Penny Can

The Lobby => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Mac on May 08, 2014, 10:17:06 am

Title: Net Neutrality
Post by: Mac on May 08, 2014, 10:17:06 am
I've been keeping an eye on this and we should all be concerned.

FCC is considering rules on net neutrality. This video helps to conceptualize Net Neutrality
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Chiprocks1 on May 08, 2014, 10:44:25 am
Meet The Man Obama Hired To Kill Net Neutrality

I too have been following this closely for many reasons. This is what I watched this morning.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Mac on May 08, 2014, 11:58:16 am
I wonder if the genie is out of the bottle. Is it to late to stop the gears?
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Chiprocks1 on May 08, 2014, 12:29:48 pm
I wonder if the genie is out of the bottle. Is it to late to stop the gears?

I actually think it is. The Government / Big Brother is going to do what it wants to do in spite of public outcry. They are just trying to paint a picture that there is still a "choice".
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Mac on May 08, 2014, 12:54:23 pm
I think it's even more to do with Big Business and money. Lot of controlling stake there.  >:(
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Chiprocks1 on May 08, 2014, 01:34:51 pm
I think it's even more to do with Big Business and money. Lot of controlling stake there.  >:(

That too. One hand washes the other.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Mac on May 12, 2014, 10:03:43 am
Let's see new rule runs. Now with internet, people and companies are under the microscope and within Nanoseconds the rest of the world knows what has developed.

FCC may tweak net neutrality proposal after criticism, but still wants paid-for 'fast lanes'


After intense criticism over his proposed net neutrality rules, Tom Wheeler, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, is revising his stance, according to reports from two top U.S. newspapers.

The Chairman still wants to introduce rules that would allow Internet Service Providers to charge content companies such as Amazon and Netflix for faster delivery of their traffic to subscribers' homes. But to appease his critics, Wheeler's revised proposal would more explicitly disallow so-called 'slow lane' Internet traffic.

The new proposal would "include language that would make clear that the FCC will scrutinize the deals to make sure that the broadband providers don't unfairly put nonpaying companies' content at a disadvantage," an unnamed agency official told The Wall Street Journal. The Washington Post reported the same news, also citing anonymous sources.

In other words, ISPs could still charge for so-called paid prioritization, but the carrier's wouldn't be allowed to penalize non-paying companies with slower delivery.

Wheeler's revised proposal would also create a new ombudsman that could ensure paid prioritization wasn't being used by ISPs to smother Internet start-ups. One of the many concerns of net neutrality advocates is that paid prioritization would harm innovation from new online services.

Wheeler is expected to start circulating his new draft proposal internally at the FCC as early as Monday, the Journal reports. The new proposed net neutrality rules are slated to become public on Thursday.

The new proposed draft would also ask for public comment on whether paid prioritization should be banned altogether and whether the FCC should reclassify ISPs as common carriers.

While the reported new rules are unlikely to win over net neutrality advocates, the proposal could spark a more vigorous fight to classify ISPs as common carriers, similar to phone companies.

Many net neutrality advocates have been pushing for the FCC to classify ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Federal Communications Act all along. If ISPs were considered common carriers the companies wouldn't be allowed to block or give preferential treatment to one piece of content over another.

The Journal says the FCC is also looking to get comment over two alternative proposals by the Mozilla Foundation and Columbia Law Professor and Internet access critic Tim Wu.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Chiprocks1 on May 26, 2014, 11:33:50 am
Tech Giants Team Up To Fight For Net Neutrality
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Mac on May 26, 2014, 12:30:35 pm
I appreciate his self-debate...

.... Yep, keep an eye on everybody... especially business and he government.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Chiprocks1 on May 26, 2014, 12:31:58 pm
I appreciate his self-debate...

Well, he is a Master-Debater after all.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Mac on May 26, 2014, 12:33:17 pm
Aren't we all?
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Mac on June 02, 2014, 09:41:15 am
This is brilliant... and very funny.

Still Confused About Net Neutrality? John Oliver Explains.

I love this...

"The net is not broken, but the FCC is working on fixing that."
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Chiprocks1 on June 02, 2014, 05:15:12 pm
John Oliver is f*cking hilarious! This 12 minute clip should actually be required viewing for those that don't understand what's going on. He does it in an entertaining way while also being very informative and cutting through all the jargon speak that is sure to turn everyone off, which is EXACTLY what the big companies want.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Neumatic on June 03, 2014, 12:08:24 am
I'm so glad he puts his stuff on Youtube (or whoever is in charge of that sort of thing knows to do that).  I absolutely agree it's a much-watch.

There was a study that just came out that said that Colbert viewers were more informed than people who watch news, one of the big reasons being that Colbert/Daily Show/Oliver put these stories in context so that people can understand (and laugh) at them, while the news just gives the headlines, no context, and puts on a shouting match about it.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Mac on June 03, 2014, 02:43:50 pm
John Oliver's Net neutrality response swamps FCC

John Oliver's Net neutrality response swamps FCC
When the Federal Communications Commission released its proposed Net Neutrality regulations, Chairman Tom Wheeler said the founding fathers were likely looking down on the public outcry over the draft rules and smiling.

They must be laughing hysterically now.

The FCC's online public-comment system stumbled under heavy traffic Monday after comedian John Oliver capped a 13-minute segment about Net neutrality -- the concept that all Internet content should be delivered without preference or discrimination -- with a rallying cry to the Internet's trolls to visit the FCC's website and "focus your indiscriminate rage in a useful direction."

We've been experiencing technical difficulties with our comment system due to heavy traffic. We're working to resolve these issues quickly.

-- The FCC (@FCC) June 2, 2014

We're still experiencing technical difficulties with our comment system. Thanks for your patience as we work to resolve the issues.

-- The FCC (@FCC) June 2, 2014

Net neutrality regulations could have the power to stifle or preserve technological innovation and freedom of speech, as well as influence how quickly you get emails, whether your Netflix streams buffer, and how much you pay for Internet connection and services that exist there.

The clip, from Oliver's HBO program "Last Week Tonight" on Sunday, was shared widely on social networks like Twitter, with the YouTube clip's view count approaching the 700,000 mark. Oliver's program itself was watched by 1 million viewers during its first airing, according to TV by the Numbers, a website that reports television ratings from Nielsen.

After Net neutrality regulations set in 2010 were thrown by a federal appeals court earlier this year, the FCC's next move was watched closely by consumer advocates, Internet companies, service providers and the tech press -- and, increasingly, mainstream consumers sometimes uncertain about what the subject even means. Elements of Wheeler's draft rule were leaked, and public confusion -- about whether these were proposals or instituted rules, what was actually being proposed, and how the Internet works -- was difficult to dispel.

Like any good comedian, Oliver's chief goal was to land solid laughs. For facts about Net neutrality and the FCC's proposals, check coverage from CNET's Marguerite Reardon, who has covered the issues extensively.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Chiprocks1 on June 03, 2014, 02:57:20 pm
John Oliver's Net neutrality response swamps FCC

This is f*cking awesome news! Big win for Oliver. Off topic, I wish he would take over the spot being vacated by Stephen Colbert as I don't have access to HBO.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Neumatic on June 03, 2014, 05:44:35 pm
What's the big deal, he puts his whole show on Youtube (in chunks, I grant you) so you can watch it... and you can get a Youtube app for your Roku now (I got mine!)

While we're talking about this segment, there was an article up on Uproxx today ( about some of the little details that Oliver got wrong, and some misconceptions we might have (it's still on the Net Neutrality side, it's just pointing out that the issue is more complicated).  Def worth a read, and it's Uproxx, so it's short.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Mac on June 11, 2014, 10:03:43 am
Cable companies duped community groups into fighting net neutrality

Last week, it transpired that the big cable companies were bankrolling fake consumer groups like Broadband for America and The American Consumer Institute. These "independent consumer advocacy groups" are, in truth, nothing of the sort, and instead represent the interests of its benefactors, in the fight against net neutrality. If that wasn't bad enough, VICE is now reporting that several of the real community groups (oh, and an Ohio bed-and-breakfast) that were signed up as supporters of Broadband for America were either duped into joining, or were signed up to the cause without their consent or knowledge.

For instance, TalkingWithHeroes, a veterans organization, was listed as a member, but its head hadn't even heard of net neutrality, and insisted that they remain nonpolitical. Another, the Ohio League of Conservation Voters was unaware of Broadband for America until it discovered that it was listed as an official supporter. A third, the Texas Organization of Rural and Community Hospitals did sign up, but said that it had been duped, because it believed that Broadband for America was a cause promoting broadband installation in rural areas. The list of supposed members stops making sense when you read that Buster's Auto Art and Summitville Tile and Roofing are, for some reason, members of an anti-net neutrality campaign group.

VICE has also discovered that Broadband for America, which describes itself as a consumer group, is actually run by a lawyer who supported Verizon's lawsuit against the FCC. Former senator John Sununu, who co-chairs the organization, can't really present himself as being nonpartisan, since he himself currently has a seat on Time Warner Cable's board. Then there's Beneva Shulte, another leading figure at BfA that just happens to be tied up with a lobbying firm that represents Verizon in the capital. We'll leave you to draw your own conclusions, of course, but it's probably worth saying that both Engadget and AOL do not endorse Broadband for America, just in case you see our names pop up somewhere they shouldn't.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Mac on June 13, 2014, 09:34:10 am
Ah crap... getting the FCC involved. We're screwed.

FCC collecting peering agreements from Netflix and Verizon, Comcast

The Federal Communications Commission is collecting information on the terms of Internet traffic exchange agreements between Netflix and Verizon and Comcast and others, to begin to review such agreements, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said on Friday.

"Consumers must get what they pay for. As a consumers' representative, we need to know what's going on," Wheeler said. (Reporting By Marina Lopes)
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Mac on June 16, 2014, 09:31:22 am

John Oliver to FCC chairman: Prove you're not a dingo
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Mac on June 25, 2014, 09:33:49 am
A very interesting read...

Tim Wu; The Father of Net Neutrality Returns to Do Battle With Comcast (

( (
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Mac on August 06, 2014, 06:31:51 am
You won’t believe what happens when Comcast and TWC face actual competition


For the past couple of years, we’ve been alternately amused and horrified whenever cable company bigwigs have told us that we don’t really “need” fast speeds like those offered by Google Fiber, so why bother significantly investing in infrastructure upgrade? It turns out, however, that both Comcast and Time Warner Cable have quickly changed their tunes now that they’re feeling the actual heat of free market competition for the first time in years.

Consumerist notices that Comcast and TWC both have just happened to significantly boost speeds in the Kansas City metropolitan area, which also happens to be the first area where Google has launched Google Fiber. These speed increases aren’t anything close to what Google is offering with Google Fiber, of course — Comcast customers who subscribe to its 25Mbps service will get a speed boost up to 50Mbps, 50Mbps customers will get a speed boost up to 105Mbps and 105Mbps customers will get bumped up to 150Mbps, all completely free of charge.

We imagine that there have been a lot of very tense, awkward calls in the Kansas City area recently from customers who are informing their cable companies that their slow, overpriced services will no longer be required. In fact, I imagine many of those calls go something like this:

    Comcast rep: Hello, thank you for calling Comcast, how may I help you?

    Caller: I’d like to cancel my subscription to Comcast, please.

    Comcast rep.: We are the No. 1 provider of Internet and TV service in the entire country. Why is it that you’re not wanting to have the No. 1 rated Internet service, the No. 1 rated TV service available?

    Caller: Because Google Fiber is kicking the crap out of you and offering me a 1Gbps service for just $70 per month. Right now I’m paying that much for your 25Mbps service.

    Comcast rep.: Why don’t you want the faster speed? Help me understand why you don’t want faster Internet.

    Caller: You don’t have the fastest Internet. Google Fiber does. What part of “1Gbps” do you not understand?

    Comcast rep.: So you’re not interested in the fastest Internet in the country? Why not?

    Caller: Are you kidding me. 1Gbps is faster than 25Mbps. And I’m getting it for the same price that I was paying you guys for subpar service.

    Comcast rep.: I’m just trying to figure out what it is about Comcast service that you don’t want to keep?

You get the idea.

UPDATE: Comcast chimes in to say that Kansas City wasn’t the only market where it announced these upgrades — apparently customers in California and in Houston, Texas are getting big speed boosts too. We’ll be eager to see whether Comcast expands this program to more markets and whether it gets even more ambitious in boosting speeds to be more on par with what Google Fiber and other municipal fiber networks such as the one in Chattanooga, Tennessee are offering.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Mac on October 31, 2014, 09:16:25 am
FCC To Propose New “Hybrid” Approach To Net Neutrality

The FCC proposed their new, “fast lane” net neutrality rule back in May. Since then pretty much everyone — from Congress to 3 million regular people, to members of the FCC — has objected in one way or another. And now it looks like FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is going to revise the plan.

The Wall Street Journal reports that sources in the know say that Wheeler is close to settling on a “hybrid” proposal.

The new stab at net neutrality would not flat-out reclassify broadband service as a common carrier under Title II, as most consumer advocates have asked for.

Instead, the new plan would split broadband into two service categories. One would cover retail broadband, and be defined as the internet access services that consumers buy. The other would cover “back-end” broadband, as the WSJ puts it, “in which broadband providers serve as the conduit for websites to distribute content.”

That back-end service would then be classified as a common carrier, while retail broadband would not.

If that proposal were to be adopted, that would mean that internet traffic would be regulated in two different ways depending on how far away from you, the end user, it is. Traffic moving from its origination point on some server somewhere, through transit ISPs, would be treated under common carrier rules. Traffic coming through the last mile of cable, into your house, would not be.

That would theoretically mostly prevent broadband providers from engaging in fast lane/slow lane behavior and throttling or blocking content — but only in the back-end. It’s still a golden opportunity for retail ISPs (the Comcasts and Verizons of the world) to make things difficult for the consumers who actually receive that content.

As the WSJ puts it, the proposal would “leave the door open for broadband providers to offer specialized services for, say, videogamers or online video providers, which require a particularly large amount of bandwidth. The proposal would also allow the commission to explore usage-based pricing at some point, in which consumers are charged based on how much data they use and companies are able to subsidize traffic to their websites or applications.”

Want to spend all your evenings in League of Legends? You’ll want the Gamer High Score Plus package, which actually lets you connect to that without lag for only an extra $19.99 per month. Really into watching House of Cards in 4K on your shiny new ultra-HD TV every night? You’ll need the Feature Film Fan bundle for that.

The point of a hybrid plan is to try to appease all corners, but so far this seems likely to be a flop on that front. Consumer advocacy groups see all the potential pitfalls that remain for end users, and aren’t pleased.

Free Press president and CEO Craig Aaron, taking full advantage of today’s holiday, said in a statement, “This Frankenstein proposal is no treat for Internet users, and they shouldn’t be tricked. No matter how you dress it up, any rules that don’t clearly restore the agency’s authority and prevent specialized fast lanes and paid prioritization aren’t real Net Neutrality.”

Nor are big businesses enthralled with this approach. Verizon has strongly suggested that they will once again take the FCC to court over any attempt to reclassify broadband services, saying they do not think a reclassification approach would “withstand judicial review.” And an industry official told that WSJ that while hybrid plans might be seen as fractionally more tolerable, they would almost certainly meet the same legal challenges from ISPs as a full attempt at using Title II would.

Rumor has it the FCC wants net neutrality done with before the end of the year, which gives them two months to get through any new proposal. They are in an unenviable position; they absolutely cannot make everyone happy. But the more they try, the more they seem to fail to make anyone happy.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Chiprocks1 on October 31, 2014, 11:45:28 am
lol@being done before the year is up.

Never gonna happen.