- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Net Neutrality - FCC wins - High Speed Internet is a utility
Posted on 6/14/16 at 11:12 am
Posted on 6/14/16 at 11:12 am
Putting this up to hear some informed opinions because I am not as up to speed on this as I feel I should be. I know there was talk of this some time back during the initial case filing but now that the Appeals Court has ruled...
A good thing or more government overreach and unneeded regulation of open market forces?
LINK
A good thing or more government overreach and unneeded regulation of open market forces?
quote:
WASHINGTON — High-speed internet service can be defined as a utility, a federal court has ruled, a decision clearing the way for more rigorous policing of broadband providers and greater protections for web users. The decision from a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday comes in a case about rules applying to a doctrine known as net neutrality, which prohibit broadband companies from blocking or slowing the delivery of internet content to consumers.
Those rules, created by the Federal Communications Commission in early 2015, started a huge legal battle as cable, telecom and wireless internet providers sued to overturn regulations that they said went far beyond the FCC's authority and would hurt their businesses.
The court's decision upholds the FCC on the declaration of broadband as a utility, the most significant aspect of the rules. That has broad-reaching implications for web and telecommunications companies and signals a shift in the government's view of broadband as a service that should be equally accessible to all Americans, rather than a luxury that does not need close government supervision.
The ruling may open a path for new limits on broadband providers. Google and Netflix support net neutrality rules and have warned government officials that without regulatory limits, broadband providers would have an incentive to create business models that could harm consumers. They argue that broadband providers could degrade the quality of downloads and streams of online services to extract tolls from web companies or to promote unfairly their own competing services or the content of partners.
The court's ruling was a slam-dunk for the FCC. The panel of three judges who heard the case late last year agreed that wireless broadband services were also common carrier utility services subject to anti-blocking and discrimination rules, a decision protested by wireless carriers including AT&T and Verizon Wireless. "This is an enormous win for consumers," said Gene Kimmelman, president of the public interest group Public Knowledge. "It ensures the right to an open internet with no gatekeepers."
LINK
8
Posted on 6/14/16 at 11:15 am to jbgleason
I'm torn on this considering I typically favor free market.
But for so many of these guys the competition just isn't there to benefit everyone.
But for so many of these guys the competition just isn't there to benefit everyone.
Posted on 6/14/16 at 11:16 am to jbgleason
From what I understand it is a win for internet users. It means that providers can't charge more for better service.
Posted on 6/14/16 at 11:18 am to Swoopin
quote:
But for so many of these guys the competition just isn't there to benefit everyone.
The lack of competition is due to government intervention. In a perfect world, the government would not be involved and competition would work out any problems. But in the real world, where idiots want government involved in every part of their lives, this ruling is better than the alternative.
Posted on 6/14/16 at 11:18 am to Swoopin
quote:
I'm torn on this considering I typically favor free market.
but this isn't a free market
Posted on 6/14/16 at 11:18 am to Swoopin
HUGE win for consumers and small businesses
I know people don't like regulation but this really helps prevent major ISPs from abusing their control over the markets.
I know people don't like regulation but this really helps prevent major ISPs from abusing their control over the markets.
Posted on 6/14/16 at 11:22 am to Tigeralum2008
quote:
HUGE win for consumers and small businesses
THIS.
In theory, this should open the door for more competition, which is always a good thing.
Posted on 6/14/16 at 11:25 am to jbgleason
The free market would be best, but that's not what we have here. We have a collection of local monopolies and duopolies that have been using government to get the protections of being a utility without the burdens. Since the government HAS to be involved thanks to decades of idiots makig them involved, a government regulated utility is probably a better outcome than an out of control monopoly/duopoly because the utility status at peast comes with some consumer protections in theory.
Posted on 6/14/16 at 11:34 am to Swoopin
An explanation I really liked from reddit:
quote:
Let's pretend you are trying to mail a package. The package weighs 10 lbs and is full of pictures. It's going to cost you $10 to send that package. Now let's say you want to send a package that also weighs 10 lbs, but it is full of DVDs. Despite the fact that the packages weigh the same, your parcel service is telling you that your second box is going to cost $20 to send. Makes no sense, right? The logical argument is that 10 pounds is 10 pounds, so it should cost the same. This is the basis of net neutrality.
Just how 10 pounds is 10 pounds, all digital information is stored and transmitted as 1s and 0s. The only difference between a picture and a movie is the number of 1s and 0s that are needed to get that file to you. Net neutrality means that all of those 1s and 0s are treated equal and are sent to you with the same level of priority and the same speed.
Telecom companies (Comcast, AT&T, T-Mobile, etc.) do not share this view. They are saying that the 1s and 0s of sites like Netflix (our box of DVDs) should cost more and be treated different than sites like imgur (our box of pictures). They believe that they have a right to slow down or speed up the delivery of certain services based solely on what the content is. They want to treat some 1s and 0s special.
Why is this a big deal? Well for one thing many people think this is not fair. If I download a raw picture that is 2 gigabytes large, then why is that any more or less "damaging" to their network than streaming 2 gigabytes worth of a movie on Netflix? There is no additional cost to the telecom based on what kind of file is being transferred because, again, it is just a stream of 1s and 0s. It is simply a money grab.
The other reason it is an issue is because of free speech and the free market. For example, let's say a new ISP comes to town and they have a website you can go to to sign up for their service. Comcast doesn't like competition, so they decided to add this ISP's website to the "slow" tier of websites. Now instead of the website coming up in 1 second, it takes 5 minutes to load. Imagine the damage this would do to that ISPs business if people can't visit their site.
Comcast owns, among other websites Hulu . A direct competitor to Netflix. Imagine what would happen if Comcast could decided to put Hulu on their fastest service, ensuring full 4k video on demand, but limited Netflix's delivery such that you could only get 360p resolution.
Net neutrality would force Comcast to show you that website, Netflix, Google, NBC.com, and all sites the same no matter what the content. The reason you keep seeing it on the front page is because governments, especially the US, keeps trying to pass laws that will get rid of net neutrality.
Posted on 6/14/16 at 11:41 am to MrSmith
I applaud this decision. We have limited free markets in this country (some I dislike and some I like) and within our Society in general. So the rah-rah stuff needs to be parked on the PT Board IMO.
The FCC with this decision and the ruling to obliterate the cable co's by telling them it was illegal to require consumers to have to use their set-top boxes in order to access the content they provide over the last mile was a huge win.
It's a good bet that we'll see the internet, new media and technical innovation continue to bloom in the West thanks to rulings like this...and consumers will continue to see that new tech and innovation and competition on a level playing field ensure that prices and costs have a natural gravity over time.
Really, really good deal for innovation. Silicon Street and Main Street win here. Bigtime.
The FCC with this decision and the ruling to obliterate the cable co's by telling them it was illegal to require consumers to have to use their set-top boxes in order to access the content they provide over the last mile was a huge win.
It's a good bet that we'll see the internet, new media and technical innovation continue to bloom in the West thanks to rulings like this...and consumers will continue to see that new tech and innovation and competition on a level playing field ensure that prices and costs have a natural gravity over time.
Really, really good deal for innovation. Silicon Street and Main Street win here. Bigtime.
This post was edited on 6/14/16 at 11:42 am
Posted on 6/14/16 at 11:41 am to jbgleason
Good. I don't need Comcast deciding what I stream. Hopefully this will get prices down, and speeds up like the Internet is in the rest of the developed world.
Posted on 6/14/16 at 11:43 am to jbgleason
It's a victory now, but it will likely be appealed up to the Supreme Court. So it's not over yet, unfortunately.
Posted on 6/14/16 at 11:51 am to GFunk
quote:
Fun Fact: South Korea has internet mobile broadband internet speeds of over twice that of America.
38,691 square miles vs 3,796,742 square miles. It's a whole lot easier to pay for upgrading a network when you have about 1300 people per square mile vs about 85 people per square mile.
Posted on 6/14/16 at 11:54 am to Swoopin
quote:
I'm torn on this considering I typically favor free market.
But for so many of these guys the competition just isn't there to benefit everyone.
Pretty much describes how I feel about it.
Posted on 6/14/16 at 12:03 pm to Scrowe
quote:
38,691 square miles vs 3,796,742 square miles. It's a whole lot easier to pay for upgrading a network when you have about 1300 people per square mile vs about 85 people per square mile.
Yet you don't see that much of an improvement in the argument when you compare major cities
Posted on 6/14/16 at 12:11 pm to AJN
So they just don't provide better service.
Posted on 6/14/16 at 12:38 pm to jbgleason
quote:
A good thing
Because after all these years, just frick Cox.
Posted on 6/14/16 at 12:46 pm to Salmon
I say that in my next sentence
Posted on 6/14/16 at 12:48 pm to SG_Geaux
quote:
In theory, this should open the door for more competition,
not in terms of ISPs
in content? possibly/likely
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News