FCC Votes 3-2 for Net Neutrality - AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 567Likes
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 337 Old 02-26-2015, 06:30 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,925
Mentioned: 45 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2174 Post(s)
Liked: 3523
FCC Votes 3-2 for Net Neutrality



The FCC’s reclassification of broadband as a public utility under the Title II of the Communications Act drew praise from activists, scorn from ISPs.

In the US, regulation of the Internet is now in the hands of the government. In a historic vote, the Federal Communications Commission chose the path of Federal oversight, despite the objections of the nation’s largest Internet Service Providers and telecom companies.

Advocates of net neutrality have much to celebrate. Last year things were not looking too good for the proponents of neutrality. In fact, the FCC tried to propose a set of rules that appeared to reverse its stance on the topic. However, a public backlash prompted a reversal and ultimately led to today’s vote.

The vote split along party lines—the three commissioners who voted for the Title II reclassification sided with the Democrats and had the President’s support. The two votes against regulation came from Republicans who had CEOs of various corporations on their side. The arguments from both sides of the political aisle tended toward hyperbole and were familiar to anyone who follows politics.

It’s not clear if the new regulation will change the experience of the average Internet user. What is clear is the US government now has a say in how bandwidth is distributed, and a huge grassroots movement played a significant role in the policy's passage.

What are your thoughts on net neutrality? Is the new FCC policy an example of government overreach, or is it a bulwark against corporate greed?

-------

Articles about the FCC's vote to enforce net neutrality:

Net neutrality a reality: FCC votes to bring Internet under utility-style rules - CNET

F.C.C. Approves Net Neutrality Rules, Classifying Broadband Internet Service as a Utility - The New York Times

Net Neutrality Puts Everyone In The Internet Slow Lane - Forbes

FCC votes to protect the internet with Title II regulation - The Verge

FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules, Setting Stage For Legal Battle - The Wall Street Journal


Like AVS Forum on Facebook
Follow AVS Forum on Twitter
+1 AVS Forum on Google+

Mark Henninger

Last edited by imagic; 02-27-2015 at 12:26 PM.
imagic is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 337 Old 02-26-2015, 06:45 PM
Senior Member
 
hotrodguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Woodland Hills, CA.
Posts: 208
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 133
I see it as a catch 22, damned if you do and dmaned if you don't. We don't like the overreach of the government and we still despise corporate greed. I don't think we'll know until the future where hindsight is 20/20.

hotrodguy is offline  
post #3 of 337 Old 02-26-2015, 06:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bargervais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tampa Bay Florida
Posts: 1,761
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 580 Post(s)
Liked: 194
So how does that change things not clear on what Net Neutrality is.

My main setup Onkyo TX-NR 1030 7.2.4 /Onkyo M-5010 Amplifier for top middle/ Samsung PN60E8000 / Directv genie / Panasonic 3D blu-ray Bic Acoustech speakers,MICCA M-8S FH/TM on wall / in ceiling speakers / 2 Bic F12 subs
10' X 15' DEN Onkyo TX-NR 737 5.2.2 Atmos / Acoustic Audio 151B Indoor/Outdoor Speakers top middle on Ceiling Speakers/ Samsung PN51F5500 / Directv Genie / Panasonic 3D blu-ray /
bargervais is online now  
post #4 of 337 Old 02-26-2015, 06:58 PM
Member
 
w1retap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 170
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotrodguy View Post
I see it as a catch 22, damned if you do and dmaned if you don't. We don't like the overreach of the government and we still despise corporate greed. I don't think we'll know until the future where hindsight is 20/20.
True, but the problem is most people don't see these large corporations have worked with government for decades and are basically an extension of government. There have been very few ISP's and telecoms who have not rolled over to warrantless spying. Now they'll be mandated to.
w1retap is online now  
post #5 of 337 Old 02-26-2015, 07:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
aaranddeeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lover's State
Posts: 1,654
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 270 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by bargervais View Post
So how does that change things not clear on what Net Neutrality is.
Yeah. Can somebody explain it in plain English..
aaranddeeman is online now  
post #6 of 337 Old 02-26-2015, 07:21 PM
Member
 
gworrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Detroit
Posts: 92
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 36
I am reminded of the H.L. Mencken quote: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard"

Nothing good will come from this.
Stereodude, qwho51, ozark and 5 others like this.
gworrel is offline  
post #7 of 337 Old 02-26-2015, 07:22 PM
Senior Member
 
rak306's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Syracuse NY
Posts: 319
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Liked: 33
So will this apply to future internet service by satelites, like google wants to do? If so, it may delay that project.
rak306 is offline  
post #8 of 337 Old 02-26-2015, 07:25 PM
Senior Member
 
csmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Charlotte,NC
Posts: 319
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 27
It's another "...You have to pass it to see what's in it...". The FCC chairman would not release the document for Americans to see what's in it before the vote. Just like Obamacare.... So, how do you know whether it's good or bad?

If they are not willing to show what's in the 3xx odd pages before voting (two members, one democrat and one republican, asked the chairman that it be release for comment for 30 days before voting), then there must be something in it that's controversial.
csmith is offline  
post #9 of 337 Old 02-26-2015, 07:33 PM
Senior Member
 
dormie1360's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 495
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotrodguy View Post
I see it as a catch 22, damned if you do and dmaned if you don't. We don't like the overreach of the government and we still despise corporate greed. I don't think we'll know until the future where hindsight is 20/20.
Having heard some of the arguments on both sides, on face value I tend to agree.

Didn't the government come up with "fair use" or whatever the correct term is? I can't say I'm happy with how that's turned out. Certainly is more complicated getting all my equipment working together. In the end, companies will probably get what they want one way or another anyway.
John Sully likes this.

Regards,
John

Last edited by dormie1360; 02-26-2015 at 07:40 PM.
dormie1360 is offline  
post #10 of 337 Old 02-26-2015, 07:37 PM
Advanced Member
 
HockeyoAJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 958
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 325 Post(s)
Liked: 325
What I don't get is how the FCC has the authority to reclassify something that was not previously under their control as a public utility, thereby giving them the authority to regulate it. That sounds a lot like a president issuing an "executive order" to declare himself king, thereby increasing the scope of his power. Shouldn't the decision to reclassify or not be determined by an elected legislative body, first (e.g. state legislatures where the traffic is intrastate, national legislatures where the traffic involves more than a single state, and by international treaty where the traffic involves more than one nation)? Only after the people's representatives have given authority over to a committy of appointed regulators should those regulators have the authority to regulate. Even then, their authority should be limited to the jurisdictions where that authority has been specifically granted.

If/when the FCC attempts to pass any regulation regarding Internet traffic, I expect that the affected parties will challenge the FCC's authority in a federal court.

Last edited by HockeyoAJB; 02-26-2015 at 08:16 PM.
HockeyoAJB is online now  
post #11 of 337 Old 02-26-2015, 07:38 PM
Senior Member
 
John Sully's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Bozeman, MT
Posts: 349
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotrodguy View Post
I see it as a catch 22, damned if you do and dmaned if you don't. We don't like the overreach of the government and we still despise corporate greed. I don't think we'll know until the future where hindsight is 20/20.
I don't see it as overreach at all. When my cable ISP limits the bandwidth from feeds proxy'ed through my satellite provider so that I end up with 1/60 of the bandwidth I'm paying for when I try and stream content provided by them, it is damn well time for the government to step in and say: treat all traffic equally. It is what I am paying for and I should get the 60Mbps I am paying for no matter what content I choose to access.

In essence, the ISP's are saying "nice business you've got there, be a shame if anything bad happened to it..." If that sort of behavior is allowed for content providers, what is to keep the ISP's from then requesting that you pay extra to get full bandwidth from Netflix? "Oh your're paying for 60Mbps aggregate but if you want 60Mbps from one provider, well that's gonna cost you extra". Since a majority of Americans only have the choice of one provider for true broadband what is to keep Comcast or any other ISP from taking such action? In theory I had two providers at my house, CenturyLink which was charging me for 12Mbps (their local max) and Charter which provides 60Mbps. Charter gives me 60Mbps, but CenturyLink could barely make 5Mbps. That is not competition.

Theory is a great place, everything works in theory.

Receiver: Denon AVR X3000
Blu-Ray: Sony BDP-N460/LaserDisc: Pioneer Elite CLD-59
Satellite: Dish Hopper w/Sling
Speakers: SVS Prime Tower/SVS Prime Center/SVS Prime Surround/Velodyne HGS-15

Last edited by John Sully; 02-26-2015 at 07:55 PM.
John Sully is offline  
post #12 of 337 Old 02-26-2015, 07:48 PM
Senior Member
 
dnoonie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Seattle, WA area
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 76
It won't be without it's co$t. You can't build out infrastructure for free so one way or another the price will be paid by the end user.

The way this is written seems to push those infrastructure costs to the ISP so expect the price of your internet connection to go up. On the flip side there should be better service and a better/more accurate description of what you get for your money. This should also make it easier/more fair for a bandwidth heavy business to get started.

Competition.
No new ISPs have magically appeared but this should help get them started.
FCC Gives Municipal Broadband Providers (and Internet Competition) a Boost
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/t...on-get-a-boost, also http://www.technologyreview.com/view...utrality-will/
"...preempts...restricted municipal governments from expanding their broadband services and competing with commercial Internet service providers..."
New government programs might help but they aren't the answer, I only have 2 options for wired internet in my area neither of which truly offer "broadband(by the new definition of =>25megabits/s)" internet. Comcast claims to but when evening speeds slow to dialup speed it's a broken service. "Originally when it arose in the 1990s cable internet was a scarce commodity classified as a "Information Services", a market that was not subject to common carrier restrictions. Most internet connections could potentially be regulated at the time as they were over phone lines -- telecommunications services." - See more at: http://www.dailytech.com/FCC+Bans+Da....3Rngz72P.dpuf


There are several wireless broadband providers that offer better speed than the wired providers but the data costs are very expensive. Right now wireless providers aren't "common carriers" yet. There still needs to be more completion. How long will it take for cellular data networks to be classified "common carriers".

Would the market have eventually sorted things out on it's own without regulation?
Yes but it might have taken 50 years and during that time period the end user would have experienced monopolistic type practices even though there are multiple providers available, the competition available isn't enough. Right now the competition seems to be who can offer the worst service for the most money and get away with it. Re-defining "broadband" is a start but providers need to assure that the end user can actually get that and they don't now. Net Neutrality should eventually help. It needs time to roll out. It needs time to evolve, ISPs will likely find loopholes that will need patched up...this isn't over yet. Five Loopholes That Could Undermine Net Neutrality, http://www.technologyreview.com/news...et-neutrality/

Cheers,

Last edited by dnoonie; 02-26-2015 at 07:55 PM.
dnoonie is offline  
post #13 of 337 Old 02-26-2015, 07:54 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,819
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 374 Post(s)
Liked: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyoAJB View Post
What I don't get is how the FCC has the authority to reclassify something that was not previously under their control as a public utility, thereby giving them the authority to regulate it. That sounds a lot like a president issuing an "executive action" to declare himself king, thereby increasing the scope of his power. Shouldn't the decision to reclassify or not be determined by an elected legislative body, first (e.g. state legislatures where the traffic is intrastate, national legislatures where the traffic involves more than a single state, and by international treaty where the traffic involves more than one nation)? Only after the people's representatives have given authority over to a committy of appointed regulators should those regulators have the authority to regulate. Even then, their authority should be limited to the jurisdictions where that authority has been specifically granted.

If/when the FCC attempts to pass any regulation regarding Internet traffic, I expect that the affected parties will challenge the FCC's authority in a federal court.
Agreed, and I think the 332 page document Obama and the FCC refused to release to the public before the vote is very telling (obviously). For those cheering this decision I will just say, "Be careful for what ask for." Expect eventually less bandwidth than what you pay for today, higher prices/taxes, and various forms of censorship in due time.

DavidHir is online now  
post #14 of 337 Old 02-26-2015, 08:00 PM
Member
 
Sparkygod1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Lakewood Colorado
Posts: 57
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 20
I seems to me, when ever the government steps in to help us, it always cost more down the road.

If it doesn't kill you...it hurts like hell.
Sparkygod1 is offline  
post #15 of 337 Old 02-26-2015, 08:06 PM
Senior Member
 
John Sully's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Bozeman, MT
Posts: 349
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by dnoonie View Post
It won't be without it's co$t. You can't build out infrastructure for free so one way or another the price will be paid by the end user.
Quite frankly, I've seen cable go from about 6Mbps to 60Mbps over the last decade or so with no changes to infrastructure other than changes to the head end and modems used. In my neighborhood Charter went from 30Mbps to 60Mbps by getting rid of analog signals and overnight, viola with no changes at all, except making sure that everyone had a digital box which Charter provided for free. What is going on is that ISP's are either throttling content -- slowing it down -- or refusing to provide adequate capacity at points where they are colocated with other transport networks which carry Netflix, Hulu or whatever. The second method is far worse because it also attacks (and that is the correct word for it) other content carried on the same transport network.

The phone companies, both cell and landline, managed to grow and prosper w/o being able to discriminate between traffic from different sources, and ISP's have done it up until now. In the US we pay the highest prices for the slowest service of any advanced country. Is there something wrong with this picture?

If you like streaming video from Netfilx, Amazon, Hulu, Vudu or whatever, you should be glad about this decision.

Theory is a great place, everything works in theory.

Receiver: Denon AVR X3000
Blu-Ray: Sony BDP-N460/LaserDisc: Pioneer Elite CLD-59
Satellite: Dish Hopper w/Sling
Speakers: SVS Prime Tower/SVS Prime Center/SVS Prime Surround/Velodyne HGS-15
John Sully is offline  
post #16 of 337 Old 02-26-2015, 08:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,241
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 305 Post(s)
Liked: 288
Only in America do poor people think corporations are Good and protect their free-dumb, and Gub mint reg-you-lations are Bad, and then vote against their own economic self-interest. Repeatedly.

The internet : a 100% taxpayer funded, government invention.

Corporations like Verizon are not your friends. They are not even people. They are greedy, reckless, malign, and anti-democratic. They are definitely not on the side of freedom, justice, decency, or patriotic in the slightest.

They are parasites, and should be treated with contempt. Especially ISPs like Comcast and Verizon. South Park, as usual, nailed it:

RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #17 of 337 Old 02-26-2015, 08:24 PM
Senior Member
 
John Sully's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Bozeman, MT
Posts: 349
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 103
^^^Yep, South Park nailed it.
justinjames and todd.brust like this.

Theory is a great place, everything works in theory.

Receiver: Denon AVR X3000
Blu-Ray: Sony BDP-N460/LaserDisc: Pioneer Elite CLD-59
Satellite: Dish Hopper w/Sling
Speakers: SVS Prime Tower/SVS Prime Center/SVS Prime Surround/Velodyne HGS-15
John Sully is offline  
post #18 of 337 Old 02-26-2015, 08:25 PM
Advanced Member
 
Soulburner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 728
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by csmith View Post
It's another "...You have to pass it to see what's in it...". The FCC chairman would not release the document for Americans to see what's in it before the vote. Just like Obamacare.... So, how do you know whether it's good or bad?
I don't know about these new FCC rules, but the ACA was fully downloadable for all to see. The claim that we "couldn't tell what was in it" is untrue.
BruceD, DS-21, justinjames and 1 others like this.
Soulburner is offline  
post #19 of 337 Old 02-26-2015, 08:36 PM
Senior Member
 
dnoonie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Seattle, WA area
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post

They are parasites, and should be treated with contempt. Especially ISPs like Comcast and Verizon. South Park, as usual, nailed it:
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has voted to ratify a strong new net neutrality framework, which would reclassify cable broadband internet service providers like Comcast Corp. (CMCSA), Time Warner Cable Inc. (TWC), and Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) as "common carriers" competing the "telecommunication services" market.
- See more at: http://www.dailytech.com/FCC+Bans+Da....HIbU2nIB.dpuf



Cheers,

oneeyeblind likes this.
dnoonie is offline  
post #20 of 337 Old 02-26-2015, 08:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tleavit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vancouver, Wa
Posts: 1,483
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 58
As an IT person for 20 years I'll throw in my words on this. ISP's today are monopolies in every sense of the word... period. They have been pushing this... backed by mega-millions in marketing donations (to Republicans of course) for some time. They basically want to exert their power over companies such as Netflix who use a lot of bandwidth. This is absolutely the best start to the "bullying" of companies such as NetFlix. This means that if Comcast gives you a 10/50 meg circuit that they can control and filter the content (such as AVS) and demand that AVS pay them money. If you as a consumer bought this circuit, you should be free to utilize it to its full extent without the ISP bullying the free market providing data information. This is a basic factual move to FREE the market.

AVS is a very large site, how would you like it if Comcast started threatening AVS to throttle its content if they didn't pay them... There you have it.

Well done FCC, now lets start breaking up some other corporate monopolies out there.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" -Arthur C. Clarke

Last edited by tleavit; 02-26-2015 at 08:51 PM.
tleavit is offline  
post #21 of 337 Old 02-26-2015, 08:51 PM
Senior Member
 
dnoonie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Seattle, WA area
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner View Post
I don't know about these new FCC rules, but the ACA was fully downloadable for all to see. The claim that we "couldn't tell what was in it" is untrue.
It looks like this is the proposed document from May 2014 when it was 200 pages, http://www.fcc.gov/document/protecti...-internet-nprm

Lot's of town hall meetings, more documents etc., http://www.fcc.gov/search/results/open%20internet

Cheers,
dnoonie is offline  
post #22 of 337 Old 02-26-2015, 08:52 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 663
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Hopefully we get some google fiber quality internet from now on with South Korean prices We've been getting royally ripped off for ISP's... if they aren't going to update the cables why are we paying 60 bucks a month (the cheapest) for 22 mbps? (so U verse says). I think the internet in South Korea is like 12 bucks a month and a lot faster!
John Sully and oneeyeblind like this.
Aras_Volodka is offline  
post #23 of 337 Old 02-26-2015, 08:53 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,819
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 374 Post(s)
Liked: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner View Post
I don't know about these new FCC rules, but the ACA was fully downloadable for all to see. The claim that we "couldn't tell what was in it" is untrue.

Semi-true. But we couldn't tell a lot of what would end up happening because it was written in such an "open ended" vague manner where it gave the HHS (thus, Obama administration) unprecedented power to create countless provisions, regulations, and waivers wherever they felt fit after the bill passed. It's over 10,000 pages long at this point. lol


Last edited by DavidHir; 02-26-2015 at 09:07 PM.
DavidHir is online now  
post #24 of 337 Old 02-26-2015, 08:58 PM
Advanced Member
 
HighEndWire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Central FL
Posts: 670
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 15
It's a bit of a catch 22. However, my cable provider now (only have high speed internet and did in the last place as well but a different provider) has no competition. Their service (or the lack thereof) has led to more time on my part spent straightening things out (from simple stuff like getting connected in the first place and simple billing issues) in a little over one year than I've had with all my providers (gas, electric, phone, internet) in my prior house over a 17 year period. The old provider had competition for about a third of the time I was there and their attitude changed dramatically after that (and their service was better). My current provider blocks things like ESPN3 which my old one did not. The companies will just use it as an excuse anyway to raise prices. With HBO's announcement about offerings via the web and possibly others to follow the pipeline companies will be hurting over time and it will cost more so that's part of what makes it a catch 22. I just have an antenna, high speed internet and Roku boxes along with Amazon prime and Netflix and between music and movies I own there is not tons of time left for me to take in a whole bunch of other stuff.
HighEndWire is offline  
post #25 of 337 Old 02-26-2015, 09:05 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,819
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 374 Post(s)
Liked: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post

The internet : a 100% taxpayer funded, government invention.

Yet, it was the private sector you hate so much that has been responsible for the internet's r/evolution of what we have today.
thehun, Five28, C-Dub006 and 3 others like this.

DavidHir is online now  
post #26 of 337 Old 02-26-2015, 09:05 PM
Member
 
34HFX83's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 183
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by bargervais View Post
So how does that change things not clear on what Net Neutrality is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaranddeeman View Post
Yeah. Can somebody explain it in plain English..
Pls give yourselves 7 minutes to fully grasp net neutrality victory and the consequences.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/26/81...-seven-minutes

50 inch Panasonic Viera G20
46 inch Panasonic Viera G10
50 inch Pioneer Elite 111FD
34HFX83 is offline  
post #27 of 337 Old 02-26-2015, 09:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tleavit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vancouver, Wa
Posts: 1,483
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post
Semi-true. But we couldn't tell a lot of what would end up happening because it was written in such an "open ended" vague manner where it gave the HSS (thus, Obama administration) unprecedented power to create countless provisions, regulations, and waivers wherever they felt fit after the bill passed. It's over 10,000 pages long at this point. lol
I can only surmise that this comment and others are derived from sources that are politically motivated backed by mega-millions in marketing donations to sway people. AKA, use people hate for "Obama" and attack it with the good old traditional "its vague, open ended and really long" (Cough... from the Obamacare attack book). Seriously people, you need to find better more "fair and balanced" media to get your information vs the ones that are literally in business to serve political (and mostly corporate) agendas. Just another example of how the death of real press and news in the modern erra is one of our most pressing social issues.
BruceD likes this.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" -Arthur C. Clarke
tleavit is offline  
post #28 of 337 Old 02-26-2015, 09:08 PM
Senior Member
 
John Sully's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Bozeman, MT
Posts: 349
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post
Yet, it was the private sector you hate so much that has been responsible for the internet's r/evolution of what we have today.
Content providers, not ISP's. If ISP's had their way, we would not have seen much of what we have today.
BruceD and justinjames like this.

Theory is a great place, everything works in theory.

Receiver: Denon AVR X3000
Blu-Ray: Sony BDP-N460/LaserDisc: Pioneer Elite CLD-59
Satellite: Dish Hopper w/Sling
Speakers: SVS Prime Tower/SVS Prime Center/SVS Prime Surround/Velodyne HGS-15
John Sully is offline  
post #29 of 337 Old 02-26-2015, 09:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Sacramento delta N. Cal. US Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 3,700
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 831 Post(s)
Liked: 451
Things done in secret behind closed doors by an opaque government bureaucracy or politburo seldom have a good outcome for the people and usually result in unfavorable intended and unintended consequence history has proven that time and again . OTOH the isp's all in all haven't exactly been benevolent stewards of the web either

Hopefully the web as we know it wont get balkanized like cable and sat TV but I'm not betting it won't to some extent or another as a consequence of "regulated marketing forces " here in the US in light of 1936 regulations being applied to the modern web and the USA relinquishing governance of the internet in general . Regulation incurs costs one way or another
OTOH the isp's have had free reign for too long also .
ChldsPlay and TeflonSoul like this.

"The wireless music box has no commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?"
- David Sarnoff's associates at RCA the 1920's -

Last edited by tubetwister; 02-26-2015 at 10:13 PM.
tubetwister is offline  
post #30 of 337 Old 02-26-2015, 09:14 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,819
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 374 Post(s)
Liked: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by tleavit View Post
I can only surmise that this comment and others are derived from sources that are politically motivated backed by mega-millions in marketing donations to sway people. AKA, use people hate for "Obama" and attack it with the good old traditional "its vague, open ended and really long" (Cough... from the Obamacare attack book). Seriously people, you need to find better more "fair and balanced" media to get your information vs the ones that are literally in business to serve political (and mostly corporate) agendas. Just another example of how the death of real press and news in the modern erra is one of our most pressing social issues.

Don't talk to me about this BS as I have seen my insurance rates skyrocket since this horrible legislation went into law and I know many others can say the same. Many have lost their plans too. Others have had to switch to plans where they can no longer see their doctor. I thought Obama promised this would not happen and we would save $2500 a year on premiums? lol I would suggest getting educated and informed while quit drinking the "Hope and Change" Kool-Aid with "LSNBC." If you knew any better, you would know the insurance and pharmaceutical companies all lined up for Obamacare. What have today is pure crony-capitalism. Today's press carries Obama's narrative, so I am not sure what you're unhappy about.

DavidHir is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Closed Thread Latest Industry News

Tags
fcc , frontpage , net neutrality



Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off