The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission will propose new rules that allow Internet service providers to offer a faster lane through which to send video and other content to consumers, as long as a content company is willing to pay for it, according to people briefed on the proposals.
The proposed rules are a complete turnaround for the F.C.C. on the subject of so-called net neutrality, the principle that Internet users should have equal ability to see any content they choose, and that no content providers should be discriminated against in providing their offerings to consumers.
The F.C.C.'s previous rules governing net neutrality were thrown out by a federal appeals court this year. The court said those rules had essentially treated Internet service providers as public utilities, which violated a previous F.C.C. ruling that Internet links were not to be governed by the same strict regulation as telephone or electric service. The new rules, according to the people briefed on them, will allow a company like Comcast or Verizon to negotiate separately with each content company – like Netflix, Amazon, Disney or Google – and charge different companies different amounts for priority service.
That, of course, could increase costs for content companies, which would then have an incentive to pass on those costs to consumers as part of their subscription prices.
Proponents of net neutrality have feared that such a framework would empower large, wealthy companies and prevent small start-ups, which might otherwise be the next Twitter or Facebook, for example, from gaining any traction in the market.
The F.C.C. plans were first reported online Wednesday by The Wall Street Journal.
The new proposals, drafted by the F.C.C.'s chairman, Tom Wheeler, and his staff, will be circulated to the other four commissioners beginning Thursday, an F.C.C. spokeswoman said. The details can be amended by consensus in order to attract support from a majority of the commissioners. The commission will then vote on a final proposal at its May 15 meeting.
Barrack Obama wrote:
"Preserving an open internet is vital not to just to the free flow of information, but also to promoting innovation and economic productivity, absent net neutrality, the Internet could turn into a high-priced private toll road that would be inaccessible to the next generation of visionaries."
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:24 pm Posts: 2868 Location: Death Machine Inc's HQ
Of his sellouts to lobbyists and industry, this one hurts a bit more. The Obama team has done such a great job utilizing the internet and advocated quite strongly for Net Neutrality in the past, it's almost tragic they would decide to enact such a stifling position.
History of coincidences:
Summer 2013: Wheeler, former teleco lobbyist, confirmed to head FCC Fall 2013: Comcast/TimeWarner enter into merger negotiations Jan 2014: DC court overturns Net Neutrality policy Feb 2014: TWC/Comcast announce merger Feb 2014: Comcast announces highly profitable "deal" with Netflix after NN overturn in DC Court April 2014: FCC abandons Net Neutrality
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 10:41 am Posts: 8755 Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Web hosting firm throttles FCC access to dial-up speeds over net neutrality
By Aaron Sankin on May 09, 2014
Sometimes, the best way to get back at someone who's done you wrong is to give them a taste of their own medicine.
Earlier this month, it was revealed that the Federal Communication Commision’s (maybe) soon-to-be-released set of new rules would effectively end net neutrality by allowing Internet service providers (ISPs) to throttle online traffic from Web content providers who don’t pay them a toll.
Not particularly thrilled with the prospect of an Internet where some companies can pay for fast access to consumers and those without sufficiently deep pockets are relegated to second-tier status, Kyle Brand, founder of Web hosting company NeoCities, came up with a brilliant idea: show employees at the FCC exactly what it feels like to have their Internet connections slowed to a crawl.
‟Since the FCC seems to have no problem with this idea, I've (through correspondence) gotten access to the FCC's internal IP block, and throttled all connections from the FCC to 28.8kbps modem speeds on the Neocities.org front site,” Brand wrote. ‟I'm not removing it until the FCC pays us for the bandwidth they've been wasting instead of doing their jobs protecting us from the 'keep America's internet slow and expensive forever’ lobby.”
Brand’s plan isn’t just to slow down the FCC’s connection to its sites. He also wants to let them know what it feels like to have to pay for speed. In his blog post, Brand called it the Ferengi Plan:
The idea was received enthusiastically on Reddit, a site whose users overwhelmingly favor net neutrality and has a management team that has come out strong against the concept of a ‟fast lane.”
In the comment thread of an article about Neocities’ FCC throttling effort, one Redditor posted:
Another user took the idea one step further, advocating that getting one particular type of website on board with the effort, it would have a particularly dramatic effect in turning the tide:
In order to facilitate the spread of this idea, Brand posted the code he used on the open-source code repository Github.
_________________ "I'll hold your wallet while you go fuck yourself"-David Letterman
FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet
The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted in favor of advancing a proposal that could dramatically reshape the way consumers experience the Internet, opening the possibility of Internet service providers charging Web sites for higher-quality delivery of their content to American consumers. The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, could unleash a new economy on the Web where an Internet service provider such as Verizon would charge a Web site such as Netflix for the guarantee of flawless video streaming. The proposal is not a final rule, but the vote on Thursday is a significant step forward on a controversial idea that has invited fierce opposition from consumer advocates, Silicon Valley heavyweights, and Democratic lawmakers. The FCC will now open the proposal to a total 120 days of public comment. Final rules, aimed for the end of the year, could be rewritten after the agency reviews the public comments. After weeks of public outcry over the proposal, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said the agency would not allow for unfair, or "commercially unreasonable," business practices. He wouldn't accept, for instance, practices that leave a consumer with slower downloads of some Web sites than what the consumer paid for from their Internet service provider. He said his plan asks whether paid prioritization should be banned outright, but he still moved forward with a proposal allowing new business arrangements between Internet service providers--such a AT&T, Verizon and Time Warner Cable--and Web content providers, such as Facebook, Google and online startups. "There is one Internet. It must be fast, it must be robust, and it must be open," Wheeler said. "The prospect of a gatekeeper choosing winners and losers on the Internet is unacceptable." He stressed consumers would be guaranteed a baseline of service and that the agency would beef up enforcement of companies that strike deals that are harmful for consumers or anticompetitive. "If a network operator slowed the speed of service below that which the consumer bought, it would be commercially unreasonable and therefore prohibited," Wheeler aid. "If the network operator blocked access to lawful content, it would violate our no-blocking rule and therefore be doubly prohibited." Such business models have drawn fierce criticism from investors, startups and big Silicon Valley firms. They say smaller companies that can't afford to pay for faster delivery would likely face additional obstacles against bigger rivals. And consumers could see a trickle-down effect of higher prices as Web sites try to pass along new costs of doing business with Internet service providers. One of the Democratic commissioners who voted yes on Thursday expressed some misgivings about how the proposal had been handled. "I would have done this differently. I would have taken the time to consider the future," said Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, who said the proposal can't allow for clear fast lanes for the most privileged companies. She said she supported a proposal allowing the agency to consider questions on how it could prevent certain Web sites from being blocked, in addition to figuring out the overall oversight of broadband Internet providers. "I believe the process that got us to rulemaking today was flawed," she said. "I would have preferred a delay." Wheeler's proposal is part of a larger "net neutrality" plan that forbids Internet service providers from outright blocking Web sites. And he promised a series of measures to ensure the new paid prioritization practices are done fairly and don't harm consumers. The agency said it had developed a "multifaceted dispute resolution process" on enforcement and would consider appointing an "ombudsman" to oversee the process. But some consumer advocates doubt the FCC can effectively enforce anti-competitive practices or ensure consumers aren't stuck with fewer choices or poorer service. They note that the FCC will only investigate complaints brought to them, and many small companies and consumers don't have resources to alert the agency. One proposal that consumer groups applauded was on the open question of whether the government should redefine broadband Internet as a public utility, like phone service, which would come with much more oversight from the FCC. "Agencies almost always change their rules from the initial proposal -- that is why we have a whole notice and comment period, so that the agency can hear from the public and be educated into making the right decision (or at least the least bad decision)," said Harold Feld, a vice president at Public Knowledge, a media and technology policy public interest group. "Do not freak about the tentative conclusion and proposed rules." The next phase will be four months of public comments, after which the commissioners will vote again on redrafted rules that are meant to take into account public opinion. But the enactment of final rules faces significant challenges. The proposal has sparked a massive fight between two of the most powerful industries in the country — on one side, Silicon Valley, and on the other, companies such as Verizon and AT&T that built the pipes delivering Web content to consumers’ homes. The telecom companies argue that without being able to charge tech firms for higher-speed connections, they will be unable to invest in faster connections for consumers.
Maybe the ISPs should advertise the bandwidth that consumers can reasonably expect during peak hours, and charge accordingly. If they want to raise more money to lay more fiber, then maybe charge those torrenting 24/7 more than the guy that only web browses. Its not clear to me why Netflix should pay for bandwidth rather than those that consume it.
That being said, if the FCC gets its foot in the door here, one can only imagine what other sorts of rules they will implement. The same people that brought us the hullabaloo about a nip slip will be regulating the internet.
On an aside, whats with the EU mandated memory hole? Some interesting notions of speech and privacy were evident in that decision.
Goddamn epic take down of the FCC's Net Neutrality decision:
Hopefully we can get Alex to use his skills on this task.
(On a side note, everyone should be watching Oliver's Last Week Tonight)
while i appreciate oliver's call-to-arms in principle, i think this warrants a measured, researched approach on the part of the participants, not just a troll anger explosion. this is an important issue being addressed in a venue that requires a bit of decorum; it's not RM.
_________________
Malloy wrote:
making this place inhospitable to posting is really the only move left.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:04 pm Posts: 37156 Location: September 2020 Poster of the Month
Alex wrote:
broken iris wrote:
Goddamn epic take down of the FCC's Net Neutrality decision:
Hopefully we can get Alex to use his skills on this task.
(On a side note, everyone should be watching Oliver's Last Week Tonight)
while i appreciate oliver's call-to-arms in principle, i think this warrants a measured, researched approach on the part of the participants, not just a troll anger explosion. this is an important issue being addressed in a venue that requires a bit of decorum; it's not RM.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:35 pm Posts: 32292 Location: Buenos Aires
They're both defeated using the exact same technique; you get behind 'em and you grab their tail and you spin 'em around until you have enough momentum to hurl 'em at one of the bombs at the edge of the ring.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 62 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum