FCC To Approve Net Neutrality Rules Thursday

[Xzi]

Wow. It blows me away that people actually believe that guy after watching that video! Look at all the approving comments! They totally bought it and will now forget about the issue/not research it on their own.
The 'slowing down' of services etc is not guaranteed from the start.
UDP packets- not a static route.
Its a shame that people fall for this, but hey, more control is good for me

It's the very basics of the issue for people unaware. Straightforward, but lacking all of the information, such as which net neutrality regulations are actually being considered, which are being criticized, and why.

But let's be honest: you expect the average Youtuber to do much of their own research on anything? Probably a bit much to hope for.

Anyway, this move by the FCC is a positive one, or at least the basis for it is. Let's hope it doesn't get bogged down by outside interest, be that quickly or in the long-term.

 

[Jayro]

So did it pass?

 

[TotalInsanity4]

So did it pass?

I think Congress is still deciding. I watched a few minutes of it through live captions during my study hall and it seemed like the FCC was putting up a good fight

 

[Jayro]

I think Congress is still deciding. I watched a few minutes of it through live captions during my study hall and it seemed like the FCC was putting up a good fight

Here's to hoping!

 

[Jayro]

Update for everyone, it passed!

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...net-neutrality-up-for-vote-today-by-fcc-board

 

[Gahars]

I think Congress is still deciding. I watched a few minutes of it through live captions during my study hall and it seemed like the FCC was putting up a good fight

Just because it bungles my burgerhole, this wasn't a Congressional action. The FCC is an Executive Agency and is basically determining how the existing laws will be interpreted and implemented. It's kind of like lawmaking, except there's no need for all the steps a bill has to take (getting passed in both houses of Congress, getting the President's signature, etc.).

The 'slowing down' of services etc is not guaranteed from the start.

Well that's totally encouraging.

I understand wanting to keep the government from totally controlling the internet, but if the internet is going to be treated as a public resource/basic necessity, letting private corporations run wild with it isn't going to work out well. That's not because companies are evil or anything, but they are driven by profit, not benevolence, and while that's all well and good, we can't just give them the keys for everything and assume their best interest will always turn out well for everyone else.

 

[grossaffe]

Just because it bungles my burgerhole, this wasn't a Congressional action. The FCC is an Executive Agency and is basically determining how the existing laws will be interpreted and implemented. It's kind of like lawmaking, except there's no need for all the steps a bill has to take (getting passed in both houses of Congress, getting the President's signature, etc.).

So business as usual.

 

[Taleweaver]

It's been 10 months old, but this extra credits video also sheds some light on the issue:


It's roughly the same explanation/reasoning as CGP grey's video in Gahars' post.

Wow. It blows me away that people actually believe that guy after watching that video! Look at all the approving comments! They totally bought it and will now forget about the issue/not research it on their own.
The 'slowing down' of services etc is not guaranteed from the start.
UDP packets- not a static route.
Its a shame that people fall for this, but hey, more control is good for me

Okay...color me interested. I would argue that people agree with that video because they come across it while researching, so the "not research on their own" is kind of false. You could rightfully say that it's in part speculation, but what's the benefit from the other side? That analogy with pipes containing flows of data is certainly true, and those claims that this decision hinders ISP's in building a faster internet is simply not true in a broader sense. They can increase it by increasing the physical connections between points, but if we take that out of account, the only way to increase it for person A is to decrease it for person B. That's where all this speculation of slowing down comes from: you simply can't have a non-net-neutral environment and treating everyone equally.

But I digress...so you think that ISP groups have a point. Okay...fair enough. Care to elaborate? Because look...from the article JayRo posted comes the following quote from a Broadband for America representative:

"The FCC's decision to impose obsolete telephone-era regulations on the high-speed Internet is one giant step backwards for America's broadband networks and everyone who depends upon them. These 'Title II' rules go far beyond protecting the Open Internet, launching a costly and destructive era of government micromanagement that will discourage private investment in new networks and slow down the breakneck innovation that is the soul of the Internet today."

Interesting. As the devil's advocate I really like to know how the exact freakin' way the internet worked thus far is somehow a step back for this very same internet. It hasn't exactly discouraged private investments thus far either.
"Costly and destructive government micromanagement"...that almost sounds like a treat to me. Like they're saying "we'll be lobby'ing and breaking this agreement in the most sneaky ways possible...try to catch us, suckers!". I'm probably wrong on that, but some elaboration might help.
As for the rules going "far beyond protecting the open internet"...anyone know what that's about?

 

[Arecaidian Fox]

Please tell me how letting ISPs decide how the internet should be handled is a good thing? What is being labeled as the restriction of freedom (and in more than this single arena in my country) is actually the preservation of it. To be frank, if people/corporations/businesses/etc had not proven to be selfish and only out for money throughout most of history, we would have a market that would literally be free (Laissez Faire capitalism). And if such a world existed, where every individual could be trusted to do the right thing, have ethics, it would probably work. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I have the sneaking suspicion that we actually don't live in such a world. Were there no such thing as government regulation, were companies able to do whatever they wanted to make an ever-increasing profit, we'd be worse off than some miners and gold prospectors in the "wild west" era. Mining companies at that point in time paid workers in what were essentially vouchers for services that the mining company supplied. It doesn't take a genius (of which I fear there are few in the U.S.A.) to figure out that those mining companies essentially owned their workers. Those vouchers were worthless anywhere else. Hell, banks did something similar around that time, and actually resulted in a law in California that banned any form of monies that were not federally issued in the state (and actually made BitCoin illegal for a time there in recent history). There are innumerable other issues with letting companies do whatever they want in the market. I'm sorry, did you want paint for your child's bedroom that isn't toxic? Too bad, there's no one to regulate what we sell! But, if you pay a premium cost, I'll sell you this slightly less toxic one!

See my point? Quit whining about freedoms being stripped away and thank your lucky stars that those of you who live in the United States with me have a government that can step in and say, "Sorry, Corporate America, you're being mean on the playground again! Time to set some more ground rules!" Is it perfect? No. Is our government not without issues? No. But it sure as hell is better than the alternative.

Long live Net Neutrality!

 

[Taleweaver]

To be frank, if people/corporations/businesses/etc had not proven to be selfish and only out for money throughout most of history, we would have a market that would literally be free (Laissez Faire capitalism). And if such a world existed, where every individual could be trusted to do the right thing, have ethics, it would probably work. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I have the sneaking suspicion that we actually don't live in such a world.

While I certainly agree with what you're saying, things are a bit more complex than that. It's illustrated with a known experiment of which I unfortunately don't know the name. It goes as follows...

Let's say we have two people (A and B) and 100$. Person A has to divide this 100$ into two stacks: one for himself, the other for B. The stacks don't have to be equal in any way. B then has the choice: either he accepts the way A has divided the stack and they both get the money...or he refuses, and they both get nothing.
Now...put yourself in the shoes of A, and then B. How would you divide it? Which amount would you accept?

The free marketing school of thought would let you believe that A will always give himself 99$ and only 1$ to B, and that B would be willing to accept that because 1$ is still more than 0$. However...this sort of logic simply does not work. It's been repeated in different countries and cultures, and time and time again, A mostly goes for 50-50 to something like 60-40 in his favor (there was even some tribe where A donated MORE to B than half the money). Anything more and B will refuse the offer.

The conclusion: human beings, on average, aren't self centered egoistic bastards. Seen in that light, regulations for things like e.g. net neutrality wouldn't be needed. Since people aren't, by nature, egoistic, why would companies (who, in the end, consist of decisions made by people) do it?

That reason...I think it's not yet clearly investigated enough to pinpoint the main reason, but there is more than enough evidence that the above simply does not work for companies*. It may be peer pressure in the board room, the fear of making a loss, the lack of personal contact with the 'B'-group or any other number of reasons, but the end result remains the same: under current market laws, ISP's WILL attempt to squeeze every dollar out of their costumers. They WILL use an unregulated internet to regulate it in the way it'll profit them the most.
The scariest part is even that they probably won't even realize what they're doing. One of the documentaries I rewatch from time to time is 'Enron: the smartest guys in the room'. I still have a hard time believing how they purposefully caused electricity blackouts to reap the profits of the "scarcity" of electricity, and at the same time believed they were doing the right thing (at that time, that is).






*and incidentally: the group where the 'A'-group of people showed the most greed and proposed 80 or even 90$ on their end...where freshly graduated economists. So yeah...guys like Gordon Gekko HAVE inspired people into thinking that 'Greed is good'.

 

[weatMod]

Please tell me how letting ISPs decide how the internet should be handled is a good thing? What is being labeled as the restriction of freedom (and in more than this single arena in my country) is actually the preservation of it. To be frank, if people/corporations/businesses/etc had not proven to be selfish and only out for money throughout most of history, we would have a market that would literally be free (Laissez Faire capitalism). And if such a world existed, where every individual could be trusted to do the right thing, have ethics, it would probably work. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I have the sneaking suspicion that we actually don't live in such a world. Were there no such thing as government regulation, were companies able to do whatever they wanted to make an ever-increasing profit, we'd be worse off than some miners and gold prospectors in the "wild west" era. Mining companies at that point in time paid workers in what were essentially vouchers for services that the mining company supplied. It doesn't take a genius (of which I fear there are few in the U.S.A.) to figure out that those mining companies essentially owned their workers. Those vouchers were worthless anywhere else. Hell, banks did something similar around that time, and actually resulted in a law in California that banned any form of monies that were not federally issued in the state (and actually made BitCoin illegal for a time there in recent history). There are innumerable other issues with letting companies do whatever they want in the market. I'm sorry, did you want paint for your child's bedroom that isn't toxic? Too bad, there's no one to regulate what we sell! But, if you pay a premium cost, I'll sell you this slightly less toxic one!

See my point? Quit whining about freedoms being stripped away and thank your lucky stars that those of you who live in the United States with me have a government that can step in and say, "Sorry, Corporate America, you're being mean on the playground again! Time to set some more ground rules!" Is it perfect? No. Is our government not without issues? No. But it sure as hell is better than the alternative.

Long live Net Neutrality!

The government IS the corporations for all intents and purposes

"18 people have both lobbied for Comcast and spent time in the public sector. Of those, 12 are currently registered lobbyists for Comcast, with five of them having spent time at the FCC"

Even if it passes we are still going to get fucked somehow
I don't know how exactly I just know that we will
Because they own this place and they own you

 

[Arecaidian Fox]

While I certainly agree with what you're saying, things are a bit more complex than that. It's illustrated with a known experiment of which I unfortunately don't know the name. It goes as follows...

Let's say we have two people (A and B) and 100$. Person A has to divide this 100$ into two stacks: one for himself, the other for B. The stacks don't have to be equal in any way. B then has the choice: either he accepts the way A has divided the stack and they both get the money...or he refuses, and they both get nothing.
Now...put yourself in the shoes of A, and then B. How would you divide it? Which amount would you accept?

The free marketing school of thought would let you believe that A will always give himself 99$ and only 1$ to B, and that B would be willing to accept that because 1$ is still more than 0$. However...this sort of logic simply does not work. It's been repeated in different countries and cultures, and time and time again, A mostly goes for 50-50 to something like 60-40 in his favor (there was even some tribe where A donated MORE to B than half the money). Anything more and B will refuse the offer.

The conclusion: human beings, on average, aren't self centered egoistic bastards. Seen in that light, regulations for things like e.g. net neutrality wouldn't be needed. Since people aren't, by nature, egoistic, why would companies (who, in the end, consist of decisions made by people) do it?

That reason...I think it's not yet clearly investigated enough to pinpoint the main reason, but there is more than enough evidence that the above simply does not work for companies*. It may be peer pressure in the board room, the fear of making a loss, the lack of personal contact with the 'B'-group or any other number of reasons, but the end result remains the same: under current market laws, ISP's WILL attempt to squeeze every dollar out of their costumers. They WILL use an unregulated internet to regulate it in the way it'll profit them the most.
The scariest part is even that they probably won't even realize what they're doing. One of the documentaries I rewatch from time to time is 'Enron: the smartest guys in the room'. I still have a hard time believing how they purposefully caused electricity blackouts to reap the profits of the "scarcity" of electricity, and at the same time believed they were doing the right thing (at that time, that is).






*and incidentally: the group where the 'A'-group of people showed the most greed and proposed 80 or even 90$ on their end...where freshly graduated economists. So yeah...guys like Gordon Gekko HAVE inspired people into thinking that 'Greed is good'.

Agreed. And yes, I realize it is more complex than how I have described it. Global economies tend to be . I was trying to more or less go with the simplest explanation I could figure.

The government IS the corporations for all intents and purposes

"18 people have both lobbied for Comcast and spent time in the public sector. Of those, 12 are currently registered lobbyists for Comcast, with five of them having spent time at the FCC"

Even if it passes we are still going to get fucked somehow
I don't know how exactly I just know that we will
Because they own this place and they own you

And you...just...wow...
I don't even have the words...

 

[grossaffe]

While I certainly agree with what you're saying, things are a bit more complex than that. It's illustrated with a known experiment of which I unfortunately don't know the name. It goes as follows...

Let's say we have two people (A and B) and 100$. Person A has to divide this 100$ into two stacks: one for himself, the other for B. The stacks don't have to be equal in any way. B then has the choice: either he accepts the way A has divided the stack and they both get the money...or he refuses, and they both get nothing.
Now...put yourself in the shoes of A, and then B. How would you divide it? Which amount would you accept?

The free marketing school of thought would let you believe that A will always give himself 99$ and only 1$ to B, and that B would be willing to accept that because 1$ is still more than 0$. However...this sort of logic simply does not work. It's been repeated in different countries and cultures, and time and time again, A mostly goes for 50-50 to something like 60-40 in his favor (there was even some tribe where A donated MORE to B than half the money). Anything more and B will refuse the offer.

The conclusion: human beings, on average, aren't self centered egoistic bastards. Seen in that light, regulations for things like e.g. net neutrality wouldn't be needed. Since people aren't, by nature, egoistic, why would companies (who, in the end, consist of decisions made by people) do it?

That reason...I think it's not yet clearly investigated enough to pinpoint the main reason, but there is more than enough evidence that the above simply does not work for companies*. It may be peer pressure in the board room, the fear of making a loss, the lack of personal contact with the 'B'-group or any other number of reasons, but the end result remains the same: under current market laws, ISP's WILL attempt to squeeze every dollar out of their costumers. They WILL use an unregulated internet to regulate it in the way it'll profit them the most.
The scariest part is even that they probably won't even realize what they're doing. One of the documentaries I rewatch from time to time is 'Enron: the smartest guys in the room'. I still have a hard time believing how they purposefully caused electricity blackouts to reap the profits of the "scarcity" of electricity, and at the same time believed they were doing the right thing (at that time, that is).






*and incidentally: the group where the 'A'-group of people showed the most greed and proposed 80 or even 90$ on their end...where freshly graduated economists. So yeah...guys like Gordon Gekko HAVE inspired people into thinking that 'Greed is good'.

You are underestimating the influence of Group B's ability to veto Group A's proposed split and leave everybody with nothing. Also, if this is a one-off study, rather than an iterative study where they keep repeating the process, then the free market never really comes into play as much of what makes the free market what it is is it's ability to adjust. If this were an iterative process, group B would reject Group A's proposals until Group A made a reasonably fair proposal and you'd see the split in money in the proposals approach 50/50 not out of the goodness of Group A's hearts, but because Group B will reject the proposal until they're getting a reasonable stake.

 

[Taleweaver]

You are underestimating the influence of Group B's ability to veto Group A's proposed split and leave everybody with nothing.

True, except for the "you" part. My personal opinions aren't so much important as the train of logic that goes behind it. That ability to deny certainly gets underestimated. And to quite a degree, it's not even possible. Take this net neutral environment thing, for example. It's been cemented (yeeeey)...but would we really all quit the internet if the ISP's had their way? Fifteen years ago, perhaps, but today we rely on it more than we might think.

Also, if this is a one-off study, rather than an iterative study where they keep repeating the process, then the free market never really comes into play as much of what makes the free market what it is is it's ability to adjust. If this were an iterative process, group B would reject Group A's proposals until Group A made a reasonably fair proposal and you'd see the split in money in the proposals approach 50/50 not out of the goodness of Group A's hearts, but because Group B will reject the proposal until they're getting a reasonable stake.

From what I read, the study was done repeatedly, with quite some variations. I'm sure a case where there negotiation is involved influences things. What I am doubting, though, is that the free market is actually about negotiating. Think about it: when a company makes something, they are the ones choosing the price. We can't see how much of it is profit on the company ('A')'s side, so we have no grounds to determine what is reasonable. And 'rejecting the proposal' isn't always an option.

 

[duffmmann]

While the short term result is good, the long term result of government regulating or possibly controlling internet can be bad.

Its the lesser of two evils (can't believe I'm saying that about the government). And really, lets not pretend the government hasn't already been regulating our internet for years anyway, only difference is that now its in writing.

 

[grossaffe]

True, except for the "you" part. My personal opinions aren't so much important as the train of logic that goes behind it. That ability to deny certainly gets underestimated. And to quite a degree, it's not even possible. Take this net neutral environment thing, for example. It's been cemented (yeeeey)...but would we really all quit the internet if the ISP's had their way? Fifteen years ago, perhaps, but today we rely on it more than we might think.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against Net Neutrality here, but there's been so much mud-slinging at the concept of the free market in this thread that I'm trying to clarify what the free market actually entails.

From what I read, the study was done repeatedly, with quite some variations. I'm sure a case where there negotiation is involved influences things. What I am doubting, though, is that the free market is actually about negotiating. Think about it: when a company makes something, they are the ones choosing the price. We can't see how much of it is profit on the company ('A')'s side, so we have no grounds to determine what is reasonable. And 'rejecting the proposal' isn't always an option.

I don't mean that there is negotiation, but rather the participants continue to participate anonymously without the ability to communicate. I've actually taken part in some economic studies of a similar nature where they have the people split up into groups (or so they say; it's entirely possible that one group is simulated). You don't need to actually negotiate on a personal level for this to work, but simply through a process of trial and error by which the member of Group A makes a lop-sided proposal in one round and the member of Group B rejects the proposal and they both get nothing for that round. Then in round 2, the member of Group A makes a more reasonable proposal and then Group B guy decides if that one is reasonable, or if it is better for him to take another $0 for that round in order to show the Group A guy that he means business and that he wants a fair deal. Now THAT kind of study would be a better example of the free market, as you have someone, in a sense, setting a price, and someone else deciding if it is fair value. Not quite the Supply and Demand of the free market, but it's closer.

In the real world, you've got companies making something and they may choose a high price for it, but then they'll find that people aren't buying it at that price, so they lower the price and sales increase. Or maybe they'll set it at a low price and see that the item's demand is insane and that they can sell it at a higher price. Eventually they will find the equalibrium that maximizes the area of the price and quantity sold, and that is how Supply and Demand works.

I remember when MP3 players started to become popular and most cars still had cassette players in them, these 3.5mm-to-cassette converters jumped up in price from $20 to $30 as an adjustment to the increase in demand. Nowadays, people have that functionality built into their car head-units, or they have FM Transmitters, or they have bluetooth audio from their phone to their car... in a sense supply of things to play music in your car went up, and demand for these cassette adapters went down, and now you can pick 'em up for $5. The market adjusts.

Now when you have Monopolies or Trusts or things of the like, especially on necessities, then the laws of Supply and Demand break down and the corporations can start price-fixing and taking advantage of consumers, which is why there are government regulations that are supposed to prevent this from happening. There is an issue, however, in that there are some things that a natural monopolies, which is that it is more effective to have a single provider than to have competition, or at least that's the argument. These are usually the case in things that involve a great deal of expensive infrastructure, such as railways. Natural monopolies then need to be regulated to keep them from exploiting customers in a competition-free environment; consider it a necessary evil for select situations. So a question that should be asked: Are internet providers natural monopolies?

 

[Justin121994]

Please tell me how letting ISPs decide how the internet should be handled is a good thing? What is being labeled as the restriction of freedom (and in more than this single arena in my country) is actually the preservation of it. To be frank, if people/corporations/businesses/etc had not proven to be selfish and only out for money throughout most of history, we would have a market that would literally be free (Laissez Faire capitalism). And if such a world existed, where every individual could be trusted to do the right thing, have ethics, it would probably work. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I have the sneaking suspicion that we actually don't live in such a world. Were there no such thing as government regulation, were companies able to do whatever they wanted to make an ever-increasing profit, we'd be worse off than some miners and gold prospectors in the "wild west" era. Mining companies at that point in time paid workers in what were essentially vouchers for services that the mining company supplied. It doesn't take a genius (of which I fear there are few in the U.S.A.) to figure out that those mining companies essentially owned their workers. Those vouchers were worthless anywhere else. Hell, banks did something similar around that time, and actually resulted in a law in California that banned any form of monies that were not federally issued in the state (and actually made BitCoin illegal for a time there in recent history). There are innumerable other issues with letting companies do whatever they want in the market. I'm sorry, did you want paint for your child's bedroom that isn't toxic? Too bad, there's no one to regulate what we sell! But, if you pay a premium cost, I'll sell you this slightly less toxic one!

See my point? Quit whining about freedoms being stripped away and thank your lucky stars that those of you who live in the United States with me have a government that can step in and say, "Sorry, Corporate America, you're being mean on the playground again! Time to set some more ground rules!" Is it perfect? No. Is our government not without issues? No. But it sure as hell is better than the alternative.

Long live Net Neutrality!

Bitcoin illegal? I think that also applied to gift cards etc. There was no way anyone was going to enforce it anyway. Bitcoin is permission-less, most you could do is stop businesses in California from being able to touch it, but you'd still be able to use it and buy online from other states. I agree letting ISPs decide how the internet works is bad, but I'm not so sure the government will be that much different.

 

[chartube12]

I think this thread should be closed and never talked about again. Too many idiots from both inside and outside the US talking about a subject they clearly no nothing about. Thus the thread is pointless and spreading too much misinformation. If you want info on the new net bill, there is search engines.