The death of Net Neautrality and the Raping of the American Consumer

[Karalysia]

WASHINGTON — U.S. communications regulators were poised to adopt Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would allow providers to ration access to their networks.

Federal Communications Commission members Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn issued statements on Monday saying they would support the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this month despite some misgivings.

The rules would ban high-speed Internet providers like Comcast Corp and Verizon Communications from blocking lawful traffic, while recognizing the need to manage network congestion and perhaps charge based on Internet usage.

(Msnbc.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC Universal, which is in negotiations to be acquired by Comcast.)

The rules, to be somewhat looser for wireless Internet, could help cable companies in competition with plans by Microsoft Corp, Google Inc and Amazon.com to deliver competing video content over the same Internet lines the cable companies run to customers' homes.

Charging consumers more for data-intensive tasks like downloading videos could tip the economics of Internet-delivered television back toward cable. The FCC said it would monitor usage-based pricing for abuses.

"Without regulation, rates could go up and up and up and emerging providers like Netflix and Hulu could have problems attracting users," said Daniel Ernst, an analyst at Hudson Square Research.

Level 3 Communications, a company that helps Netflix Inc stream videos online, has already accused Comcast of charging it unfair fees to deliver content to Comcast subscribers.

The FCC's ability to regulate the Internet has been in doubt since an appeals court in April said the agency lacked the authority to stop Comcast from blocking bandwidth-hogging applications.

Court challenges are also expected over this latest rule-making effort, although senior FCC officials have said they will invoke new legal arguments not employed in the Comcast case.

Public interest groups were skeptical of the protections for consumers under the traffic rules.

"These rules appear to be flush with giant loopholes," said Craig Aaron, managing director of Free Press, who accused Genachowski of favoring the endorsement of industry over the public interest.
Story: FCC plan may stunt Internet TV services

Qualified backing
Copps had wanted the FCC to reclassify Internet traffic under tougher rules applying to telephone service, while Clyburn has said she is uneasy about giving wireless Internet providers more freedom to manage their networks than wireline services.

"While I cannot vote wholeheartedly to approve the item, I will not block it by voting against it," Copps said in a statement on Monday.

Clyburn said in a separate statement that the rules, "while not as strong as they could be, will nonetheless protect consumers as they explore, learn, and innovate online."

Support from Copps and Clyburn would give Genachowski the votes he needs to overcome expected opposition from the agency's two Republicans.

Senior FCC officials said the "open" Internet order, to be considered Tuesday at a public FCC meeting, will give both landline and mobile broadband services the flexibility to "reasonably" manage their networks.

They told a briefing for reporters that the order would institute a no-blocking policy for landline Internet providers that covers all lawful content, applications, services and devices, the senior officials said.

Landline services would also be prohibited from discriminating against bandwidth-heavy content. Senior FCC officials said this provision would help prevent paid prioritization of content, where Internet providers charge websites more to reach users quickly.

The rule for wireless carriers, reflecting limited bandwidth and a more recent technology, only bans the blocking of access to websites, or competing voice and video applications.

Grab the lube boys. Government and big business have colluded to screw you over.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40756299/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

 

[Patroklos]

In this case the big business interests are the ones trying to prevent you from being screwed over. Google and Amazon dwarf the likes of Comcast.

 

[civ_king]

Meh, the original plan called for building an intranet to safeguard the DoD/MIL and Scada while throwing the Internet to the dogs, you should praise God for His infinite mercy and preventing far worse things

 

[civver_764]

Does it piss anyone else off that the people who allowed this are all old men and probably don't even know how to use the internet?

 

[StittsvilleJame]

I don't think this 'internet' thing will ever catch on.

 

[FriendlyFire]

In this case the big business interests are the ones trying to prevent you from being screwed over. Google and Amazon dwarf the likes of Comcast.

What to access "Google" which was for free ? sorry we can now charge you for that.
WoW? oh you already pay a subscription fee and an ISP fee but we can now charge you for that too.

 

[bhsup]

Thank you for marginalizing rape.

 

[amadeus]

What to access "Google" which was for free ? sorry we can now charge you for that.
WoW? oh you already pay a subscription fee and an ISP fee but we can now charge you for that too.

Why would anyone pay it when you get it for free? Expect mass abandonment of internet companies that even thought about trying that.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Does it piss anyone else off that the people who allowed this are all old men and probably don't even know how to use the internet?

Yes. And the crazy fear of the internet.

 

[Azale]

Thank you for marginalizing rape.

Spoil or destroy (a place)
the timber industry is raping the land

The wanton destruction or spoiling of a place or area
the rape of the Russian countryside


And I am unsure exactly what all of this means. It is kinda hard to separate the fear mongering from the legitimate concerns.

 

[GamezRule]

This scam should be outlawed.

 

[Quackers]

Everybody knows the American consumer loves it.

 

[GoodGame]

Thank you for marginalizing rape.

:LOL:

Yeah it's actually more like censorship, or maybe monopolization, than body cavity invasion.

But basically what could happen is the way internet was when it was all dial-up. The major dial-up providers also get tasked with providing the content of the internet. I hope Comcast wants to be like the old AOL. Kind of funny, since those ISPs probably rose up because people were tired of the old model of like AOL and Compuserve. It might turn up that inflating the cost of the internet killed the golden goose.

Amazon could probably just start a dial-up call center though. They're in place now, they'd just need to adapt to a hostile condition. Either start a competing ISP, or some other means to reach their customers.

 

[Samson]

I do not really get what is wrong with this, but I do not know much about it. I would have thought there is enough competition in the ISP market for the people who just want the internet to deal with "big business", or are willing to wait for the throttled content to get the internet from a company that is payed by "big business", and so get a subsidy on there connection as "big business" is paying some. Others who are willing to pay a bit more for neutral access can go with different companies.

 

[GoodGame]

I do not really get what is wrong with this, but I do not know much about it. I would have thought there is enough competition in the ISP market for the people who just want the internet to deal with "big business", or are willing to wait for the throttled content to get the internet from a company that is payed by "big business", and so get a subsidy on there connection as "big business" is paying some. Others who are willing to pay a bit more for neutral access can go with different companies.

At this point there's really nothing wrong. It's the government saying they'll look the other way if an ISP charges more for internet, as long as it's based on the rationale that some users put a higher stress demand on the internet. The question is, does categories of internet usuage really stress the system, or is this just BS to charge more money for use? And also is the ISP just charging for use of property it owns (its cables) versus using other people's hubs. If it's BS then you might want to exercise your right as a voting citizen to fight it.

In a way a user might get charged by everyone that they route a download through.

 

[danjuno]

Edit: Nevermind, I think GoodGame explained it.

 

[Leonel]

In this case the big business interests are the ones trying to prevent you from being screwed over. Google and Amazon dwarf the likes of Comcast.

When has a telecom company ever NOT screwed their customers for all their worth?

I thought so.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I read somewhere that I think it was AOL, the people you call to de-subscribe from that used to have a quota of people they convince not to de-subscribe. So sometimes to reach it they actually would tell you that you were de-subscribed when you were not. Does someone have that article?

 

[stormerne]

Does it piss anyone else off that the people who allowed this are all old men and probably don't even know how to use the internet?

Not at all. I'm an old man and probably know how to use the internet.

 

[Holycannoli]

At this point there's really nothing wrong. It's the government saying they'll look the other way if an ISP charges more for internet, as long as it's based on the rationale that some users put a higher stress demand on the internet. The question is, does categories of internet usuage really stress the system, or is this just BS to charge more money for use?

People who watch videos and play games will be said to put the most stress on the internet, and will have to pay more. Doesn't matter if it's true, it's a money-grab. We will soon see "premium" ISP options for people who want to play games or stream video content or basically do anything other than occasionally shop Amazon.com.