Support NeoGAF

[Funky Papa]

Re: Libertarians oppose this deal.

Plenty if not most Libertarian think tanks, including the Mercatus Center and the Copenhagen Institute, are for regulation that allows separate speed lanes on the internet. Of course, no regulation at all would be preferred (it's easy to engage in cartel tactics this way, after all), but they know that something needs to be done sooner than later, so they want measures that allow to discriminate traffic and content in the name of business and telecom innovation (oh, my sides).

Republicans (let's call them Conservatives for the shake of the argument) oppose it in public because of the necessities of party branding and having to appeal to Tea Partiers, but anybody believing that Conservatives are not being immensely opportunistic and two faced about this should really get a reality check. Hell, The Heritage Foundation has been rallying about the new FCC rules with sound bits as amazing such as "and the bar on blocking websites could still stymie many pro-consumer business strategies. Competition law, in fact, has long recognized the potential benefits of exclusive dealing—just think Apple".

The FCC needs to be put upside down and heads should roll, but you *really* don't want the kind of internet Libertarians and Conservatives are actually demanding.

 

[Danthrax]

NeoGAF will still be on the "free" bundle right? Would I pay an extra $10 / month? Hmm...

It would really feel like GAF Gold, then.

But would you choose GAF over, say, Steam, if that's all you could afford? That may be the sort of decisions we'll be making in a few years.

 

[Luis_23]

Thanks, Obama.

Was waiting for this.

 

[KingK]

So I assume the Supreme Court will rule on it then, too?

Iirc, the FCC just decided not to appeal any further for it. Pretty shitty situation all around, and everyone involved has shit on their hands really.

 

[DonasaurusRex]

how is this legal no one isp controls every hop in someones traffic are they going to now make sure if you are on a certain ISP your traffic stays on their routers 100 percent of the time. Otherwise my packets are inside comcast wans , yes but after that...i gotta use other hardware to get to a destination network and so on and so forth....this makes no sense. The only way to do this is to have net neutrality...so that the inter network *internet* can perform its function...wtf.. what basis do they have for charging people all they do is let their traffic access the internet to reach other networks.

 

[Cow Mengde]

4K streaming, here we come. Digital is the future baby.

 

[gcubed]

how is this legal no one isp controls every hop in someones traffic are they going to now make sure if you are on a certain ISP your traffic stays on their routers 100 percent of the time. Otherwise my packets are inside comcast wans , yes but after that...i gotta use other hardware to get to a destination network and so on and so forth....this makes no sense. The only way to do this is to have net neutrality...so that the inter network *internet* can perform its function...wtf..

No ISP cares about other networks, they care about traffic on theirs, whenever it leave their network they wash their hands of it (with $100 bills)

 

[coldvein]

This fucking sucks. Internet as we know it will be dead soon. The greatest invention of humanity is now being ruined by the suits.

we deserve it.

 

[Amory]

(if you're white and rich)

Lol yeah America is a terrible place unless you're white and rich because down the line we might have to pay more for high speed internet access.

some of you really need some perspective

 

[kehs]

how is this legal no one isp controls every hop in someones traffic are they going to now make sure if you are on a certain ISP your traffic stays on their routers 100 percent of the time. Otherwise my packets are inside comcast wans , yes but after that...i gotta use other hardware to get to a destination network and so on and so forth....this makes no sense. The only way to do this is to have net neutrality...so that the inter network *internet* can perform its function...wtf.. what basis do they have for charging people all they do is let their traffic access the internet to reach other networks.

I believe the correct answer is the free market will incentive all companies involved to provide faster throughput at a lower price because of the invisible hand.

ergo

 

[Funky Papa]

Discriminating traffic right in the advent of digital distribution and the first throes of classic TV economics is such a scummy, scummy way to perpetuate the telecoms' oligopoly for decades to come, BTW. Specially if collusion between content companies and internet providers becomes more common while keeping the current geographical segregation (excuse me, local markets).

This may be just a first step, but despite what the nitwits at Mercatus say, consumers are damn fucking right to be scared and outraged.

 

[davepoobond]

What a bunch of fuckers!

 

[blackflag]

The people that think the republicans are on the right side of this because they want nothing done.....clearly don't understand the situation.

 

[Gowans]

Terrible terrible thing, I really hope you guys in the US are contacting representatives and taking all the actions you can outside of commenting online.

It's just awful.

 

[Rygar 8 Bit]

google halp

 

[teiresias]

And for those that claim "Republicans and Democrats are all the same" here's what the Republican commissioners had to say, according to The Verge:

Republican commissioner Ajit Pai claimed he and fellow conservative Michael O'Rielly were kept in the dark about the proposal's revisions; both Pai and Rosenworcel had previously asked for a delay of the vote. Unsurprisingly, Pai and O'Rielly condemned the plan. "Prioritization is not a bad word," said O'Rielly. "It is a necessary component of reasonable network management."

 

[danwarb]

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.

We want net neutrality, not ISPs doing whatever makes most money. That is the opposite of net neutrality? That shit has got to be regulated.

 

[Funky Papa]

Terrible terrible thing, I really hope you guys in the US are contacting representatives and taking all the actions you can outside of commenting online.

It's just awful.

This is one of the reasons why I'm incredibly thankful for the European Union. And I'm not being smug or anything; had been for my local telecoms and politicians, there would be no hope for any form of net neutrality in Spain.

I'm so, so glad we dodged that bullet before the FCC screwed the pooch and gave our local Conservatives (always so willing to take a note from Republicans) any ideas.

 

[FullMetaltech]

I wouldnt be suprised if physical mediasales increased after this proposal. Sucks that either way consumers will get shafted no matter what.

 

[Blader]

Lol yeah America is a terrible place unless you're white and rich because down the line we might have to pay more for high speed internet access.

some of you really need some perspective

Likewise.

 

[Brandson]

I can't wait until one of the big US ISPs that runs its own streaming video services to its customers throttles down Netflix in favour of its own service for which it is not paying itself any premiums. This will happen, guaranteed. It already happened in Canada in similar circumstances with respect to bandwidth caps and an ISP's own streaming service not counting against those caps.

Also, does this apply to the backend Internet network or just at the ISP level delivering directly to customers? If they throttle everything, including traffic to/from non-US sources/destinations, this could become more trouble for the US government.

 

[Foffy]

Lol yeah America is a terrible place unless you're white and rich because down the line we might have to pay more for high speed internet access.

some of you really need some perspective

It's objectively terrible in America for many reasons, though white and wealthy gets you away from most of them.

The problem here is this will turn the internet, just like so many things like education and "health care", into a have vs have not system entirely based on economic standing that will only rise with time, creating more and more have nots. And just like all things that end up for profit, we really ruin it for everybody on this planet.

That is what America seems to to best today: ruin things.

 

[Rygar 8 Bit]

and the plus side its rad that we have a bunch of old people that dont know how technology works dictate the future of it

 

[Funky Papa]

and the plus side its rad that we have a bunch of old people that dont know how technology works dictate the future of it

The ones pushing for prioritization know exactly what's going on.

 

[BoboBrazil]

I can't wait until one of the big US ISPs that runs its own streaming video services to its customers throttles down Netflix in favour of its own service for which it is not paying itself any premiums. This will happen, guaranteed. It already happened in Canada in similar circumstances with respect to bandwidth caps and an ISP's own streaming service not counting against those caps.

Also, does this apply to the backend Internet network or just at the ISP level delivering directly to customers? If they throttle everything, including traffic to/from non-US sources/destinations, this could become more trouble for the US government.

The internet backbone companies like level3 already said the isps were intentionally throttling Netflix to get a payout. That's why they had to pay Comcast/Verizon. This just makes things worse.

 

[Suikoguy]

and the plus side its rad that we have a bunch of old people that dont know how technology works dictate the future of it

I think it's more, to edit your quote:

and the plus side its rad that we have a bunch of old arrogant people, that don't know how technology works, that are too arrogant to reach out to experts in the field for guidance, dictate the future of it.

 

[The Librarian]

Washington Post

We'll they're one step closer.

This should be in the OP and the thread title, but this ruling isn't legally binding yet. This is just a vote to put the rules out in the open for a public commenting period. The next vote, happening four months from now, is the vote that really counts.

 

[Blader]

I can't wait until one of the big US ISPs that runs its own streaming video services to its customers throttles down Netflix in favour of its own service for which it is not paying itself any premiums. This will happen, guaranteed.

Comcast has already done this to Netflix. That's why Netflix had to pay up and why subscription costs are going up.

 

[narton]

It's not over guys. Now it's open to public opinion. They won't actually vote to implement until a little later, so flood those phone lines.

 

[Heshinsi]

While it will probably still be pushed through as a final, keep in mind this is a vote on the proposal:

So the vote was 3-2, yet that other dude is complaining about not liking the proposition? They were the swing vote lol

 

[coldvein]

THE MORE YOU TIGHTEN YOUR GRIP THE MORE WILL FALL THROUGH YOUR FINGERS

 

[Raistlin]

Welcome to the tiered pricing future.

That already exists ... and even if it didn't, it should be the least of peoples' concerns.



More concerning is lack of progress for new ideas and services. If this had happened years back, it's likely we wouldn't have youtube, netflix, etc.



Most concerning is information control and propaganda. The internet is what has saved us from corporate/government controlled media and their 'news'. Steps like this is the erosion that will lead to the internet mirroring broadcast/magazine/newspaper

The ones pushing for prioritization know exactly what's going on.

yup :\

 

[Aesius]

I really think the days of just freely browsing the Internet and searching for any information you can think of without cost or penalty are soon to be over.

Unfortunately, for many people the Internet won't change much, at least not at first. They will still get their Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Netflix, etc. But shit like this is going to stifle competition and innovation so much. Trying to start a new website that's more ambitious than a personal blog/small storefront will be like trying to launch a new cable channel. It will require massive amounts of funding just to be seen by the masses.

 

[Frustrated_Grunt]

Just wrote and called my representatives (Lindsey Graham and Mark Sanford). There's still plenty of time for everyone to get their opinions out there on this.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

Jesus fucking Christ FCC, all you have to do is reclassify these assholes as common carriers and then regulate them so the future of this country does not go to shit. But instead you opted to lick the balls of these ISP assholes for short term profitability reasons.

 

[cashman]

Get the the gov'mint outta my fuckin internet.

 

[Shard]

No sir, I do not like this at all, but whining about things solves nothing, we must remain active in the fight.

 

[FLEABttn]

Is this what causes the creation of a pirate internet?

No because infrastructure. No because meshnets are awful.

Get the the gov'mint outta my fuckin internet.

Let's not go that far.

 

[Aldebaran]

I can't imagine how could someone seriously propose this shit.

 

[ZackieChan]

Everyone complaining should write up a professional-looking and level headed comment, and upload it to the FCC (I'm assuming it works like the SEC's public commenting system). Grousing about it on NeoGaf ain't gonna do anything.

The public comments are there for a reason. I'm not saying they'll listen, but like someone else said above, we never talk about what action to take. This is important. We need to be heard. I'm going to research the issue and write something up over the next week or so. Maybe we can work together to come up with ideas/talking points.

LET'S DO THIS THING

 

[Funky Papa]

Jesus fucking Christ FCC, all you have to do is reclassify these assholes as common carriers and then regulate them so the future of this country does not go to shit. But instead you opted to lick the balls of these ISP assholes for short term profitability reasons.

That was the so-called Nuclear Option. Guess what? Conservatives hated the shit out of it.

 

[danwarb]

Get the the gov'mint outta my fuckin internet.

That's what the ISPs said.

 

[Edwardo]

Well time to speak up now.

 

[Futureman]

Even in the worst case scenario, how would this affect a text-based forum like NeoGAF?

 

[King Cobra]

America is such a great country

It is, the fact that our biggest worry is about our internet connection and not about whether our family is going to be kidnapped and held at ransom proves that we are still very pampered. So lets continue to argue about this point from the comfort of our climate controlled rooms and comfy armchairs.

 

[bjork]

Maybe it's been asked before, but is this kind of like how WWE charged a $10 premium for HD for the last few years?

 

[Futureman]

Everyone complaining should write up a professional-looking and level headed comment, and upload it to the FCC (I'm assuming it works like the SEC's public commenting system). Grousing about it on NeoGaf ain't gonna do anything.

I'm on my phone. Can someone provide a link where you submit comments?

 

[OriginalNameGuy]

Get ready for it:

We had a good run. We can say we experienced the golden age of the internet...

 

[kehs]

I'm on my phone. Can someone provide a link where you submit comments?

http://www.fcc.gov/page/fcc-establishes-new-inbox-open-internet-comments

Please send your thoughts to openinternet@fcc.gov.

 

[ZackieChan]

I'm on my phone. Can someone provide a link where you submit comments?

I'm looking, but their site is total garbage. Can't find a link to the proposed rule. Here's where comments go, though.

http://www.fcc.gov/comments

Can anyone find/link to a pdf of the rule?

Edit: Lots of comments requesting the Common Carrier reclassification. What are the odds that the FCC will listen? I'm not hopeful. But it's nice to see. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment_search/execute?proceeding=14-28