[PublicAnimalNo9]

Tricks Tricks:

The argument can also be made for anti-competition on the TV front. The ISPs are for the most part cable providers as well. What an easy way to make sure people don't cut their cable by making the biggest online streaming service either a) pay more or b) be unusable.

LOL The ISPs will never have anything to worry about from me. I hate watching stuff on my computer, even with a 23" flat screen. And screw those handhelds, I grew up in the era of the 12" TV screen. I sure as hell don't want to watch TV or a movie on something even smaller.
Plus I've got a big screen TV where my computer is and I like doing shit on my computer while I watch TV or a movie.

Not that I'm not all for net neutrality, it's just that one particular example will likely never affect me. At least until you can't buy a desktop or laptop anymore and I hope to God I'm dead by that point

[Tricks]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Tricks Tricks:

The argument can also be made for anti-competition on the TV front. The ISPs are for the most part cable providers as well. What an easy way to make sure people don't cut their cable by making the biggest online streaming service either a) pay more or b) be unusable.

LOL The ISPs will never have anything to worry about from me. I hate watching stuff on my computer, even with a 23" flat screen. And screw those handhelds, I grew up in the era of the 12" TV screen. I sure as hell don't want to watch TV or a movie on something even smaller.
Plus I've got a big screen TV where my computer is and I like doing shit on my computer while I watch TV or a movie.

Connect the TV to the computer. Then you get the experience of TV but the control of a computer.

[Tricks]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

So what's this about then? It's recent.

$1:

The agency's new policy, approved as expected along party lines, reclassifies broadband, both fixed and mobile, as a more heavily regulated "telecommunications service," more like a traditional telephone service.

In the past, broadband was classified as a more lightly regulated "information service," which factored into a federal court's rejection of the FCC's previous set of rules in January 2014.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/ ... CA20150226

I didn't really understand it, but in the Brian Lilley video he was saying we have been able to keep internationals like the UN from getting too much control over the internet, because of protection offered by the way it's classified - as 'information services'. According to Lilley when they go from classification as information services to "Telecomm" that protection from a UN power grab vanishes.

Power grab for what exactly?

$1:

$1:

The shift gives the FCC more authority to police various types of deals between providers such as Comcast Corp (CMCSA.O) and content companies such as Netflix Inc (NFLX.O) to ensure they are just and reasonable for consumers and competitors.

Those guys you mentioned like Netflix, Google, and YouTube might have made a deal with the devil. Sounds like they're under government control now too. Sounds like Obama gives and Obama takes away now. Corporatism. 'Be a good boy and Obama give you a treat.' There's a possibility those guys should have been careful what they wished for.

Yes. I'm sure you're right. Netflix and Google have no business sense at all. Seriously, stop being a hack for once. It's really entertaining, but impossibly sad.

They're there to monitor deals to prevent things like throttling.

$1:

And what's with that refusal to make these new FCC regulations public? Are they going to let people see them eventually? When?

Probably because they aren't finalized?

[herbie]

$1:

Connect the TV to the computer. Then you get the experience of TV but the control of a computer.

Buy a new TV. I'm tired of people with old XP POSs asking me how they connect it to a TV. I don't even use the HDMI to show vacation pictures, just plug the USB on the TV

RE: comment about moving to the city if I want good Internet
Reminds me of when I was a WISP. Drove an hour north of where I live and demonstrated that our link was running a full 10MB up & down. The guy whined that he had better Internet in his Toronto apartment.
So I pointed out his window at the huge open lake, miles of empty treed mountains and a damn moose munching on a shrub in his garden - "Does it look like downtown Toronto?"

[BeaverFever]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Tricks Tricks:

The argument can also be made for anti-competition on the TV front. The ISPs are for the most part cable providers as well. What an easy way to make sure people don't cut their cable by making the biggest online streaming service either a) pay more or b) be unusable.

LOL The ISPs will never have anything to worry about from me. I hate watching stuff on my computer, even with a 23" flat screen. And screw those handhelds, I grew up in the era of the 12" TV screen. I sure as hell don't want to watch TV or a movie on something even smaller.
Plus I've got a big screen TV where my computer is and I like doing shit on my computer while I watch TV or a movie.

Not that I'm not all for net neutrality, it's just that one particular example will likely never affect me. At least until you can't buy a desktop or laptop anymore and I hope to God I'm dead by that point

You can hook up your computer to your TV so that you can watch movies on the big screen. We mostly use laptops/Ipads at home but have an older desktop computer set up as one of the input sources to the 50' TV, we use it for nothing except to play media on the big screen. We download the media to a memory stick from the Laptop then put it on the desktop.

[Tyler_1]

That HDMI or whatever it's called cord is priceless and if you don't have one I think you should get one.

[Tyler_1]

Now back on whatever the topic or everyone is getting reported.

[N_Fiddledog]

Tricks Tricks:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

I didn't really understand it, but in the Brian Lilley video he was saying we have been able to keep internationals like the UN from getting too much control over the internet, because of protection offered by the way it's classified - as 'information services'. According to Lilley when they go from classification as information services to "Telecomm" that protection from a UN power grab vanishes.

Power grab for what exactly?

You mean, why would countries like China and Russia want more power over the internet under the auspices of the UN? Why wouldn't they? It's more a question of how is that possible through the reclassification by the FCC.

The video explained that. Here is it is again.

[TheHopFather]

Reclassification by the FCC to Title II is a totally separate issue, they've got nothing to do with each other. At all.

Title II simply classifies ISP's as "common carriers". That means that ISP's must carry traffic in a reasonable and nondiscriminatory way. So each packet travelling over the network must be treated the same as any other packet. Your Xbox Live game must be treated the same as my Netflix movie. Someone else's Skype traffic is treated the same as another person's Amazon shopping cart. This was put into place because ISP's started mucking around with traffic on the net, famously with Netflix traffic this past summer. The idea was to slow down Netflix traffic so that people with fast connections were buffering video to the point it was unwatchable. Netflix paid the ISP's for "priority" and suddenly their traffic worked great again. This regulation simply forces ISP's to act as a "dumb pipe" rather than continue to set themselves up as the internet gate keeper.

Tom Wheeler himself said it best I think,

"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."

There is a ton of misinformation about the new rules out there and Republicans seem to be leading the charge. They are simply trying to scare people into not supporting these rules which are in their own best interest.

[Zipperfish]

Great first post. Welcome aboard!

[TheHopFather]

The UN take over of the internet is referring to the US relinquishing control of ICANN. ICANN is the (private) organization that handles top level domains and IP addresses. Here is a link to an article that goes into the issue in depth;

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1170 ... o-big-deal

Zipperfish - thanks! Actually just a new account, I lost my old password and couldn't seem to recover it so a new account was created.

[BartSimpson]

I find it amusing that two of the biggest anti-American government agitators on this site, Andy and Public Domain, are so eager to defend that same 'evil' government when it's taking control of the internet.

If there was ever a more damning negative endorsement it has to be this!

Because if net neutrality were really in the best interests of America and Americans then Andy and PD would HATE IT!!!!

[TheHopFather]

There is a difference between the internet and internet providers. Title II regulates internet providers because they have a monopoly on the "last mile" of the internet, the connection going into your house. These regulations stop the ISP's from being able to decide what you can and cannot do on the internet. That's it.

Is everyone aware that the ISP's functioned under Title II up until the Telecommunications Act of 1996? Back then there was a huge amount of competition between ISP's and the net thrived, after 1996 ISP's operated under Title I and consolidated into a few very large ISP's. Many people in the US only have 1 choice of ISP, it is a take it or leave it situation. These new regulations are in response to that, it stops ISP's from abusing their monopoly position.

These rules aren't a regulation of the internet, they are regulating internet providers.

[xerxes]

I think we ultimately have to flip a coin and decide: who do we want in change of the internet? A government, who at least in theory, is responsible and subject to the will of the people? Or a faceless corporation that cares only for making money?

Because let's face it, the future is one of massive corporations in control of vast sectors of the economy. They will squeeze every cornet of the internet for every penny possible and if that means shaking down popular websites for money they absolutely will. Like the bit from John Oliver pointed out, that was already done with Netflix.

The fact that so many "conservatives" are against this ruling shows that it was the right one. It all comes down to the fact that this ruling happened under the Obama administration. If it had happened 7 years ago, it'd be a victory for the people and for liberty because that's what this is.

Every website is to be treated equally from the Amazon to Google to the lowliest blog with 2 accidental hits a month. No corporation will be able to slow down a website either for extortion or to silence a critical voice.

This ruling is a victory for the people and the only people against it are those who stood to make money off a two-tiered internet.

[Tricks]

TheHopFather TheHopFather:

Reclassification by the FCC to Title II is a totally separate issue, they've got nothing to do with each other. At all.

Title II simply classifies ISP's as "common carriers". That means that ISP's must carry traffic in a reasonable and nondiscriminatory way. So each packet travelling over the network must be treated the same as any other packet. Your Xbox Live game must be treated the same as my Netflix movie. Someone else's Skype traffic is treated the same as another person's Amazon shopping cart. This was put into place because ISP's started mucking around with traffic on the net, famously with Netflix traffic this past summer. The idea was to slow down Netflix traffic so that people with fast connections were buffering video to the point it was unwatchable. Netflix paid the ISP's for "priority" and suddenly their traffic worked great again. This regulation simply forces ISP's to act as a "dumb pipe" rather than continue to set themselves up as the internet gate keeper.

Tom Wheeler himself said it best I think,

"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."

There is a ton of misinformation about the new rules out there and Republicans seem to be leading the charge. They are simply trying to scare people into not supporting these rules which are in their own best interest.

Put far better than I could have. Well done!