is prioritization, like slowing you the fuck down to 250kb/s on Netflix but happily giving you 5Mb/s HD Comcast streaming (that oh btw also doesn't count against your data caps, to add to the unfairness), and only giving you full-speed access to Netflix if you pay a bullshit $15 monthly fee or whatever. It's kind of expected to also contain something about municipalities being able to deploy municipal broadband where the big ISPs have a local monopoly but have decided not to roll out broadband (in a ridiculous number of states, the big ISPs paid for laws banning municipalities from doing exactly this, keeping many rural areas stuck on dialup/satellite in 2015). [QUOTE=Tom Wheeler]Any action must not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage the ability of consumers and content providers to use the Internet.[/QUOTE] What this means, I don't know, and I don't think anyone does until this's been run through the courts a few times. However, I liked what I heard Wheeler say on C-SPAN during the vote, and I hope the final result (this [B]will[/B] be taken to court by the big ISPs, guaranteed) is almost as pro-consumer as it sounded during his speech.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;47220714][QUOTE=Tom Wheeler]Any action must not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage the ability of consumers and content providers to use the Internet.[/quote]What this means, I don't know, and I don't think anyone does until this's been run through the courts a few times. However, I liked what I heard Wheeler say on C-SPAN during the vote, and I hope the final result (this [B]will[/B] be taken to court by the big ISPs, guaranteed) is almost as pro-consumer as it sounded during his speech.[/QUOTE] I believe it's for stuff like DDOS attacks and ISPs throttling users.

[QUOTE=highvoltage;47220801]I believe it's for stuff like DDOS attacks and ISPs throttling users.[/QUOTE] Likely, but also the unknown challenges of the future; in Wheeler's speech, he read it out after mentioning that the FCC's rules included a catch-all for future threats to Internet access. It's intended to futureproof the rules to a degree. However, the exact legal interpretations of what "unreasonable" and "interference" and "disadvantage" mean are things actual grown men and women are paid to argue over, so there's a lot of hammering on the law to work out exactly what it [I]means[/I].

Now I'm curious of net neutrality in Canada, has it even been a big issue? I don't recall hearing anything about it

[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47218551]So hold on, they passed a law, without releasing the content of the law to the public? What the fuck is that even a thing that people can do? What's with the dumb rating ghost? Do you not like being able to read the fine print of your laws before they're voted on?[/QUOTE] It isn't passed yet. What they've done is voted in favor of it, which means they'll be releasing it for public scrutiny over a month.

[QUOTE=catbarf;47218778]No don't you understand this is purely for the sake of the people and you're an anti-government conspiracy theorist if you think there might be other motives[/QUOTE] You were singing a different song in the other thread though: [QUOTE=catbarf;47208097]Don't forget all the government agencies salivating at FCC-level regulation, oversight, and monitoring of American Internet services. I still don't understand why people who have been outraged at the NSA for the past year somehow forget that entirely when they start asking the government to regulate their Internet access.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=highvoltage;47221264]Now I'm curious of net neutrality in Canada, has it even been a big issue? I don't recall hearing anything about it[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/02/23/bell-canada-net-neutrality-crtc_n_6736348.html"]Bell and the CRTC are fighting over it right now, CRTC has first blood.[/URL] [editline]26th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;47221340]You were singing a different song in the other thread though:[/QUOTE] Your sarcasm meter just might be busted.

Oh God Fox got to my parents, they think this is the "first cut of a thousand to come." :suicide:

I have a fear that soon ISPs will realize they are 100% legally allowed to charge by the megabyte since it is a utility. Water can charge by the gallon, Electricity by the Kilowatt... Soon 14 cents a megabyte. At least they can't charge for access to certain content.

[QUOTE=Gnomical;47221458]I have a fear that soon ISPs will realize they are 100% legally allowed to charge by the megabyte since it is a utility. Water can charge by the gallon, Electricity by the Kilowatt... Soon 14 cents a megabyte. At least they can't charge for access to certain content.[/QUOTE] More like 14 cents a gigabyte, if that. In aggregate, bandwidth is cheap (but not free), and if they ran entirely metered, most peoples' bills would go down, while a reasonably large minority's would go way up -- if there weren't alternative plans for high usage scenarios, just as there are with most utilities.

So, was it reclassified as a class 3 utility or whatever? Or do we not know that yet?

what does this mean for bandwidth caps, I wonder? Cause i'm throttled to 200GB for 5 users a month and it can be a real pain sometimes.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;47221490]More like 14 cents a gigabyte, if that. In aggregate, bandwidth is cheap (but not free), and if they ran entirely metered, most peoples' bills would go down, while a reasonably large minority's would go way up -- if there weren't alternative plans for high usage scenarios, just as there are with most utilities.[/QUOTE] By gigabyte would be fair. These are the greedy asshole ISPs we are talking about. What would prevent them from using by megabyte. They could argue the majority of things are measured by megabyte.

MEANWHILE, ON FACEBOOK [img]http://i.imgur.com/ae7B3yc.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Gnomical;47221644]By gigabyte would be fair. These are the greedy asshole ISPs we are talking about. What would prevent them from using by megabyte. They could argue the majority of things are measured by megabyte.[/QUOTE] Well, okay, they charge per megabyte, but it's like $0.008/MB or some tiny number like that where, if you go through 400GB a month like it was nothing, yes, it will start to add up. Of course, someone (read: Google Fiber) can and hopefully will compete with them and drive prices down so they don't just say $5/GB and fuck you hahaha. Because one thing the FCC ruling should do is classify Google Fiber as counting as a utility, which means it can access the poles and run its own lines much easier than it can now, so once the dust clears there could be a large fiber rollout from Google.