Federal court strikes down FCC net neutrality rules

[Backstep]

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has vacated much of the FCC's Open Internet order and remanded it back to the FCC.

"[A]lthough we reject Verizon’schallenge to the Open Internet Order’s disclosure rules, we vacate both the anti-discrimination and the anti-blocking rules. The agency’s decision is so deficient as to raise serious doubts whether the agency can adequately justify its decision at all," said the court. "We remand the case to the Commission for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

http://www.multichannel.com/fcc/court-vacates-most-fcc-open-internet-order/147676

Does this opens the door for throttling and blocking of web sites if the content provides do not pay for their bandwidth to ISP's?

 

[Overmind One]

I am not clear on what any of that means. Can anyone clarify?

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

[Backstep]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jwherrman/welcome-to-the-net-neutrality-nightmare-scenario

 

[Overmind One]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jwherrman/welcome-to-the-net-neutrality-nightmare-scenario

They will always be building corrals and walled gardens for the masses, and most will simply follow the path of least resistance. To me, having cable is part of that since the illusion of choice is so well played. You have no choice, except the "choices" on my channel list. Also, when you "choose", you have to watch it on my schedule unless you "choose" to also rent my magic TV box which will allow you to record it and watch when you want (as long as you also record my commercials). Its laughable to me. Cable watchers are already receiving 100% "sponsored content" as it is referred to in that article. See, the internet is not a "thing" that can be caged or targeted. Nobody is "in charge" of it.

Ill tell you what, using open source operating systems like Linux, you can create wireless ad-hoc networks which are COMPLETELY independent of the internet. Imagine, a little place called Tech Town which has no cable infrastructure or internet. All the resources available to Tech Town live on the individual computers of the residents. But in Tech Town, everybody belongs to a wireless LAN and they share resources. They can cluster their extra storage space (or dedicate some) and store movies, music, information, whatever...on that network. Then using a FREE open-source search engine like YaCy or Datapark, each user can search all the resources indexed on these computers and you have replicated the function and operation of the internet. Off-the-shelf components and appliances can easily run a small city. Need a special browser? Build your own with Mozilla Chromeless: http://www.pcworld.com/article/208561/build_a_custom_browser_with_mozilla_chromeless.html

The Feds are politicians. The corporations are businesses. But neither of them are responsible for building the internet, the technology which runs it, or the expansion of it into the future. Geeks will NEVER allow fascist control of the internet. Haven't they proven that time and time again?

 

[shavedape]

http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/14/5307650/federal-court-strikes-down-net-neutrality-rules

A federal appeals court has struck down important segments of the FCC's Open Internet rules, determining that the agency doesn't have the power to require internet service providers to treat all traffic equally. The DC circuit court has ruled on Verizon v. FCC, a challenge to the net neutrality rules put in place in 2010, vacating the FCC's anti-discrimination and anti-blocking policies, though it preserved disclosure requirements that Verizon opposed — in other words, carriers can make some traffic run faster or block other services, but they have to tell subscribers.

The problem isn't that the court opposed the FCC's goals, it's that unlike older telecommunications providers, ISPs aren't classified as "common carriers" that must pass information through their networks without preference. By enforcing net neutrality, the court found, the agency was imposing rules that didn't apply to carriers. It's an issue that net neutrality supporters have been worried about for years: "The FCC — under the leadership of former Chairman Julius Genachowski — made a grave mistake when it failed to ground its Open Internet rules on solid legal footing," says Free Press president Craig Aaron. "Internet users will pay dearly for the previous chairman's lack of political will."

*more at link

 

[Backstep]

They will always be building corrals and walled gardens for the masses, and most will simply follow the path of least resistance. To me, having cable is part of that since the illusion of choice is so well played. You have no choice, except the "choices" on my channel list. Also, when you "choose", you have to watch it on my schedule unless you "choose" to also rent my magic TV box which will allow you to record it and watch when you want (as long as you also record my commercials). Its laughable to me. Cable watchers are already receiving 100% "sponsored content" as it is referred to in that article. See, the internet is not a "thing" that can be caged or targeted. Nobody is "in charge" of it.

Ill tell you what, using open source operating systems like Linux, you can create wireless ad-hoc networks which are COMPLETELY independent of the internet. Imagine, a little place called Tech Town which has no cable infrastructure or internet. All the resources available to Tech Town live on the individual computers of the residents. But in Tech Town, everybody belongs to a wireless LAN and they share resources. They can cluster their extra storage space (or dedicate some) and store movies, music, information, whatever...on that network. Then using a FREE open-source search engine like YaCy or Datapark, each user can search all the resources indexed on these computers and you have replicated the function and operation of the internet. Off-the-shelf components and appliances can easily run a small city. Need a special browser? Build your own with Mozilla Chromeless: http://www.pcworld.com/article/208561/build_a_custom_browser_with_mozilla_chromeless.html

The Feds are politicians. The corporations are businesses. But neither of them are responsible for building the internet, the technology which runs it, or the expansion of it into the future. Geeks will NEVER allow fascist control of the internet. Haven't they proven that time and time again?

And when your ISP blocks the road or puts up a toll gate on the super highway to tech town, then what? Pay the extra hundred a month for a easy pass for the net version of HOV lane? If your ISP has a fender bender on the super highway, you're stuck in the traffic jam crawling at 150kbps even if you have a 30mbps connection. If this stays and is not over ruled you have a path past the gatekeeper?

How will "Geeks" stop the Uber-Greed of corporations?

 

[Overmind One]

And when your ISP blocks the road or puts up a toll gate on the super highway to tech town, then what? Pay the extra hundred a month for a easy pass for the net version of HOV lane? If your ISP has a fender bender on the super highway, you're stuck in the traffic jam crawling at 150kbps even if you have a 30mbps connection. If this stays and is not over ruled you have a path past the gatekeeper?

How will "Geeks" stop the Uber-Greed of corporations?

The ISPs which serve businesses are never throttled. In fact, many businesses have multiple T-Class lines or optical pipelines which are thousands of times more robust than anything you can get from any mainstream ISP. The ISP is not needed at all...that is my point on that response. The internet is no different from the computer network at an office or even in your home (at its core). Layers of security like Active Directory or local security like simple file and folder permissions protect the resources. You do not need an IS to transmit wireless to another computer (or several computers). With routers and subnets and repeaters, you could create a completely independent network (a private road if you will). There are many smaller ISPs which will take over where the big ones fail. They do not have a cartel, you know.

If you want to see what happens when the government tries to control the internet, take a look at China and Saudi Arabia.

 

[YJ02]

Would it be possible for, say, a group of providers of streaming content creating their own ISP service? Say-netflix, amazon and some others get together and build a new streaming entertainment focused ISP. Cut out the delivery man so to say.

 

[shavedape]

And when your ISP blocks the road or puts up a toll gate on the super highway to tech town, then what? Pay the extra hundred a month for a easy pass for the net version of HOV lane? If your ISP has a fender bender on the super highway, you're stuck in the traffic jam crawling at 150kbps even if you have a 30mbps connection. If this stays and is not over ruled you have a path past the gatekeeper?

How will "Geeks" stop the Uber-Greed of corporations?

Would it be possible for, say, a group of providers of streaming content creating their own ISP service? Say-netflix, amazon and some others get together and build a new streaming entertainment focused ISP. Cut out the delivery man so to say.

That's the problem here -- broadband ISP's operate via "cable TV" companies. There is (primarily) only one company for us to get broadband access thru. For instance, my area is covered by Time Warner. If I want high speed broadband I can only get that thru Time Warner.

Sure I have a couple other internet options, like this shitty Verizon Mifi that I'm using right now, but I can't stream content using this (data usage is controlled, imagine that). So basically what I'm saying is, as much as I hate hate hate government intervention into the economy and business, this seems to be a legitimate case for them to watch over and regulate. If there was genuine competition for broadband service then there would be no need, but since most people are, like me, restricted to just one cable provider then the governing monopoly needs to be controlled lest they screw the ever livin' poop out of us lowly customers.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Here you go ape:
http://broadbandguide.com.au/sydney

Just bear in mind that our cable is usually twice as expensive as yours for similar sevices when you look at prices.

 

[YJ02]

That's the problem here -- broadband ISP's operate via "cable TV" companies. There is (primarily) only one company for us to get broadband access thru. For instance, my area is covered by Time Warner. If I want high speed broadband I can only get that thru Time Warner.

Sure I have a couple other internet options, like this shitty Verizon Mifi that I'm using right now, but I can't stream content using this (data usage is controlled, imagine that). So basically what I'm saying is, as much as I hate hate hate government intervention into the economy and business, this seems to be a legitimate case for them to watch over and regulate. If there was genuine competition for broadband service then there would be no need, but since most people are, like me, restricted to just one cable provider then the governing monopoly needs to be controlled lest they screw the ever livin' poop out of us lowly customers.

I don't know the specifics any more, but a long time ago I read about the Clinton era "rural connectivity legislation (which covered a lot of other programs also)". its goal, at the time, was to ensure that all rural areas over a certain pop. size had access to at least dial up (now BB). I believe that the law did limit the carrier to one-the lowest bidder probably- as it is a semi-government contract since the feds are paying for part of the program-I wonder if satellite internet is any faster?

incidentally-this is the same program that had, as a "rider" or something, the free cell phone service-and free internet connections- for those who meet guidelines for income req's. These are the so called "Obama phones" the SAFELINK program that is actually a "Clinton phone" if anything.

 

[Bluce Ree]

Would it be possible for, say, a group of providers of streaming content creating their own ISP service? Say-netflix, amazon and some others get together and build a new streaming entertainment focused ISP. Cut out the delivery man so to say.

Netflix would have to lay down or acquire fiber covering the entire USA. The most efficient way to do that would be to acquire all the major carriers, which is ridiculous. Along with that comes the cost to maintain all this infrastructure.

ISP service has a physical element, the line between their network and the customer, which is either copper or fiber. You browse the internet through your service provider's peering agreements, which connects their network with other networks. This is where the term "web" was coined. All these service provides connect to each other and create a web, or cloud, through which all data points can communicate with each other. International carriers like Verizon, AT&T, etc have peering over their fiber laid across the ocean to other countries where they peer and those carriers overseas with others and so on.

Ergo, the web.

If Netflix would lay out fiber just to connect to you so you can watch their movies, they essentially become a cable provider, not an ISP, since they're not providing any internet services, just a means for you to stream their movies.

The cost is prohibitive and the business model makes no sense.

 

[shavedape]

I've heard that satellite internet runs slow and is very expensive, but I admit I haven't met anyone who uses it so I don't know first hand. It would be interesting if they could increase the "wifi/satellite" infrastructure to give people a better choice of ISP's. Granted, this would probably devolve into what we have with satellite tv vs. cable tv in that the pricing structure really isn't that different (and the customer service will suck just as much regardless of who is the provider).

 

[YJ02]

Netflix would have to lay down or acquire fiber covering the entire USA. The most efficient way to do that would be to acquire all the major carriers, which is ridiculous. Along with that comes the cost to maintain all this infrastructure.

ISP service has a physical element, the line between their network and the customer, which is either copper or fiber. You browse the internet through your service provider's peering agreements, which connects their network with other networks. This is where the term "web" was coined. All these service provides connect to each other and create a web, or cloud, through which all data points can communicate with each other. International carriers like Verizon, AT&T, etc have peering over their fiber laid across the ocean to other countries where they peer and those carriers overseas with others and so on.

Ergo, the web.

If Netflix would lay out fiber just to connect to you so you can watch their movies, they essentially become a cable provider, not an ISP, since they're not providing any internet services, just a means for you to stream their movies.

The cost is prohibitive and the business model makes no sense.

I guess I used the wrong terms..

I can select to use either IE or CHROME or firefox, etc. as a browser

So I suppose I should have said "could they have their own browser service" is that more accurate?
--- merged: Jan 19, 2014 at 9:40 PM ---

Netflix would have to lay down or acquire fiber covering the entire USA. The most efficient way to do that would be to acquire all the major carriers, which is ridiculous. Along with that comes the cost to maintain all this infrastructure.

ISP service has a physical element, the line between their network and the customer, which is either copper or fiber. You browse the internet through your service provider's peering agreements, which connects their network with other networks. This is where the term "web" was coined. All these service provides connect to each other and create a web, or cloud, through which all data points can communicate with each other. International carriers like Verizon, AT&T, etc have peering over their fiber laid across the ocean to other countries where they peer and those carriers overseas with others and so on.

Ergo, the web.

If Netflix would lay out fiber just to connect to you so you can watch their movies, they essentially become a cable provider, not an ISP, since they're not providing any internet services, just a means for you to stream their movies.

The cost is prohibitive and the business model makes no sense.

I guess I used the wrong terms..

I can select to use either IE or CHROME or firefox, etc. as a browser

So I suppose I should have said "could they have their own browser service" is that more accurate?

 

[Bluce Ree]

I guess I used the wrong terms..

I can select to use either IE or CHROME or firefox, etc. as a browser

So I suppose I should have said "could they have their own browser service" is that more accurate?

What would having a special browser do? You're still streaming through your ISP across the internet to Netflix.



Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[Bluce Ree]

I've heard that satellite internet runs slow and is very expensive, but I admit I haven't met anyone who uses it so I don't know first hand. It would be interesting if they could increase the "wifi/satellite" infrastructure to give people a better choice of ISP's. Granted, this would probably devolve into what we have with satellite tv vs. cable tv in that the pricing structure really isn't that different (and the customer service will suck just as much regardless of who is the provider).

The problem with satellite internet is latency due to the distance and method of communication. Latency through a sat connection is over 600ms one-way.

Latency over fiber between your PC and a site in China is between 180ms to 250ms depending on the path the packets take.

Latency from NY to LA is around 50ms-60ms to give you an idea.


Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[Gatefan1976]

OM & BR

Drop some of the "arcarna" in your responses, we will understand you far better if you do.
I "get" what you are saying for me, (to an extent), but to convey this stuff in a viable way to us non tech monkeys, you need to drop your shorthand stuff, or produce a lexicon of your abbreviated terms.

 

[shavedape]

It probably wouldn't hurt if you took your pants off either.

 

[Gatefan1976]

What made you think I was wearing pants to begin with??

 

[Overmind One]

OM & BR

Drop some of the "arcarna" in your responses, we will understand you far better if you do.
I "get" what you are saying for me, (to an extent), but to convey this stuff in a viable way to us non tech monkeys, you need to drop your shorthand stuff, or produce a lexicon of your abbreviated terms.

What exactly? You have to point out where you dont understand something. I dont know how much a reader already knows.