SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Net neutrality act .. squashed !

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Net neutrality act .. squashed ! (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=167196)

Net neutrality act .. squashed !

Woops another agenda item fails.

Quote:

The Federal Communications Commission does not have the legal authority to impose strict Net neutrality regulations on Internet providers, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

A three-judge panel in Washington, D.C. unanimously tossed out the FCC's August 2008 cease and desist order against Comcast, which had taken measures to slow BitTorrent transfers and had voluntarily ended them earlier in the year.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20...=2547-1_3-0-20

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 1349455)

Well that sucks.

It does? So you want goverment regulation over the internet?

That is after all is what they were hoping for.

They're talking about it on the radio now. I need more info on the subject.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteamWake (Post 1349499)

It does? So you want goverment regulation over the internet?

That is after all is what they were hoping for.

The government control being that the government said the private company can't regulate the internet?

Quote:

Originally Posted by razark (Post 1349503)

The government control being that the government said the private company can't regulate the internet?

Exactly.

Who is worse? governments or companies? Both are going to use it to there own gains.. People will suffer anyhow... :hmmm:

Quote:

Originally Posted by razark (Post 1349503)

The government control being that the government said the private company can't regulate the internet?

The ultimate goal was to be able to have the goverment regulate content on the internet in the name of "Fairness".

The thing with comcast was just a foot in the door.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfehunter (Post 1349754)

Who is worse? governments or companies? Both are going to use it to there own gains.. People will suffer anyhow... :hmmm:

...or the third option; anarchy.

The government doesn't need to regulate the internet. They merely need to regulate the providers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteamWake (Post 1349442)

Woops another agenda item fails.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20...=2547-1_3-0-20

Nice to see someone standing up for the Big Guys. They're so otherwise powerless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee (Post 1349877)

Nice to see someone standing up for the Big Guys. They're so otherwise powerless.

Shouldn't the big guys and the little guys have the same rights?

This is why I despise the left and Dem party, over the years they have managed to play enough identity politics, take advantage of those who are less fortunate etc that we have generations now who think it's all "little guys vs big guys" meaning the companies are bad, bad, bad and the government is the referee on the side of the good guy, the "little" guy.I am sorry but this is crap!

The net neutrality act is a government agenda to control the one medium they do not, the internet.They are not trying to help the little guy here(they never are, just their playbook in getting support for things) so glad this part of the agenda failed this time.Give them an inch, they will take a mile.

Quote:

There are two sides to every story, and while everybody wants to paint the Net Neutrality debate as being a Braveheart-style battle of freedom-lovers versus corporate monarchs, there is more to it than that.

If you're not familiar with the subject, basically right now we have net neutrality. ISPs are essentially dumb pipes and they don't know or care if that data you just downloaded was in the form of historical documents from local university libraries, or an encyclopedic collection of Brazilian fecal fetish pornography. The Internet today is the wonderful, endlessly fascinating place it is in large part due to the fact that it's been free and open its entire life.

ISP's want to change that, mainly because different applications use massively different resources. There's no comparing the stress that downloading HD movies puts on their network versus, say, reading a Cracked article's worth of text. So they want to change their infrastructure and how they bill you for it.

The problem is this also would let them slap on all sorts of controls they never could before, such as blocking competing websites, or signing exclusive deals for content. After all, Comcast both provides Internet access to millions and owns NBC, so taking away net neutrality could let them block competing networks and that could turn ugly fast. It's thus no surprise that a variety of semi-respected sources, including the chief of the FCC, are standing up for net neutrality.

Phew! The Chairman of the FCC! We're safe, right?

Actually...

The carriers continue to push against net neutrality. Its future is hardly secure, as mobile carriers AND ISPs have ample motivation. Google, patron saint of the "free information" movement, has even dipped its toes in anti-neutrality waters. They approached "major cable and phone companies" with a proposal to give Google content a "fast lane" of its own.

Major corporations and political entities getting bandwidth preference over small, independent sites and individuals is exactly what net neutrality advocates fear the most.

So What Can We Do? Well, this is where it gets complicated.

The ISPs aren't just being greedy here. Bandwidth costs a lot of ****ing money and usage is growing at a retarded rate. For instance, most of the video game consoles now offer HD movie and TV show streaming, and soon they may give up physical media completely to stream all of the games you buy directly to the system (because it would kill off the used games market that they claim is eating all of their profits). Everybody is quickly replacing their faucets with fire hoses.

If net neutrality stays and the ISP's can't offer multiple tiers of service, then they say they will have to use an even more annoying solution: putting an end to unlimited plans completely and making you pay for every gigabyte of that Bittorrent download of every single episode of The Simpsons. And you won't be able to simply switch ISPs unless you find one run by some eccentric billionaire who feels like giving away his money for the good of the people.

The problem is that what we want out of this situation--cheap, infinitely scalable bandwidth--is the one outcome we can't have. And while the other threats on this list can maybe be avoided, this is one that will end in the Internet being less free, you paying a lot more or a combination of both.

So enjoy what you have while you can, for these are The Good Old Days.

Taken from an article on cracked.com

Quote:

an encyclopedic collection of Brazilian fecal fetish pornography.

Link?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus (Post 1349989)

Link?

LOL, i love cracked.com, its a great humor and satire site, and they drip with more sarcasm then even i could conjure. But occasionally they make a point and back it up with references. If i just provided the link, nobody would have read it.

The bit i pasted is from page 2 of this article:
5 Reasons The Internet Could Die At Any Moment

Net Neutrality as it is pushed is a bad thing - but that doesn't mean all the ideas in it are bad.

Like most things, its never a black and white issue. However, when any "regulation" over-reaches and goes beyond what is needed - it should be rebuffed. That is what occured here.

The issue isn't dead, but issues will be corrected and you will see it again.

What was the actual law proposed? Was it longer than something like:

"All packets must be forwarded, and in the order received." ?

I'd wager it was. Probably included pork, too, lol. At 1000 pages.

Imagine having our access to Subsim deliberately slowed down or even limited to a particular geographic area because Neil doesn't pay his IP an extra fee. Imagine a big company with deep pockets paying an IP to squeeze the connection to their small competitors.

This is what Net Neutrality was trying to avoid.

Yeah, and healthcare reform was supposed to be "deficit neutral" and "bend the cost curve down."

Oh, and all negotiations were supposed to be on CSPAN (all of the above per direct statements by the President).

It will do none of the above, and we were instead told by the Speaker that it needed to be passed so we (the People) could see what was in it.

Again, what was the text of the law? Was it longer than what I posted above? If it was, it likely did a lot more than you say was the goal.

tater, you twice asked what the wording of the proposed law was. Why don't you research it and read it for yourself?

If you are really interested in the wording of legislation, it is best to go to a reliable source instead of asking on a video game forum. :D