• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

FCC open public comment period prior to voting to allow priority internet

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nydius

Member
But that's not the point of this thread

Pray tell then, what is the point?

This boils down to money, plain and simple. ISPs see users who stream content as leeches who use more of their service and want more money. The only way they can do that is to have net neutrality systematically dismantled in the United States so they can start charging more for the same (or less) service. They don't care who they charge - whether it's the content providers themselves or the end users - so long as they get the money they believe they're owed.

The entire point is money.
No more, no less.
 
You know, I see a lot of these types of threads and it's always people pointing out, "Yep, corporations in our government fucking shit up again!" but I never see anyone talking about action... solutions.

I don't like feeling helpless like this all the time, so how can we change that?
 

Trickster

Member
Corporations are unstoppable in America. I'll deal with it by getting a new country though, only a matter of time.

It really is crazy and scary how obvious the influence of corporations is on american politics. Yet almost everyone in the country don't seem to really care.
 

ggnoobIGN

Banned
shialeboufnononono

The GOP is opposing the FCC proposal it's trying to add some kind of regulation back in.

The Net Neutrality people are opposing the FCC proposal because it doesn't do enough.

http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/14/ho...-proposed-net-neutrality-regulation/?ncid=rss
According to the article, the Democrats want the internet to be "a level playing field for all". Yet they are the ones who pushed this through today. Okay.


Even if their motivations come from misunderstanding I Like the repubs take better there.
 
Wow. I can't ever imagine something like this happening in the UK.

Was there a big grassroots movement against this with people contacting their local members of congress?
 

gcubed

Member
Pray tell then, what is the point?

This boils down to money, plain and simple. ISPs see users who stream content as leeches who use more of their service and want more money. The only way they can do that is to have net neutrality systematically dismantled in the United States so they can start charging more for the same (or less) service. They don't care who they charge - whether it's the content providers themselves or the end users - so long as they get the money they believe they're owed.

The entire point is money.
No more, no less.

The argument specifically with Comcast/Netflix is what I meant.

Although the rules sound like it would kill data caps (or at least you have to advertise data caps)
 

kehs

Banned
According to the article, the Democrats want the internet to be "a level playing field for all". Yet they are the ones who pushed this through today. Okay.

The alternative is to do nothing. Yes, the current plan sucks, which is why they are criticizing it, even if they're voting for it. This is for a proposal btw, which still has months to be finalized and will be open to public comments and discussions.

They already ripped away net neutrality in the past few years.

It's a really fucked up situation.
 

Aesius

Member
Get ready for it:

1398151608344.jpg
 

Aylinato

Member
According to the article, the Democrats want the internet to be "a level playing field for all". Yet they are the ones who pushed this through today. Okay.


Even if their motivations come from misunderstanding I Like the repubs take better there.



The republican take of no regulation so that the telecoms can charge whatever the fuck they want and change their pricing/also limit what people can do on the internet including having an unregulated tiered data plans???

You must be insane to think Republicans idea is good.

Sigh. I just cannot take that opinion seriously. It's like if your having to choose between the lesser of two evils and you went "fuck it, let's take the 3rd worst evil in the corner that will destroy everything because why the fuck not!"

I am disappointed that Democrats do not understand what people want.
 

KingK

Member
Hm. Interesting. Honestly this is the most pressing issue out there personally,. The Republicans have my attention.

They finally got something right.

NO NO NO! No.

The reason Republicans oppose this is because they oppose any regulation of the ISPs at all here, not because they support net neutrality. They are even more opposed to net neutrality than this shit. They're just taking advantage of the confusion to try to paint themselves as "saviors of the internet" by voting against this (while supporting something even worse instead) and it's working, apparently.
 

ggnoobIGN

Banned
The republican take of no regulation so that the telecoms can charge whatever the fuck they want and change their pricing/also limit what people can do on the internet including having an unregulated tiered data plans???

You must be insane to think Republicans idea is good.

Sigh. I just cannot take that opinion seriously. It's like if your having to choose between the lesser of two evils and you went "fuck it, let's take the 3rd worst evil in the corner that will destroy everything because why the fuck not!"

I am disappointed that Democrats do not understand what people want.
Settle down breh. I'm just talking about what they saying there, which is to get rid of this piece of legislation.
 
Even 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."

"I COULD have decided to vote against it, but I didn't because lol y wait 4 dis stuff #YOLO"
 

Blader

Member
You know, I see a lot of these types of threads and it's always people pointing out, "Yep, corporations in our government fucking shit up again!" but I never see anyone talking about action... solutions.

I don't like feeling helpless like this all the time, so how can we change that?

In short: you can't.

The reason corporations and lobbyists have universal influence across Washington is because they prop up election campaigns. The candidate that outspends their candidate is almost always, if not always, going to beat their smaller-pocketed opponents. So that's a congressperson/senator/president who just won their position thanks to corporate backing and is now, more or less, owned by them. And this is true of every single person elected. You simply don't win elections without millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign funds -- much of come from corporate sponsors who can later dictate policy.

The obvious solution to this is campaign finance reform that can greatly limit the role that corporations play in the electoral process. But Bush's Supreme Court choices, particularly Roberts, ensure just the opposite, making anti-reform rulings that will last for decades.

Basically, the first domino that has to fall is for Roberts, et al. to retire or die, for more liberal justices in favor of campaign finance reform to get in there. And from there it takes years, decades, more to flush out politicians with strong corporate ties.
 
The land of the free.*

*Restrictions may apply.

But, really. I can't believe how controller the US is by big corporations. They basically control the government.
 

Blader

Member
Well we want them to do nothing so yes that would be great.

You're seriously misunderstanding the situation.

The GOP's position is that the FCC shouldn't regulate the internet at all, period. Yes, that means this proposal would be thrown out, but only because the FCC should have zero say in the matter. The FCC having zero say means ISPs should be allowed to do whatever they want, charge whomever they want by however much for whatever made-up reasons.

What you're arguing for is trading this half-assed proposal for net neutrality whatsoever.
 

ggnoobIGN

Banned
You're seriously misunderstanding the situation.

The GOP's position is that the FCC shouldn't regulate the internet at all, period. Yes, that means this proposal would be thrown out, but only because the FCC should have zero say in the matter. The FCC having zero say means ISPs should be allowed to do whatever they want, charge whomever they want by however much for whatever made-up reasons.

What you're arguing for is trading this half-assed proposal for net neutrality whatsoever.
No I'm saying I don't want any further legislation pushed through, rather to continue as is. I'm assuming net neutrality is already backed by legislation which is why it's mostly existed throughout the time of the internet. I just want that to continue.
 

KingK

Member
This is the one where you can actually thank Obama for....

This sucks

Yes and no. The Supreme Court actually threw out net neutrality, not Obama, this is just the FCC reacting to that. However, it is true that the FCC has the authority to re-classify ISPs into the same category as telephone providers so that the Supreme Court ruling would no longer apply and net neutrality could be reinstated. The reasons for not doing that I can only assume are money and/or wanting a cushy job as a telecom lobbyist after leaving the FCC.

Settle down breh. I'm just talking about what they saying there, which is to get rid of this piece of legislation.

They want to get rid of this legislation so that there would be no legislation at all. They don't just want the ISPs to be able to charge Netflix for faster speeds, they want them to be able to outright block Netflix. Don't be fooled, dude.

No I'm saying I don't want any further legislation pushed through, rather to continue as is.
"As is" was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. That's what prompted the rule change. I think that's where you're getting confused.

edit: It was a federal appeals court, not the Supreme court. My bad.
 

gcubed

Member
You're seriously misunderstanding the situation.

The GOP's position is that the FCC shouldn't regulate the internet at all, period. Yes, that means this proposal would be thrown out, but only because the FCC should have zero say in the matter. The FCC having zero say means ISPs should be allowed to do whatever they want, charge whomever they want by however much for whatever made-up reasons.

What you're arguing for is trading this half-assed proposal for net neutrality whatsoever.

I'm pretty sure he knows this and that's what he wants.

I'm for rules but completely against reclassification. The latter is never going to happen so that's fine in my book
 

Scottify

Member
Well, now this is open for Public Comment. Perhaps during this phase saner heads will prevail and this will be rethought. It's by no means final yet.
 

thelatestmodel

Junior, please.
I am declaring shenanigans.

No shit. This thing is getting shenaniganed the whole way through.

Everyone is against this. Literally every member of the public, who politicians are meant to represent.

This might be the clearest signal yet to the American people that it doesn't matter what they want, money is what counts. Nobody wants this, but it's happening because money.

And as soon as they notice what's happening to their internet, it'll be too late.
 

Blader

Member
No I'm saying I don't want any further legislation pushed through, rather to continue as is.

No further legislation = no net neutrality

You know that the FCC's net neutrality rules expire in just a few years, right? Not taking any further action means that 2017 will be the official end of the open internet.
 

ggnoobIGN

Banned
Yes and no. The Supreme Court actually threw out net neutrality, not Obama, this is just the FCC reacting to that. However, it is true that the FCC has the authority to re-classify ISPs into the same category as telephone providers so that the Supreme Court ruling would no longer apply and net neutrality could be reinstated. The reasons for not doing that I can only assume are money and/or wanting a cushy job as a telecom lobbyist after leaving the FCC.



They want to get rid of this legislation so that there would be no legislation at all. They don't just want the ISPs to be able to charge Netflix for faster speeds, they want them to be able to outright block Netflix. Don't be fooled, dude.


"As is" was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. That's what prompted the rule change. I think that's where you're getting confused.
Okay thanks for that last part. I did not know about that. Well then none of it is good.
 
I wonder how will this affect NeoGAF's performance during E3.

I mean, EviLore will have to pay extra to the ISP of his servers; hence, the price of NeoGAF Gold is going to increase.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom