# FCC To Approve Net Neutrality Rules Thursday



## Tom Bombadildo (Feb 25, 2015)

Yep, you read that right, the FCC plans to approve Net Neutrality rules that bans paid-prioritization for US ISPs for good! These new rules will let the agency regulate internet access as if it is a public good, banning the intentional slowing of internet speeds and paid prioritization ISPs have threatened to enact for the past few years.



> The Federal Communications Commission is expected on Thursday to approve regulating Internet service like a public utility, prohibiting companies from paying for faster lanes on the Internet. While the two Democratic commissioners are negotiating over technical details, they are widely expected to side with the Democratic chairman, Tom Wheeler, against the two Republican commissioners.
> ...
> A swarm of small players, like Tumblr, Etsy, BoingBoing and Reddit, overwhelmed the giants of the broadband world, Comcast, Verizon Communications and Time Warner Cable.


 
Yes.

 Source


----------



## TheCasketMan (Feb 25, 2015)

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


----------



## Haterbait (Feb 25, 2015)

Anything my ISP doesn't want, I want. Hopefully this isn't a lesser of two evils sort of thing though...


----------



## Xzi (Feb 25, 2015)

TheCasketMan said:


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


As per usual, the options are goverment safeguards, or total corporate control. The latter is a much more grim result, especially in regards to the internet.

I worry that even with this change, ComWarner Cable is going to have enough pull over the government with their lobbyists to create loopholes and/or have this regulation repealed altogether at some point in the future.


----------



## rainparadesamurai (Feb 25, 2015)

Xzi said:


> As per usual, the options are goverment safeguards, or total corporate control. The latter is a much more grim result, especially in regards to the internet.
> 
> I worry that even with this change, ComWarner Cable is going to have enough pull over the government with their lobbyists to create loopholes and/or have this regulation repealed altogether at some point in the future.


 
No, the former is a much more grim result. If the government didn't have the power to grant monopolies to these ISPs or any other favors in the name of "regulation", ISPs or any other business trying to gain an advantage in the marketplace couldn't/wouldn't lobby in the first place. Once again the government caused this problem due its interference in the marketplace and now it's only further increasing its interference. Nothing less could be expected from these entitled parasites who delude themselves they are justified in controlling and intervening in the voluntary interactions of others just so they can try to rationalize their immoral sustenance off theft. The actual problem here is the system which provides the power to coerce others and those who support it, not the individual players who are simply taking advantage of what is available to them.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 25, 2015)

rainparadesamurai said:


> No, the former is a much more grim result. If the government didn't have the power to grant monopolies to these ISPs or any other favors in the name of "regulation", ISPs or any other business trying to gain an advantage in the marketplace couldn't/wouldn't lobby in the first place. Once again the government caused this problem due its interference in the marketplace and now it's only further increasing its interference. Nothing less could be expected from these entitled parasites who delude themselves they are justified in controlling and intervening in the voluntary interactions of others just so they can try to rationalize their immoral sustenance off theft. The actual problem here is the system which provides the power to coerce others and those who support it, not the individual players who are simply taking advantage of what is available to them.


You're kidding, right? Were all government regulations to simply disappear, you'd expect corporate America to do what's best for the people? If those regulations never existed to begin with, America's working conditions would have been a carbon copy of China's for some time now. Every cent we made would feed right back in to the corporations we slaved for.

Our government and our democracy have turned to shit, it's true, but that doesn't mean the government has _never_ put in place needed safeguards against big business, which has *always* been shit. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

I'd also like to note that a big part of the reason our government and democracy are broken now is because of the amount of money involved in both.  The money and the deregulation needed to allow that much money in to politics came from big business as well.  It's hard to complain about anti-business practices from the government ruining things when big business essentially owns the government anyway.


----------



## zfreeman (Feb 25, 2015)

As a public sector employee of the U.S. government, I can assure you that this will be run in the most beaurocratically inefficient way as will be allowed.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 25, 2015)

zfreeman said:


> As a public sector employee of the U.S. government, I can assure you that this will be run in the most beaurocratically inefficient way as will be allowed.


The government won't be running the internet, lol.  This simply means that internet is classified as a public utility, and ISPs like Comcast and Time Warner can't pick and choose which sites/people/businesses get their speeds and bandwidth throttled.  All internet traffic gets the same priority.


----------



## RevPokemon (Feb 25, 2015)

Well I'm actually writing a report on it

but atleast we know the gov would never use its control of the internet to spy on use or anything like that
(sarcasm)


----------



## endoverend (Feb 25, 2015)

It's all part of obama's plot (elluminayty con4med)


----------



## TheCasketMan (Feb 25, 2015)

Guys I said gov interference CAN be bad, not that it WILL be bad.  I hope they regulate it justly.


----------



## grossaffe (Feb 25, 2015)

rainparadesamurai said:


> No, the former is a much more grim result. If the government didn't have the power to grant monopolies to these ISPs or any other favors in the name of "regulation", ISPs or any other business trying to gain an advantage in the marketplace couldn't/wouldn't lobby in the first place. Once again the government caused this problem due its interference in the marketplace and now it's only further increasing its interference. Nothing less could be expected from these entitled parasites who delude themselves they are justified in controlling and intervening in the voluntary interactions of others just so they can try to rationalize their immoral sustenance off theft. The actual problem here is the system which provides the power to coerce others and those who support it, not the individual players who are simply taking advantage of what is available to them.


I'm not going to disagree with the spirit of your post in regard to the government enforcing these regional monopolies (though thankfully there is some competition in areas that FIOS has moved into), however that isn't the whole picture.  Let's say that my local provider, Cox, decides not to join in the Cable Cartel of throttling Netflix, while other ISPs like Comcast do.  Even though I have Cox, which is not throttling, it is very probable that my Netflix stream will be routed through Comcast lines which are throttled, so I will still experience the throttling associated with Comcast even if I am buying into a non-throttling Cox because of the distributed nature of the Internet.

I am a small government person, myself, but the free market is not a market free of regulation.  A market with too much regulation is controlled by the government.  A market with too little regulation is controlled by the corporations.  A market with just the right amount of intelligent regulation can be controlled by the people, and there is a difficulty that lies in reaching that balance.


----------



## Kippykip (Feb 25, 2015)

Well that’s shit


----------



## jonthedit (Feb 25, 2015)

I can not believe this.
It is blowing me away that the FCC crumbled to TUMBLR ANGSTY PEOPLE!!!
The FCC must have been infiltrated...


----------



## DJPlace (Feb 26, 2015)

fuck the FCC there worse the fucking ESR!! if there  not going let me use the internet on thursday i'm going punch em and t-bag em.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Feb 26, 2015)

as long as they don't control the CONTENT then i'm all ears...

the fact that the government is so gung ho about this idea makes me weary of any ulterior motive. They NEVER have the people's interest EVER in mind.


----------



## jonthedit (Feb 26, 2015)

stanleyopar2000 said:


> as long as they don't control the CONTENT then i'm all ears...
> 
> the fact that the government is so gung ho about this idea makes me weary of any ulterior motive. They NEVER have the people's interest EVER in mind.


 
Then don't vote for them.
If reps vote against you they should not be reps at all.
But since this thread is not really about politics, back on topic:
I agree with you completely.


----------



## Pluupy (Feb 26, 2015)

Whenever I think about the government and technology, i'm always reminded of my local DMV and it's still active transitioning to a new system. They're still using some old program from the 1970s. Are these the type if people we want??


----------



## RevPokemon (Feb 26, 2015)

O





Pluupy said:


> Whenever I think about the government and technology, i'm always reminded of my local DMV and it's still active transitioning to a new system. They're still using some old program from the 1970s. Are these the type if people we want??


Net neutrality is something that is just going to be used as  political issue in 16 where people who support it will say "I supported the internet so vote for me" and voters (mainly younger ones) will vote because they support it despite the fact they fully don't understand all parts of it


----------



## Qtis (Feb 26, 2015)

Its not just the no paid peering. It also includes making internet a standard for everyone. Also everyone receives the same promotions for fiber implementation unlike now (Verizon has built their FiOS network with a buttload of taxpayer money by abusing the same common carrier rules as being presented now by the FCC, but for cable). 

Also yay internet, yay fiber!


----------



## elunesgrace (Feb 26, 2015)

The idea that the government instituting controls is somehow bad for the economy is nonsense, and is a result of the broken free-market capitalist thinking.

The government is supposed to be elected bodies that operate on behalf of its citizens to institute laws to create rules in society.

If you want a society with no laws, then you should live on an island with animals. But if you want civilized society, you need laws and regulations.

*Government regulation is only bad when your government is corrupt, which in our case is unfortunately true. The modern capitalist system is so broken that there is often little separation between the 1% in the corporate world and government officials!*


----------



## RevPokemon (Feb 26, 2015)

elunesgrace said:


> *Government regulation is only bad when your government is corrupt, which in our case is unfortunately true. The modern capitalist system is so broken that there is often little separation between the 1% in the corporate world and government officials!*



The issue I feel is this
The government is in an age where people don't trust it or the elected officials so that carries over to the views of every issue including this one.

The second issue is that the corps pair with the officials all the time even to those who favor stricter regulation of campaign money (Obama and Romney both have tons of billionaire CEO friends who are more than happy to help) and many vote based off of the $$$ (john boehner and Nancy pelosi both own good sized shares of comcast)

But yeah all in all we are screwed in the internet as look at it the glv has shown it is awful at its internet regs (look at what happened to Dotcom or Snowden) so why will it change? It won't atleast till we get new relevant leaders on both sides which won't happen for a while


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 26, 2015)

>ISP's gang up on customers to price gouge and provide inferior services, people complain.
>Government steps in, establishes anti-monopoly laws and forces ISP's to compete again rather than exploit end users, people complain.

Only in the U.S.A can you have people complain about something good only because the government did it. You can't have it both ways, either you trust the free market at the risk of getting f*cked by ISP's or you trust the government to intervene at the risk of getting f*cked by the government, you can't have a cake and still eat it. Be happy that your bare minimum of rights as a consumer will be protected for god's sake.


----------



## grossaffe (Feb 26, 2015)

elunesgrace said:


> The idea that the government instituting controls is somehow bad for the economy is nonsense, and is a result of the broken free-market capitalist thinking.
> 
> The government is supposed to be elected bodies that operate on behalf of its citizens to institute laws to create rules in society.
> 
> ...


The free market is not equivalent to a land without laws. The free market is not even a market fully unregulated, but a market controlled by the laws of supply and demand supporting competition in the marketplace. A fully unregulated market (called Laissez Faire capitalism) will tend towards monopolies and trusts that seek to exploit consumers with price-fixing. On the other end, you have over-regulated markets where the government tries to do more than it should and it results in volatile markets and unintended consequences for their attempts to control the markets. And then of course there's corruption, and the more government there is, the more corruption you open yourself up to.


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 26, 2015)

I'm baffled by some of the reactions in this thread. What we're seeing is the result of an attempted corporate regulation being thwarted by a massive flood of public reactions by companies like netflix, tumblr and mozilla, and of course their users. The result is pretty much a scholar example that democracy actually works (at least: it seems that way to me).
I get that "being against the government" is cool nowadays, but this is getting ridiculous. Did some of you guys actually read the article?



> The F.C.C. plan would let the agency regulate Internet access as if it is a public good. It would follow the concept known as net neutrality or an open Internet, banning so-called paid prioritization — or fast lanes — for willing Internet content providers.
> 
> In addition, it would ban the intentional slowing of the Internet for companies that refuse to pay broadband providers. The plan would also give the F.C.C. the power to step in if unforeseen impediments are thrown up by the handful of giant companies that run many of the country’s broadband and wireless networks.


 
Here's the story in a nutshell:

Up to a few years ago, all data on the internet was treated roughly equal. The ISP's role was limited to providing their users with an actual connection and perhaps blocking some known malware stuff.
Then they got creative. I'm not sure if it's the first case or just the one I first heard about, but netflix users noticed their connection being lower than normal. And that reason wasn't related to the physical connection or the netflix servers being shitty. It was the ISP (or multiple of them) intervening and assigning netflix fewer bandwith. I'm not sure how reliable the source was where I read it, but it may even have been that the ISP offered to fix the problem for netflix...an offer that backfired when it was discovered that they were the one who created the "problem" in the first place.
It wasn't that long before more of these stories started popping up. Torrent traffic, for example, were a target. There's even a Dutch word for it: 'knijpen', which translated to 'squeezing', though I'm not sure if that word is used in English in regards to limiting a connection based on the application.

All in all, you can see where this is going. Without regulation, ISP's can use their power to gain benefits from internet competition. They can decide to charge their users extra if they want to see youtube. They can ask fees of corporations if they want their content to be streamed (like in netflix's case). And since I understand that in the US, quite some ISP's have direct ties with large companies, they can decide to harass their competition by slowing their internet access.

It's free marketing at its finest, really. The more people value something, the more you can ask for it. The ISP's plan is to break up the internet into sellable parts to increase their profits. Of course their users are allowed to leave, but that only works well if there are many alternatives. Which often aren't there (and if this practice was to remain legal, new ones would be stupid NOT to set up similar rules, as it's far more profitable).

What ISP's didn't anticipate, though, was the size and speed of their adversaries. Web companies obviously don't like this scenario where the best they can hope is to stay out of sight of ISP's that may at will decide to threaten to slow or even block them as they become more popular (unless they pay fees). So they as well rallied for support and started informing their users of what may lie ahead.

...which leads us to this article. From the looks of it, that campaign is so successful that the government not only listened to them, but is about to pass a law that makes the abovementioned practice illegal. In other words: the internet should remains neutral when it comes to what data should get priority.


----------



## TemplarGR (Feb 26, 2015)

So many people have bought the fairy tale of "free markets". It is sad...

Actually, "free markets" and libertarianism are just "Anarchy for the rich". The market today is so "free", that private megabanks were bailed-out by governments...

"Free market" is about keeping the profits private, and making the losses public...


----------



## grossaffe (Feb 26, 2015)

TemplarGR said:


> So many people have bought the fairy tale of "free markets". It is sad...
> 
> Actually, "free markets" and libertarianism are just "Anarchy for the rich". The market today is so "free", that private megabanks were bailed-out by governments...
> 
> "Free market" is about keeping the profits private, and making the losses public...


It sounds like you're trying to bash the concept of the free market by complaining about our current economic system, but then you go on to cite an example that proves that we do not have a free market economy.  What you refer to as the free market is more along the lines of crony capitalism which is an unholy marriage between government and business and bears little resemblance to the free market.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 26, 2015)

grossaffe said:


> The free market is not equivalent to a land without laws. The free market is not even a market fully unregulated, but a market controlled by the laws of supply supporting competition in the marketplace. A fully unregulated market (called Laissez Fair capitalism) will tend towards monopolies and trusts that seek to exploit consumers with price-fixing. On the other end, you have over-regulated markets where the government tries to do more than it should and it results in volatile markets and unintended consequences for their attempts to control the markets. And then of course there's corruption, and the more government there is, the more corruption you open yourself up to.


Thank you, someone who makes a lick of sense. Here's how the cookie crumbles - companies want to make money, ladies and gentlemen. Preferably, they want to make money with the least effort and expenses on their end. If they have a choice between offering shitty, low-maintenance Internet access _and_ rake in profits from such _"premium"_ services as YouTube and offering an actually good service and earn less money, they will absolutely go for the _"more money"_ option without hessitation unless that option is limited by law - the _only_ thing that's holding them back. I'm not saying that corporations consist entirely of devils with pitchforks, I'm saying that it just makes business sense. If you expect faceless corporate giants to not take advantage of their customers in the name of _*giggles*_ ethics, you've got another thing coming - profit outweighs ethics when it comes to their bank statements.


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 26, 2015)

TemplarGR said:


> So many people have bought the fairy tale of "free markets". It is sad...
> 
> Actually, "free markets" and libertarianism are just "Anarchy for the rich". The market today is so "free", that private megabanks were bailed-out by governments...
> 
> "Free market" is about keeping the profits private, and making the losses public...


 
Hmm...no. Sorry. I share your fears, but you're explaining some things in the wrong way.


Free market being anarchy for the rich...To a degree, yes. Grossaffe already nicely pointed out that if you let the market regulate itself, it's more likely to create monopolies, trusts and cartels than companies fighting over each other to give the end user what he wants at the best possible (but still profitable) price. In other words: it's anarchy in the sense that there is no overarching leader. It is, however, not anarchy in the sense that it has no rules (to take the ISP's as example: it only requires one ISP with net neutrality that is available everywhere to make the others follow suit. However, why WOULD that one ISP do that if they can agree with the others to combine their efforts to get more revenue from everyone).


Those large banks were bailed out, yes, but that very act points out the very flaw of the free market: it has no long-term sustainability (at least in the way it was practiced since...about the 80'ies). The very idea of a market is that it should be able to support both for profits and losses. It's no different for "the free market". It's just that in daily practice, there was (and still is) this general trend of sacrificing long-term profit for short-term gain.


I can't elaborate on 'libertarianism', as I'm not familiar with it.






grossaffe said:


> It sounds like you're trying to bash the concept of the free market by complaining about our current economic system, but then you go on to cite an example that proves that we do not have a free market economy. What you refer to as the free market is more along the lines of crony capitalism which is an unholy marriage between government and business and bears little resemblance to the free market.


 
Depends on how you view things, I suppose. Since roughly the 80'ies, banks have been so 'free' to loan, trade and sell at their will, creating a climate that actually had (and according to more than one sources still has) the potential to destroy world economy as a whole. That 'unholy marriage' you speak of is more in the line of a blackmail or a hold-up. They gave the government pretty much the choice to either bail them out or face consequences that were far worse.


----------



## TemplarGR (Feb 26, 2015)

I am sorry, but there is no free market. Never was, never will be. For a market to exist, rules and laws need to apply. And those need to be enforced by a trusted entity, AKA Government.

For example, how can a market exist if the strong can bend the rules and avoid paying for products? Or how a market can exist if no protection for the customer exist? Would you shop for food if no one ensured you would not be fed garbage?

The "free market" is a fraud. What right wing lunatics mean by "free market", is licence to exploit others for profit.


----------



## grossaffe (Feb 26, 2015)

TemplarGR said:


> I am sorry, but there is no free market. Never was, never will be. For a market to exist, rules and laws need to apply. And those need to be enforced by a trusted entity, AKA Government.
> 
> For example, how can a market exist if the strong can bend the rules and avoid paying for products? Or how a market can exist if no protection for the customer exist? Would you shop for food if no one ensured you would not be fed garbage?
> 
> The "free market" is a fraud. What right wing lunatics mean by "free market", is licence to exploit others for profit.


I've been trying to hammer in the point that the free market is not anti-regulation, but rather for limited regulation. Free Market != Laissez Faire Capitalism.


----------



## weatMod (Feb 26, 2015)

Xzi said:


> You're kidding, right? Were all government regulations to simply disappear, you'd expect corporate America to do what's best for the people? If those regulations never existed to begin with, America's working conditions would have been a carbon copy of China's for some time now. Every cent we made would feed right back in to the corporations we slaved for.
> 
> Our government and our democracy have turned to shit, it's true, but that doesn't mean the government has _never_ put in place needed safeguards against big business, which has *always* been shit. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
> 
> I'd also like to note that a big part of the reason our government and democracy are broken now is because of the amount of money involved in both.  The money and the deregulation needed to allow that much money in to politics came from big business as well.  It's hard to complain about anti-business practices from the government ruining things when big business essentially owns the government anyway.


The problem is that it is a revolving door , it's all the same fucking people and they are not going to regulate themselves 
All of the governmental regulatory agencies are headed staffed and run by the same people they are suppose to be regulating the whole thing is a scam by the same people
"So how wide is the revolving door between the telecommunications giant and the FCC?  For Comcast’s in-house lobbyists, it’s significant and still swinging. According to an analysis byOpenSecrets Blog, 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.
From FCC chair to Comcast lobbyist
The most prominent example of the Comcast/FCC revolving door is former FCC commissioner and current Comcast lobbyist Meredith Baker.
Baker, whose views tended to side with the industry even before she went to the FCC, was appointed to to her FCC position in July 2009 and stayed there for nearly two years, cutting her four-year term short in June 2011 to move to Comcast as its senior vice president of government affairs."

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/04/the-comcast-fcc-revolving-door/


----------



## RevPokemon (Feb 26, 2015)

TemplarGR said:


> I am sorry, but there is no free market. Never was, never will be. For a market to exist, rules and laws need to apply. And those need to be enforced by a trusted entity, AKA Government.
> 
> For example, how can a market exist if the strong can bend the rules and avoid paying for products? Or how a market can exist if no protection for the customer exist? Would you shop for food if no one ensured you would not be fed garbage?
> 
> The "free market" is a fraud. What right wing lunatics mean by "free market", is licence to exploit others for profit.



Of course all markets need regulation or else we'd end up like Somalia. The issue is where do we draw the line?

 Sure I'll admit that the ISPs can hurt the consumer but what about what the gov has done to the internet?

Answer is they really have done things that are very suspicious IMHO thus that gives me personally I worrying feeling towards the law

Any just scared where this could lead (COPA & PIPA, more power to the lobbying MPAA or RIAA) but who knows maybe it will in prove things


----------



## the_randomizer (Feb 26, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Thank you, someone who makes a lick of sense. Here's how the cookie crumbles - companies want to make money, ladies and gentlemen. Preferably, they want to make money with the least effort and expenses on their end. If they have a choice between offering shitty, low-maintenance Internet access _and_ rake in profits from such _"premium"_ services as YouTube and offering an actually good service and earn less money, they will absolutely go for the _"more money"_ option without hessitation unless that option is limited by law - the _only_ thing that's holding them back. I'm not saying that corporations consist entirely of devils with pitchforks, I'm saying that it just makes business sense. If you expect faceless corporate giants to not take advantage of their customers in the name of _*giggles*_ ethics, you've got another thing coming - profit outweighs ethics when it comes to their bank statements.


 

And yet people wanted or rather, wanted the government to be in charge of prioritizing data and get rid of net neutrality? I'm sure they'd have done a bang up job with knowing what's best. Surely, putting our trust wholly in any given government couldn't possibly end badly, right??


----------



## elunesgrace (Feb 26, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> The issue I feel is this
> The government is in an age where people don't trust it or the elected officials so that carries over to the views of every issue including this one.
> 
> The second issue is that the corps pair with the officials all the time even to those who favor stricter regulation of campaign money (Obama and Romney both have tons of billionaire CEO friends who are more than happy to help) and many vote based off of the $$$ (john boehner and Nancy pelosi both own good sized shares of comcast)
> ...


 
ie the revolving door.



grossaffe said:


> The free market is not equivalent to a land without laws. The free market is not even a market fully unregulated, but a market controlled by the laws of supply and demand supporting competition in the marketplace. A fully unregulated market (called Laissez Faire capitalism) will tend towards monopolies and trusts that seek to exploit consumers with price-fixing. On the other end, you have over-regulated markets where the government tries to do more than it should and it results in volatile markets and unintended consequences for their attempts to control the markets. And then of course there's corruption, and the more government there is, the more corruption you open yourself up to.


 
Just so it's clear, I am an B&E grad so I did study these theories. I didn't feel gbatemp was the right place to go into this topic in a deep way hence I just posted the conclusions.

The word 'free-market' is a word that is often re-defined when it comes to implementation in different theories. However, we are (or at least I am) talking about what actually exists, because it is the practical implementation of the free-market ideology (capitalism), and not something theoretical.

*In an effort to revive this broken system of capitalism, some modern intellectuals try to 'tinker' with capitalism by changing the structure of free-markets*, however it doesn't change the the issue is at the level of the premises themselves.

But for all practical purposes, free market really is a land without law in economics, except the very basic premises (ie individual is function of society, guarantee of freedoms, scarcity of resources, etc). Most of these premises are false. The conclusion of it is constant attempts at deregulation, because is really just the representatives from the people (government) creating laws to govern economic transactions. In fact regulation was actually institute as a reaction to the discussion points Communists would make against the Western world, and this led to many of the modern social programs and regulatory requirements (in addition to some of the market crashes). Of course Communists regulated everything completely (with some differences based on school of thought), but that is also incorrect in premise.

It is not that Capitalism and the free market ideology need tweaking. Rather, they need to be replaced with something else.

In any case, for the purpose of this thread, corporations clearly need regulation, though because the revolving door continues to persist regulation in the current system won't actually create real change, just temporary change.


----------



## RevPokemon (Feb 26, 2015)

elunesgrace said:


> In any case, for the purpose of this thread, corporations clearly need regulation, though because the revolving door continues to persist regulation in the current system won't actually create real change, just temporary change.



Well the revolving door will never go away, why because it gives them money. Think about it sure getting rid of it would be good but it would cost your campaign and party millions (or billions) of dollars from the corps?


----------



## Gahars (Feb 26, 2015)

This is probably long past due, but for anyone who is unsure about all the hubbub, bub, CGP Grey has a decent explanation of the issue.


----------



## jonthedit (Feb 27, 2015)

Gahars said:


> This is probably long past due, but for anyone who is unsure about all the hubbub, bub, CGP Grey has a decent explanation of the issue.


 
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


----------



## KSP (Feb 27, 2015)

This the greatest news since the invention of the net.

Without Net Neutrality the world will be horrible place for startups and new business. Only the weathiest companies will have fast sites and streaming services.

Without this law, companies like Netflix would go under since ISPs would throttle their bandwith, leaving only the ISP owned streaming services available to the public at marked up price. It would kill all streaming services that are not ISP affiliated in one blow. Very bad for consumers.

This a huge step, I'm glad they sided for the people and not the corporations.

There's a reason why ISPs want to control bandwith. They know that in the future all media will eventually move into ISP space and by controlling bandwith they control the content delivery system which means a monopoly on all media.


----------



## the_randomizer (Feb 27, 2015)

jonthedit said:


> 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


 

So how would this not passing possibly be a good thing? The government shouldn't be trusted to control everything for us.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 27, 2015)

jonthedit said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2015)

So did it pass?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Feb 27, 2015)

Jayro said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2015)

Update for everyone, it passed! 

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


----------



## Gahars (Feb 27, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> 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.).




jonthedit said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2015)

Gahars said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2015)

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.



jonthedit said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2015)

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 (Feb 27, 2015)

Arecaidian Fox said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2015)

Arecaidian Fox said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2015)

Taleweaver said:


> 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?
> ...


 
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.





weatMod said:


> 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"
> 
> ...


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


----------



## grossaffe (Mar 1, 2015)

Taleweaver said:


> 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?
> ...


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 (Mar 2, 2015)

grossaffe said:


> 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.



grossaffe said:


> 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 (Mar 2, 2015)

TheCasketMan said:


> 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 (Mar 2, 2015)

Taleweaver said:


> 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 (Mar 4, 2015)

Arecaidian Fox said:


> 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 (Mar 6, 2015)

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.


----------

