The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

FCC wants to reclassify the Internet as a utility
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11285
Page 1 of 2

Author:  Lenas [ Wed Feb 04, 2015 2:39 pm ]
Post subject:  FCC wants to reclassify the Internet as a utility

Tom Wheeler wrote:
"I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services.

I propose to fully apply — for the first time ever — those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone's permission.

Before [the 1960's], AT&T prohibited anyone from attaching non-AT&T equipment to the network. The modems that enabled the internet were usable only because the FCC required the network to be open."


http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/4/797756 ... -a-utility

Author:  Müs [ Wed Feb 04, 2015 2:49 pm ]
Post subject: 

That's amazeballs.

Author:  shuyung [ Wed Feb 04, 2015 4:56 pm ]
Post subject: 

It's stupid and he's a retarded monkey.

Author:  Lenas [ Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FCC wants to reclassify the Internet as a utility

That's your opinion on like 90% of the topics you post in.

Author:  shuyung [ Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:16 pm ]
Post subject: 

Theodore Sturgeon was a visionary.

Author:  Khross [ Thu Feb 05, 2015 2:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FCC wants to reclassify the Internet as a utility

Theodore Sturgeon trumps Tom Wheeler.

Author:  Talya [ Tue Feb 17, 2015 10:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

shuyung wrote:
Theodore Sturgeon was a visionary.



Meh. 90% of what he wrote was crud.

Author:  Talya [ Tue Feb 17, 2015 10:36 am ]
Post subject: 

On reading his proposition, Wheeler is not actually proposing to treat the ISPs as "utilities." He's proposing treating them as "common carriers." Which Shuyung may still label idiotic, but it's not the same as treating them as utilities.

Author:  Corolinth [ Thu Feb 19, 2015 12:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FCC wants to reclassify the Internet as a utility

Posted without comment because I'm not done reading it.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/net-neutralitys-technical-troubles/

Author:  Lenas [ Thu Feb 19, 2015 1:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FCC wants to reclassify the Internet as a utility

Maybe we need a novel innovation for routing internets.

Lex, get on it.

Author:  shuyung [ Thu Feb 19, 2015 3:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FCC wants to reclassify the Internet as a utility

Corolinth wrote:
Posted without comment because I'm not done reading it.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/net-neutralitys-technical-troubles/

I will comment, as I have now read it. It is very good, as far as it goes. From a technical standpoint, the telephony analyses are spot on and serve as a good example of how complex just one of the many considerations that need to go into a well designed network can be. It doesn't sufficiently address the dimwittedness of the policy wonks who are driving Net Neutrality, but it's a technical publication, so that's probably fine.

Author:  Corolinth [ Thu Feb 19, 2015 6:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FCC wants to reclassify the Internet as a utility

To put it bluntly, it appears that most of the proponents of net neutrality are chodes who are looking for an excuse to ***** about the corporations, man. It's being spearheaded primarily by low-level sysops and web page designers who think that spending all day on the internet and being able to configure a router for their home LAN means they know **** all about the internet.

It's time for an educational outreach program on corporations and capitalism.

Do you like money? A recent study performed by the Corolinth Foundation suggests that the corporations, man like money at least as much as you do, and possibly more. The corporations, man understand that you like money, and don't like giving it to other people. Apparently, you and your friends are willing to pay money to watch bullshit on Netflix. All the corporations, man have to do is let you watch bullshit on Netflix. It's not in their best interest to stop letting you watch bullshit on Netflix, even of this particular corporation, man happens to own Hulu.

Author:  Lex Luthor [ Fri Feb 20, 2015 6:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FCC wants to reclassify the Internet as a utility

Lenas wrote:
Maybe we need a novel innovation for routing internets.

Lex, get on it.


Too late, I work at an ecommerce company now.

Author:  FarSky [ Wed Feb 25, 2015 11:02 pm ]
Post subject: 

Vote's tomorrow. FCC will most likely enshrine net neutrality.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015 ... /24009247/

Author:  Corolinth [ Sat Feb 28, 2015 1:15 pm ]
Post subject: 

Upon further reflection, it is entirely inappropriate for an organization founded for the purpose of providing the United States military with preferential treatment across the frequency spectrum should be making any decisions regarding "net neutrality."

Author:  Lenas [ Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FCC wants to reclassify the Internet as a utility

Cool. What else does the government do that it should not?

Author:  Khross [ Sat Feb 28, 2015 7:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FCC wants to reclassify the Internet as a utility

Lenas wrote:
Cool. What else does the government do that it should not?
Do you support this or no, Lenas?

Author:  Corolinth [ Sat Feb 28, 2015 8:44 pm ]
Post subject: 

Lenas has nothing to contribute to the discussion, save that he was told he's supposed to support net neutrality because the corporations are going to destroy the Internet.

Author:  shuyung [ Sun Mar 01, 2015 12:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: FCC wants to reclassify the Internet as a utility

Lenas wrote:
Cool. What else does the government do that it should not?

Most things.

Author:  Lenas [ Mon Mar 02, 2015 12:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: FCC wants to reclassify the Internet as a utility

Khross wrote:
Do you support this or no, Lenas?


Not entirely.

Author:  Diamondeye [ Mon Mar 02, 2015 2:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Corolinth wrote:
Upon further reflection, it is entirely inappropriate for an organization founded for the purpose of providing the United States military with preferential treatment across the frequency spectrum should be making any decisions regarding "net neutrality."


I'm pretty sure that the national defense considerations of 1934 don't have a whole lot to do with whether the FCC is concerned with neutrality between companies or consumers and companies today. For that matter, I doubt very much the national defense considerations of today have anything to do with the issue; I haven't really heard anyone complaining that they can't watch Netflix because the Air Force is too busy bombing ISIS and sucking up all the bandwidth.

I mean I agree with you but.. come on. If the military DOES somehow have something to do with this, please enlighten me though because I admit to total ignorance of this aspect of the debate.

Quote:
Lenas has nothing to contribute to the discussion, save that he was told he's supposed to support net neutrality because the corporations are going to destroy the Internet.
'

You forgot the "man" after "corporations".

Author:  Lenas [ Mon Mar 02, 2015 4:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FCC wants to reclassify the Internet as a utility

<snarky comment />

There are pros and cons to the entire thing, and like I said, I don't entirely agree with reclassifying broadband under Title II. I am not interested in bringing down the corporations, man. I am interested in the forced competition that this will bring to the mobile marketplace due to the FCC now acknowledging that the mobile Internet is the same as wired.

Ultimately I wish most of the issues could be addressed by consumers voting with their wallets, but the fact is that most of them are too dumb, or care too little, to know what is in their best interest.

The Verge wrote:
..it's not the wired network companies like Comcast that have been the most guilty of meddling in the marketplace. It's the mobile carriers. Hell, Verizon straight-up said no to the first iPhone. Comcast might have throttled Netflix until Netflix paid up, but AT&T initially blocked Google Voice from the iOS App Store and prevented Hangouts and FaceTime video chat from working over cellular unless you bought the right plan. Verizon basically killed Google Wallet by blocking it on the Galaxy Nexus so that it could favor its own Softcard system.

Here's the thing: ...Placing firm net neutrality rules on mobile means that these companies can't just build crap software and block the good stuff from working; they will actually have to compete. And the competition in mobile software is no joke. Opening up that marketplace beyond the boundaries of app stores means that innovation can happen without the permission of the carriers. It sounds like a small thing, but it will have enormous impact on what Google and Apple and Microsoft can do at the platform level, and that will have enormous impact on everything.

...think of how much faster mobile payments would have rolled out if Verizon hadn't been able to simply block Google Wallet from working. Think of how different the device marketplace would be if Verizon didn't have the unfettered power to temper Google's support for neutrality and 700MHz open-access plan in exchange for releasing the first Droid. Think of a marketplace free from carrier interference.


This link is not the source of the quote, but the timing on this isn't exactly coincidental: Google Confirms Plan to Offer Wireless Service - quoted in entirety if for some reason you get a paygate from WSJ:

Spoiler:
Google Inc. confirmed plans to launch a U.S. wireless service, raising a new risk of tension between the Internet firm and the wireless carriers that support its Android mobile-operating system.

The service would be small-scale and not intended to compete with the four big U.S. national carriers, Sundar Pichai, the Google executive who oversees Android, told an industry conference in Barcelona. Instead, it would be intended to demonstrate technical innovations that carriers could adopt.

However small Google’s entry, the move by the creative and well capitalized technology company is likely to send ripples through a business long controlled by Verizon Communications Inc., AT&T Inc., Sprint Corp. and T-Mobile US Inc. The move is a strong signal that Google’s ambitions extend beyond selling advertising and services over the Internet to influencing how Internet access is delivered.

“You will see us announce it in the coming months,” Mr. Pichai said. “Our goal here is to drive a set of innovations which we think the system should adopt.”

The comments confirmed earlier reporting of the company’s plans. Google has struck deals with Sprint and T-Mobile to resell service on their networks, people familiar with the matter have said. Mr. Pichai said Monday that Google would partner with carriers to launch the service but didn’t name them. AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile declined to comment.

Google confirmed plans to launch a small scale U.S. wireless service and will announce details in the coming months. Lisa Fleisher joins MoneyBeat from the World Mobile Congress with details.
“This raises another tension point in the new complex friend-and-foe relationship between Google and operators,” said Rajeev Chand, head of research at Rutberg & Company, an investment bank focused on the mobile industry. “You have to wonder what the market-wide impact will be.”

Google’s planned service would sift through cellular connections from Sprint and T-Mobile and Wi-Fi “hot spots,” picking the best signal for routing calls, texts and data. Mr. Pichai said the service aims for seamless handoffs between Wi-Fi and cell networks to prevent dropped calls and automatically re-connect them.

Google says it is focused on improving the quality of wireless connections. But tapping Wi-Fi networks could reduce the amount of data users transfer across cellular networks, undermining a growing source of income for wireless carriers.

“If Google focuses heavily on cheaper data usage that would have downward impact on pricing for mobile operators,” said Neil Mawston, a mobile-industry analyst at Strategy Analytics. “This may go two ways: Lower priced data may encourage much higher data usage, which would be relatively positive for carriers, or Google may drive down data prices so quickly and it could chip away at mobile operators’ profits.”

Mr. Mawston said Google has a history of lowering prices in areas such as maps, email and Android itself, which is free for handset makers. It also challenged telecom-industry giants with its high-speed fiber-optic Internet service in a few cities. AT&T responded with higher speed service of its own.

Google’s move into cellular comes amid an industry squeeze, as T-Mobile and Sprint lower prices to boost subscriber counts, while the cost to acquire wireless spectrum rises.

The tech firm has to move cautiously, however, because it depends on carriers to help promote phones powered by Google’s Android software. More Android users mean more people using Google’s search, maps and other services. Android had 53% of the U.S. smartphone market in the last three months of 2014, compared with nearly 42% for Apple Inc., according to data from comScore.

Google has talked to carriers about its plans, Mr. Pichai said. He said its approach would be like the one Google adopted with its Nexus phones, which the company uses to demonstrate its vision for how Android should operate, even as the vast majority of Android phones are sold by other manufacturers.

“They know what we are doing,” he said. “Partners like Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint in the U.S. are what powers most of our Android phones. And the model works extremely well for us. And so there’s no reason for us to course correct.”

Author:  Midgen [ Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:29 pm ]
Post subject: 

The only thing worse than 'corporations' controlling the Internet, would be the governments attempts to 'regulate' it. Ultimately, both of these things are going to happen anyway, and nothing good will come from it.

Author:  FarSky [ Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FCC wants to reclassify the Internet as a utility

Lenas wrote:
Ultimately I wish most of the issues could be addressed by consumers voting with their wallets, but the fact is that most of them are too dumb, or care too little, to know what is in their best interest.

This, but the difference is that elected officials have a necessarily routine turnover (and their turnover can be hastened), whereas "voting with ones wallet" is effectively useless against a sufficiently large corporation.

Author:  Diamondeye [ Mon Mar 02, 2015 6:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Midgen wrote:
The only thing worse than 'corporations' controlling the Internet, would be the governments attempts to 'regulate' it. Ultimately, both of these things are going to happen anyway, and nothing good will come from it.


Well, if the experience of the railroads (also a 'common carrier') are anything to go by, that's certainly true although it fortunately eventually ended in de-regulation before we had a total disaster.

FarSky wrote:
This, but the difference is that elected officials have a necessarily routine turnover (and their turnover can be hastened), whereas "voting with ones wallet" is effectively useless against a sufficiently large corporation.


Really? How large does that have to be, because it seems like that wasn't the case with auto companies.

I think this is more a matter of people not realizing (just like in a regular election) that your vote is just one of many, and what seems cut-and-dried to you seems very different to someone else.

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/