News FCC Formally Proposes Net Neutrality Rules

if you call up the cable company and ask them if they sell an internet service that is totally unfiltered and unblocked and whatever, and they say they do, and you buy but they give you something else, that is fraud. fraud is regulated. they are violating the contract between you and them.

(i dont want my network neutral, i want mine optimized and prioritized)

if you are too dumb to tell you are being blocked or whatever, then it must not be a huge problem, and the good news is that some other geek out there with skills is gonna figure it out and do the legwork for you.

 

You are aware that not everyone lives in New York where the option actually exists to simply buy from another provider, right? I much of the country, it's a monopoly or duopoly and that kind of competitiveness simply doesn't exist.

I trust the ISPs to do what's in their best interest, not mine. I'm simply following their lead by choosing what's best for me. I just don't have $500,000 to throw at Congressmen and Senators to make sure it happens.

 

if you live in the sticks, and a cable or phone company invests money in sending network infrastructure out your way, you really shouldnt be trying to force your will on them. you should be happy they even bothered. you shouldnt always be using the govenrment to push around the other guy in your transactions.

in fact forcing your rules on them is a good way to keep them from bothering to offer services in some places.

 

One more time...there is no rule prohibiting ISP's from "optimizing and prioritizing".

NO. They can still block and filter whatever illegal content they want. They just have to tell people about it now.

 

you call it "filtering". same thing.

if all you wanted was the isp to tell you if they do these things, you could have just asked.

also you are not arguing in favor of network neutrality. you are are arguing in favor of honesty about the lack of network neutrality.

 

your article does not agree with you.

"broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications"

 

Like I said, they are still free to manage the network they way they have been. The ONLY 2 things that have changed is:

1) They can't filter/block/shut down/turn off/prohibit/whatever LEGAL content they want just because it takes up a bunch of bandwidth. This does NOT cause network performance issues within the autonomous system. Any performance issue that MAY happen would be on the local infrastructure (read your neighborhood) but only if everyone on your block was downloading torrents at the same time. The provider is free to offer tiered/limited internet packages if they think anyone would use it.

2) If they do block something, they have to let their customers know about it.

Because that is a historically reliable way of getting information.

No, I am arguing that your reasons for hating net neutrality are invalid and will not cause the internet to collapse on itself. If you read the first sentence of my original post or any other thread I have ever posted in in FSA, you know I don't like the government being involved where they don't need to be. I don't like them making rules about the internet period but if they are going to do something, I'd prefer it be something insignificant like this than regulating it like a bank.

That are legal. They can discriminate against illegal content all day long. I don't trust anyone, especially not ISP's. If I'm not downloading anything illegal, then why should I have to jump through hoops to figure out why something completely harmless is being blocked?

 

of course they would use the tiered plans. this is invitation to offer one unlimited/unfiltered/happy/open/free service for a price that nobody will pay, and a filtered plan for less that everyone has, changing nothing.

as discussed in the other thread, i do download illegal things all the time. everyone should.

i want all problems i have to be addressable with my provider. i want to be able to switch if i dont like the rules. i dont want the rules dictated by washington and forced on everyone.

 

Well I think the enormous amount of added processing power that would be required to impose such access rights would be incredibly inefficient and I also think that even if people did initially use the limited plans, it wouldn't last. Neither one of us can prove one way or another until it happens though so agree to disagree I guess.

Absolutely nothing has changed in this regard. They have been free to block illegal content for whatever reason and they still are. Just because it is illegal doesn't mean it is automatically blocked all of a sudden, and even if it was, there will always be a way around it.

You still have the ability to switch to a better managed ISP if you don't like the current one. The TWO rules that are now in place don't effect anything except transparency and deceit.

 

ok lets read these principles

"Network operators cannot prevent users from accessing the lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice, nor can they prohibit users from attaching non-harmful devices to the network."

both those ideas are wrong headed and should not be managed by anyone but the ISP.

like my example before, if an isp wants to offer a cheap service, and the price will be low, but google will be blocked, and only bing can be used for search, so be it. should be legal.

there is a company called "integtrity online" that offer heavily filtered and blocked internet access for christians. should they be shut down by the heavy hand of your government program. clearly they are in violation, right?

google makes an enormous amount of money off search. if an ISP wants to team up with another search provider to provide a service paired exclusively with another brand of search, that should not be illegal. why shouldnt i be able to benefit from what search engine i use in the form of lower internet rates? why should all that money go google?

i know what you are saying "that would be legal, they just have to be honest about it!". thats cool. there are already laws that make people be honest in business transactions.

as far as the "non-harmful devices", who defines that? is a copy of utorrent running on my computer a "harmful device" if is is distributing copies of anti-government literature? shouldnt the isp be able to figure out what is harmful without looking over their shoulder at the government overlords?


again, as i said before, deceit is already illegal. it is called fraud. no new laws necessary.