FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear the complaints from everyone in that article is about having to report performance metrics and responding to customer complaints.
The performance reporting requirement was removed for ISPs with less than 250,000 customers (even though temporarily).
The responding to customers complaints is a part of the job. So I don't see how this is at all something to be pissy about.
The example provided in the article about a wireless provider who was servicing a customer, had trees grow in the path to the customer and he literally couldn't provide service.
Drop the customer at that point.
Problem solved. . .
To be compliant we hired a law firm that popped up to specialize in this for our size group. We were in Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky, and we were already a CLEC for many years before. These new $600/hour lawyers and their filings racked up well over $120k in my final year there.
I used the Verge article in an effort to provide some unbiased reporting on what I am talking about. It makes an argument from both sides that I think is fair.
We never had a SINGLE complaint. The complaint system could easily be in place without all the reporting (data that is going where, who knows).
I would prefer a more light touch approach that reacts to abuses, not a slow moving utility bureaucracy that costs a fortune to maintain and gives the president the power to take down websites. The fact that no one is up in arms about the latter is kind of ironic.
So again, always have liked to idea of Net Neutrality. Feel like its being over simplified when its a very complex issue.
I watch this 30 min video and pretty much agree with every word Pai says.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I would prefer a more light touch approach that reacts to abuses, not a slow moving utility bureaucracy that costs a fortune to maintain and gives the president the power to take down websites. The fact that no one is up in arms about the latter is kind of ironic.
How does the president have the ability to take a website down through NN? A website, not an ISP.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I would prefer a more light touch approach that reacts to abuses, not a slow moving utility bureaucracy that costs a fortune to maintain and gives the president the power to take down websites. The fact that no one is up in arms about the latter is kind of ironic.
How does the president have the ability to take a website down through NN? A website, not an ISP.
Pg 1446. The President uses the "whole-of-government" to suppress information. Thanks to Net Neutrality's Title II, they can order all ISPs to take down hostile information and any websites that distribute it. If the ISP refuses, their Title II Broadcasting License is legally revoked, they can no longer do business, they go bankrupt, and the government buys out their infrastructure. The government can integrate into the ISPs to censor anything, anywhere, at anytime. The ISPs are forced to obey.
Also checkout this read...https://techliberation.com/2017/07/12/heres-why-the-obama-fcc-internet-regulations-dont-protect-net-neutrality/
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I would prefer a more light touch approach that reacts to abuses, not a slow moving utility bureaucracy that costs a fortune to maintain and gives the president the power to take down websites. The fact that no one is up in arms about the latter is kind of ironic.
How does the president have the ability to take a website down through NN? A website, not an ISP.
Pg 1446. The President uses the "whole-of-government" to suppress information. Thanks to Net Neutrality's Title II, they can order all ISPs to take down hostile information and any websites that distribute it. If the ISP refuses, their Title II Broadcasting License is legally revoked, they can no longer do business, they go bankrupt, and the government buys out their infrastructure. The government can integrate into the ISPs to censor anything, anywhere, at anytime. The ISPs are forced to obey.
Also checkout this read...https://techliberation.com/2017/07/12/heres-why-the-obama-fcc-internet-regulations-dont-protect-net-neutrality/
That's not a NN thing - that's a Title II thing, and possible a broken thing at that. But clearly we don't see that happening much if at all - becuase look at all the anti-trump stuff out there, and it's still online.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I would prefer a more light touch approach that reacts to abuses, not a slow moving utility bureaucracy that costs a fortune to maintain and gives the president the power to take down websites. The fact that no one is up in arms about the latter is kind of ironic.
How does the president have the ability to take a website down through NN? A website, not an ISP.
Pg 1446. The President uses the "whole-of-government" to suppress information. Thanks to Net Neutrality's Title II, they can order all ISPs to take down hostile information and any websites that distribute it. If the ISP refuses, their Title II Broadcasting License is legally revoked, they can no longer do business, they go bankrupt, and the government buys out their infrastructure. The government can integrate into the ISPs to censor anything, anywhere, at anytime. The ISPs are forced to obey.
Also checkout this read...https://techliberation.com/2017/07/12/heres-why-the-obama-fcc-internet-regulations-dont-protect-net-neutrality/
That's not a NN thing - that's a Title II thing, and possible a broken thing at that. But clearly we don't see that happening much if at all - becuase look at all the anti-trump stuff out there, and it's still online.
I hate that this law is called Net Neutrality, those who oppose its current form are made to look like they oppose NN.
So here you do not mind the president having unfettered power to shut down websites. The NN law made this possible by declaring the Internet a Title ii utility. You are relying on public outcry?
Well ironically I agree. And the proposed benefits of Net Neutrality are not real and current issues, and are ones that would be prevented by the same public outcry.
There is no service to the internets end users to call up the PUC and say "hey my p2p is getting blocked". Its current form was just a big power grab. https://techliberation.com/2017/07/12/heres-why-the-obama-fcc-internet-regulations-dont-protect-net-neutrality/
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I hate that this law is called Net Neutrality, those who oppose its current form are made to look like they oppose NN.
This is no different than the Patriot Act - one of the most unpatriotic things ever passed.
-
-
These comments explain it all to well.
-
I can't follow this many posts.
Could you break it down into four easy categories?
- Pros / Cons of having NN.
- Pros / Cons of no NN.
I like many others just hear about the big stuff (aka the outcries of media/public) and don't know much what it's all REALLY about.
I know it may be a lot to ask of you, but I think it would really help me an many others.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
So here you do not mind the president having unfettered power to shut down websites. The NN law made this possible by declaring the Internet a Title ii utility. You are relying on public outcry?
I never said that - what I said was
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
That's not a NN thing - that's a Title II thing, and possible a broken thing at that.
Meaning that it's likely that the ability of the government to shutdown what what it doesn't like through Title II powers is likely a bad thing/a broken thing.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
There is no service to the internets end users to call up the PUC and say "hey my p2p is getting blocked".
Wait a min - I thought it was stated that there were tons of complaints being lodged. So where their complaints or weren't there? If there were - what's the issue? Now, assuming there were complaints, if the FCC wasn't doing anything about them as was required - well that's corruption again.. and we can't talk about that, it's its own thing. And just because the government isn't following the laws they enacted, doesn't mean we don't need the laws - it means we the people need to hold them more accountable.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
just because the government isn't following the laws they enacted, doesn't mean we don't need the laws
It's fuzzy. What is the point of something that serves no purpose other than just existing?
Only in response to your post, not NN in general.
-
@wirestyle22 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
just because the government isn't following the laws they enacted, doesn't mean we don't need the laws
It's fuzzy. What is the point of something that serves no purpose other than just existing?
You've missed my point - it's not that it exists only to exist - there is corruption. We (the people) need to demand and fix the corruption.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@wirestyle22 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
just because the government isn't following the laws they enacted, doesn't mean we don't need the laws
It's fuzzy. What is the point of something that serves no purpose other than just existing?
You've missed my point - it's not that it exists only to exist - there is corruption. We (the people) need to demand and fix the corruption.
This I agree exists on both sides of the argument. If someone's pockets wasnt getting lined no action would be taken on either side.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@wirestyle22 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
just because the government isn't following the laws they enacted, doesn't mean we don't need the laws
It's fuzzy. What is the point of something that serves no purpose other than just existing?
You've missed my point - it's not that it exists only to exist - there is corruption. We (the people) need to demand and fix the corruption.
What power do we even hold when they can overturn something 83% of the population wholeheartedly supports though. Seems insane.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
There is no service to the internets end users to call up the PUC and say "hey my p2p is getting blocked".
Wait a min - I thought it was stated that there were tons of complaints being lodged. So where their complaints or weren't there? If there were - what's the issue? Now, assuming there were complaints, if the FCC wasn't doing anything about them as was required - well that's corruption again.. and we can't talk about that, it's its own thing. And just because the government isn't following the laws they enacted, doesn't mean we don't need the laws - it means we the people need to hold them more accountable.
If you read article I posted a couple times above you will find that there are many loopholes around this. There are zero cases where someone has successfully stopped abuses using NN, in fact it enables specific abuses. They had to account for internet providers (Family Connect) who provide filtering services for religious reason, resulting in unintended consequences.
Back to 2005 these kinds of laws were proposed with the then FCC staff warning that it would not lead to any meaningful protections, and it is definitely a huge tax on small ISP's.
I think if you watch Pai's video you will see that he has been involved with this for over a decade and has a very sound point of view.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
if the FCC wasn't doing anything about them as was required - well that's corruption again..
Its unfortunate that Pai didnt become chair before this political climate arrived. All of this opposition is by people who have no clue what dealing with the FCC is like. They will soon find that everything the FCC does is never clear law and the reason telecom lawyers are so expensive. It doesnt even matter what the regulation says, it only matters what you can win in court.
Pai sees that these regs wont actually work, and has good ideas about how to make things work. People are shooting him first, asking questions later.
I find it hard to believe that anyone outside of the ISP world has been closely following all of this for years out of personal interest. Where was the outrage in 2010, 2005? It was a very calm debate without a clear answer.
-
@wirestyle22 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@wirestyle22 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
just because the government isn't following the laws they enacted, doesn't mean we don't need the laws
It's fuzzy. What is the point of something that serves no purpose other than just existing?
You've missed my point - it's not that it exists only to exist - there is corruption. We (the people) need to demand and fix the corruption.
What power do we even hold when they can overturn something 83% of the population wholeheartedly supports though. Seems insane.
Well, luckily we don't live by the popular vote, the country would be in total caos... Our elected leaders need to follow what we want, or we don't re elect them.
Sadly, the public cares so little that they don't vote this way in reality.
-
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
If you read article I posted a couple times above
haven't had time yet.
