Fcc approves net neutrality plan to control internet access

No. The regulations won't require ISPs to provide 25Mbps.

 

If they want to call it broadband they will.

 

Nope, providers are still able to call whatever they want broadband. It has no affect on advertising, just how the FCC reports how many people have broadband.

 

Nope, broadband connection is classified as 25mb/s meaning that if ISP's are advertising their product as broadband it has to be 25mb/s anything less as they aren't providing broadband which opens them up for legal trouble with false advertising.

 

You don't have to prove it and the FCC doesn't have to monitor it. Facebook, Google, Amazon, Netflix... all the major content providers will monitor service speeds, and they will have plenty of methods to prove when their service is degraded.

 

Well they already set it to 10 Mbps previously, and you said a provider is advertising 6 Mbps broadband.

 

I agree with your condemnation of the Kelo v. New London ruling, but as it relates to this topic it's comparing apples and oranges. New laws are passed to address new problems; their constitutionality is not determined by previous laws, though judicial precedent is taken into account (among other factors). Kelo wasn't about new laws, it was about stretching the eminent domain limits set by the Constitution. The FCC actions in the net neutrality case aren't stretching or pushing any Constitutional limits.

 

I'm sure you can prove that..........can't you?

 

Since the next President will likely be Republican, they can slam strict speech requirements on liberal websites......works for me.

 

^^^^^^ Because this post did not receive nearly the attention it deserved.

Well done.

Do you get it yet Liberals?

 

If approved it will he beyond awful. There is not ONE good thing that will come from this. I am happy I decided to keep Ham radio and other types of com etc. I urge everyone to resist federalizing the web. To the fools that still think the civil war was fought over (just) slavery. This is just another way to seize power from the people by regulating taxing applying fees etc. Its also a easy way for federal agencies to keep a close unabated watch on the once fairly free citizens of the USA. I suppose it does help feed the beast....maybe we could decide what the fed gets fed.

I do love my country and I respect the soldiers, the toil and sacrifice of all freedom loving Americans, while despising many of my governments leaders..................

reva

 

But if they slow you down, how do you prove they did it?

 

Thanks HB.

 

Everything I have posted is about how to monitor compliance. Nothing else. If the FCC is going to now have Rules that must be followed, how are they going to be enforced? IOW, people stat calling and complaining about a given ISP. Said ISP says 'we're complying'. Customers are saying no. So how is either the ISP proven to be in compliance or not? Does the FCC simply measure output from the provider end? If so and they are sending out the right speed but it gets to the customer 20% slower, now what do you do?

 

They now have their foot in the door to make more rules and regulations as they see fit for the "public good".

 

Kelo is the perfect example. The SCOTUS made its ruling based on case law and was astounded at the public outcry. Its the perfect example of the system slowly walking away from first principles until it makes a decision which is totally rational in terms of case law, but completely at odds with the founding principles.

New laws are passed to address new problems, but many of those new problems are created because the system has left the founding principles. Kelo again is an example, the SCOTUS reinterpreted eminent domain to allow a govt to justify taking property if the taking creates ANY benefit including increased tax revenue. That led to all kinds of new issues, problems, questions of interpretation, and resistance by people. The result was a whole host of new laws.

On net neutrality, what is it? Have you read the 320+ pages? You have not, so you don't have any clue what "net neutrality is. You know what you want it to be, but you didn't write the 320+ page regulation, did you?

 

Care to offer us a description of how this ruling affects traffic flows and turns the internet into some kind of Orwellian propaganda machine? It is my bet that you likely know nothing about the internet, have no understanding of the FCC ruling at all and could not tell the difference between your Linksys router you bought at Best Buy and one that sits in the core. In fact, it is my bet that you have absolutely no idea how any of the elements of the internet are managed, regulated and maintained. But do keep spouting right wing nonsense, the internet is there for you to display profound ignorance at any time you like.

 

The only way to reliably test your internet speeds are to have servers inside your providers network do the tests and to make sure your PC and CPE are set to the correct configurations which would allow you to have the maximum possible speed from your desktop to the router then the gateway (dsl modem, cable modem, ONT, etc.) then the access point, then the aggregration network, then the peering point, then the destination of the server on the internet, etc.) Your ISP is only responsible for the network from your home to the peering point with the core. Traffic tests that rely upon a server in the core are worthless.

 

Do I know? Yes. It's referring to ISP setting prices. My company pays for my internet at home, so I'm a business customer, so I do know on the business side ISP's have different packages and rates based on a whole variability of variables, including speed.

 

There was no set standard before.

 

If they indeed regulate the internet in the same "regulatory framework" they do electricity they're going to pay by how much data they transfer, NOT the flat monthly fee they are paying right now. Currently someone who takes say FIOS whole bundle, uses the internet modestly is paying for TV separately from the internet is financing the bandwidth used by streaming content and on line gaming users. Once they start using the same "regulatory framework" they do electricity each individual customer will pay for the bandwidth they actually use. If they like on line gaming or using Netflix for TV they better break out their VISA cards to pay the bill. They just don't get while net neutrality may have everyone paying the same for the same speed, they WILL end up paying for each and every KB they use. It will be a Bonanza for the telecoms. Then they'll be screaming for subsidies for the poor.

 

Then they'll say the telecoms gamed the system and call for more regulation which caused the problem in the first place.

 

I don't understand what you're asking. The primary reason for this motion is to protect the content providers' ability to get content to the end user. I'm sure you've seen this graph already:



Are you saying Netflix can't prove that Comcast was screwing them in late 2013?

 

Wrong. The regs are to ensure that ISP's are giving you the right speed for what you pay for irrespective of content. .

And Netflix didn't prove anything of the kind. They ended up paying Comcast.

 

Netflix didn't have to do that to show that Comcast was degrading their service.