The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sun Nov 24, 2024 4:17 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 4:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-k ... 99435.html

Quote:
Late Monday, a majority of the FCC's commissioners indicated that they're going to vote with Chairman Julius Genachowski for a toothless Net Neutrality rule.

According to all reports, the rule, which will be voted on during tomorrow's FCC meeting, falls drastically short of earlier pledges by President Obama and the FCC Chairman to protect the free and open Internet.

The rule is so riddled with loopholes that it's become clear that this FCC chairman crafted it with the sole purpose of winning the endorsement of AT&T and cable lobbyists, and not defending the interests of the tens of millions of Internet users.

Welcome to AT&T's Internet

For the first time in history of telecommunications law the FCC has given its stamp of approval to online discrimination.

Instead of a rule to protect Internet users' freedom to choose, the Commission has opened the door for broadband payola - letting phone and cable companies charge steep tolls to favor the content and services of a select group of corporate partners, relegating everyone else to the cyber-equivalent of a winding dirt road.

Instead of protecting openness on wireless Internet devices like the iPhone and Droid, the Commission has exempted the mobile Internet from Net Neutrality protections. This move enshrines Verizon and AT&T as gatekeepers to the expanding world of mobile Internet access, allowing them to favor their own applications while blocking, degrading or de-prioritizing others.

Instead of re-establishing the FCC's authority to act as a consumer watchdog over the Internet, it places the agency's authority on a shaky and indefensible legal footing -- giving ultimate control over the Internet to a small handful of carriers.

Obama's 'Mission Accomplished'

Internet users deserve far better, and we thought we were going to get it from a president who promised to "take a backseat to no one in my commitment to Net Neutrality." Watch now as he and his FCC chairman try to spin tomorrow's betrayal as another "mission accomplished."

Don't believe it. This bogus victory has become all too familiar to those watching the Obama administration and its appointees squander opportunities for real change. The reality is that reform is just a rhetorical front for industry compromises that reward the biggest players and K-Street lobbyists while giving the public nothing.

It's not the FCC chairman's job to seek consensus among the corporations that he was put into office to regulate. His duty is to protect Internet users.

More than two million people have taken action on behalf of Net Neutrality. Tomorrow, we'll all get the carpet yanked from beneath our feet.

Net Neutrality is the freedom of speech, freedom of choice issue of the 21st century. It's the guarantee of a more open and democratic media system that was baked into the Internet at its founding.

On Tuesday, Obama's FCC is going to sell that out.


I'm pretty much ambivalent on this issue. I just think it's funny to see the President once again flake out on his promises. Like I've always been saying... the only thing he can do well is campaign. He had 0 job experience before becoming President. Hillary would be running things with much better authority.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 4:50 pm 
Offline
Grrr... Eat your oatmeal!!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 5073
he is a stupid prick sumbish who cares not one whit for this country or the people in it. I hope he is a one termer.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 4:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
darksiege wrote:
he is a stupid prick sumbish who cares not one whit for this country or the people in it. I hope he is a one termer.


So I take it you don't feel he should be awarded a second Nobel Peace Prize?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:04 pm 
Offline
Grrr... Eat your oatmeal!!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 5073
Lex Luthor wrote:
darksiege wrote:
he is a stupid prick sumbish who cares not one whit for this country or the people in it. I hope he is a one termer.


So I take it you don't feel he should be awarded a second Nobel Peace Prize?


I think his first Nobel Peace Prize should be taken and used to liberally beat to death anyone who voted to give him said first prize.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:36 am
Posts: 4320
Very disappointed about this ruling from the FCC.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 6465
Location: The Lab
And next up, wireless exemptions and fee-for-service....

http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/19/wire ... r-service/

I wonder how much extra they will charge for "Porn". :p~~


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
I've spent the last 1.5 years working on an edge router meant for large ISPs which has many features that are counter to net neutrality. It's the future, whether you like it or not.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:49 pm 
Offline
Noli me calcare
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:26 am
Posts: 4747
Meh, won't mean much until Congress has its say. Surprisingly, it looks like this attempt at grabbing power by unelected officials is going to be neutered by the elected officials who usually make the power grabs...maybe they're jealous.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
Yeah, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm mostly worried that new FCC rules will stifle the growth of ISPs.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:25 pm 
Offline
Noli me calcare
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:26 am
Posts: 4747
As it stands, of course they will. That's what the Gov't does best.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
Image

This is how I want my bandwidth speed to increase over time. I don't want the government to **** it up with regulatory bullshit. Any FCC regulation of the Internet is a very slippery slope.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 6465
Location: The Lab
A little more on the differentiation between wired and wireless services.

http://www.thinq.co.uk/2010/12/21/fcc-a ... access-us/

I won't quote the entire article, but here is a shiny bit.

thinq.co.uk wrote:
Mobile and wireless internet providers will see much less stringent regulation. Mobile carriers will be able to charge content providers in return for giving priority to their services, and wireless providers will also be able to block services – as long as it is not for the purposes of preventing competition.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
thing.co.uk wrote:
Mobile carriers will be able to charge content providers in return for giving priority to their services, and wireless providers will also be able to block services – as long as it is not for the purposes of preventing competition.


Good.


Last edited by Lex Luthor on Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 6465
Location: The Lab
Lex, you might want to fix your quote attribution. That is not my statement.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 9:44 pm 
Offline
Oberon's Playground
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:11 am
Posts: 9449
Location: Your Dreams
Lex Luthor wrote:
Image

This is how I want my bandwidth speed to increase over time. I don't want the government to **** it up with regulatory bullshit. Any FCC regulation of the Internet is a very slippery slope.


Yeah, but without net neutrality, you'll have piles of bandwidth you aren't allowed to use the way you want.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me

█ ♣ █


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 10:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
Talya wrote:
Lex Luthor wrote:
Image

This is how I want my bandwidth speed to increase over time. I don't want the government to **** it up with regulatory bullshit. Any FCC regulation of the Internet is a very slippery slope.


Yeah, but without net neutrality, you'll potentially have piles of bandwidth you aren't allowed to use the way you want.


Fixed.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 10:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 6465
Location: The Lab
Bandwidth isn't whats at stake.

It's your utilization of applications.

Deep Packet Inspection technology is getting more and more advanced. Lots of companies are poised to make a fortune selling technology to wireless providers, ISP's, backbone providers, etc... that will allow them to use hueristics to determine which packets are streaming movies, which are flash video, etc...

They will also be able to know, based on where packets originate, and where they go, what applications you are using, what sites you are visiting (NO, anonymizers, proxies, and TOR won't help you)...

Someday soon, in the not too distant future, your Internet bill will look a lot like your cable bill. You'll be able to sign up for various packages of applications, and site accesses.

Want Youtube? Facebook? Reddit? You'll have to pay for the premium bundle. That'll be $29.95, plus 15 cents a MB!.

Want to stream Netflix/Hulu/Blockbuster, etc? You'll have to pay for the "Entertainment" bundle. That'll be another $39.95, plus an additional .25 cents per megabyte!....

Yumm!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 10:53 pm 
Offline
Near Ground
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 6782
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Midgen wrote:
Someday soon, in the not too distant future,

Next Sunday, A.D.?

Sorry, had to.

Midgen wrote:
the rest of the post

Ayup, and that's what terrifies me.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 11:30 pm 
Offline
Noli me calcare
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:26 am
Posts: 4747
What terrifies me is the Gov't regulating the internet.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:34 am 
Offline
Oberon's Playground
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:11 am
Posts: 9449
Location: Your Dreams
"Net Neutrality" would be more like an anti-regulation of the Internet -- forcing a hands-off approach for everyone, government and corporation alike.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me

█ ♣ █


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
Talya wrote:
"Net Neutrality" would be more like an anti-regulation of the Internet -- forcing a hands-off approach for everyone, government and corporation alike.


I disagree. Enforcing equal quality of service and billing for all web services is strong regulation, and would stimy advancement of the Internet.

edit:

South Korea and Japan will be even more leaps and bounds ahead of us since their governments don't impose arbitrary and backwards regulations.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:43 am 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
Midgen wrote:
Bandwidth isn't whats at stake.

It's your utilization of applications.

Deep Packet Inspection technology is getting more and more advanced. Lots of companies are poised to make a fortune selling technology to wireless providers, ISP's, backbone providers, etc... that will allow them to use hueristics to determine which packets are streaming movies, which are flash video, etc...

They will also be able to know, based on where packets originate, and where they go, what applications you are using, what sites you are visiting (NO, anonymizers, proxies, and TOR won't help you)...

Someday soon, in the not too distant future, your Internet bill will look a lot like your cable bill. You'll be able to sign up for various packages of applications, and site accesses.

Want Youtube? Facebook? Reddit? You'll have to pay for the premium bundle. That'll be $29.95, plus 15 cents a MB!.

Want to stream Netflix/Hulu/Blockbuster, etc? You'll have to pay for the "Entertainment" bundle. That'll be another $39.95, plus an additional .25 cents per megabyte!....

Yumm!



Nope, people won't stand for it and all it takes is one ISP to provide flat fee based usage and the structure collapses.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:23 am 
Offline
Oberon's Playground
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:11 am
Posts: 9449
Location: Your Dreams
Elmarnieh wrote:
Nope, people won't stand for it and all it takes is one ISP to provide flat fee based usage and the structure collapses.


Yeah, because the communication companies haven't already been colluding to deny you choice and prevent true competetion for decades. It's already hard, if not impossible, to find an ISP that doesn't shape traffic or arbitrarily cap your monthly transfer at a low level.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me

█ ♣ █


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
Talya wrote:
Elmarnieh wrote:
Nope, people won't stand for it and all it takes is one ISP to provide flat fee based usage and the structure collapses.


Yeah, because the communication companies haven't already been colluding to deny you choice and prevent true competetion for decades. It's already hard, if not impossible, to find an ISP that doesn't shape traffic or arbitrarily cap your monthly transfer at a low level.


They won't make much money if they set the prices too high. It's simple supply and demand. If anything, prices will drop because ISPs have more flexibility with the pricing. It'll be more tailored to specific people's needs.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:23 am 
Offline
Lean, Mean, Googling Machine
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 2903
Location: Maze of twisty little passages, all alike
Elmarnieh wrote:
Nope, people won't stand for it and all it takes is one ISP to provide flat fee based usage and the structure collapses.

That really wouldn't be possible (the single ISP) in that scenario, due to the way that routing fees are structured between ISPs. The recent row between Level 3 and Comcast over Netflix traffic amply demonstrates why.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 298 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
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group