Goodbye Net Neutrality / Open internet.

[Steamer]

This could start getting very ugly. Big greedy business.... sigh...

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Net-Neutrality-No-Longer-127326

[insaneblackninja]

Well that's a bit disheartening... Can't say I'm too surprised though...

[ZERO]

But if they get declared common carriers as a result which they should be this is a killing blow.

[Steamer]

All about the money. Long shot anymore. Time will tell. Still in beginning stages of tit for tat and how normal people will deal. Be it physical, financial, or intellectual, shit is being pushed to the very edge anymore.

[DJ_MikeyRevile]

ehh i dont see anything terribly frightening here. Just boycott verizon and send monthly letters reminding your legislators not to fucking dare touch our beloved internet.

[Steamer]

Verizon is small compared to others. The FCC is what pushed competition in all aspects of spectrum. Could get very ugly, believe that. Things, be it cable, wireless, ect, would be very closed if not for certain things the FCC had done, specifically diluting spectrum. There is no good that can come of this once the pockets pour into others. It's something that had beefed more oversight for a long time coming.

[DJ_MikeyRevile]

Verizon is small compared to others. The FCC is what pushed competition in all aspects of spectrum. Could get very ugly, believe that. Things, be it cable, wireless, ect, would be very closed if not for certain things the FCC had done, specifically diluting spectrum. There is no good that can come of this once the pockets pour into others. It's something that had beefed more oversight for a long time coming.

I use verizon because since the internet existed, those bastards have wanted nothing more then too control the internet for all it is. Being that verizon is one of the largest oppositions to net neutrality.. sending a message like boycotting or somthing similar may help or even thwart their agenda.

[jeb the hick]

But if they get declared common carriers as a result which they should be this is a killing blow.

Which is precisely why both sides may make appeals to SCOTUS. The court affirmed the FCC's authority to regulate but limited that authority based on their labeling ISPs as common carriers. The Telecom Act of 1996 explicitly labels basic services such as telephony as "telecommunications" and enhanced services such as Internet as "information-services", the latter not being subjected to common carrier regulations. I'm not sure why you're under the impression that they are declared as common carriers because the Appeals court ruled the opposite.

I doubt that SCOTUS would rule in favor of the FCC anyway because there aren't really any explicit rules allowing the FCC to treat ISPs as common carrier.

[ZERO]

'm not sure why you're under the impression that they are declared as common carriers because the Appeals court ruled the opposite.



But if they get declared common carriers as a result which they should be this is a killing blow.
___
8144

[Steamer]

Verizon... telephony.. derp derp. I see another split like the wireless department coming.

[CYBER]

can someone explain this to me in low level mexican lingo?

1- net neutrality = gd?
2- FCC not having rights to slow down traffic = gd?
3- verizon = gd or bad guys? why?
4- FCC = gd or bad? why?
5- US govermnment court appeals, gd or bad, why?
6- What are we routing for here?
7- Does it only apply for the US?
8- Fries with the tacos, senor?

[jeb the hick]

can someone explain this to me in low level mexican lingo?


1- net neutrality = gd?

Let us suppose you own a taco cart. In this analogy your customers are the Internet users. You, the cart owner, are the ISP, and the ingredients are the content providers (google, netflix, etc). Normally, when a user wants a taco (or a web service) they go up to the cart, take what they want and as much as they want on a plate. Everyone gets their favorite types of tacos and they can eat as much as they want. However, sometimes users prefer one ingredient a lot, say... ground beef and lettuce. They love it so much that your users are fucking crowding around the taco cart trying to get a lot, but there's a problem of capacity. Normally, this shouldn't be an issue, because as a taco cart owner, you borrowed money from the local government with the intention of opening more taco carts to keep up with customer demand. After all, in a modern society, every man woman and child should have access to tacos, right? But instead of opening more taco carts, you spent that money on hookers and blow. So now, you want to charge the special ingredients more money to give them more space on the cart. So if everyone wants ground beef, you offer two or three trays of beef instead of the one tray equal to what everyone else (lettuce, tomatos, etc) has.

Net Neutrality, or in our case, Taco Neutrality is the idea that you, as the taco cart owner, may not discriminate against one ingredient compared to others. You are simply the provider of tacos and should not interfere with the ingredients or the customers' access to those ingredients.


2- FCC not having rights to slow down traffic = gd?

The FCC's right to slow down traffic isn't really what's at issue here. The FCC wants to mandate that ISPs maintain network neutrality.


3- verizon = gd or bad guys? why?

In this case, bad.


4- FCC = gd or bad? why?

Good when they want to improve the rights of consumers, bad when they make sure you can't swear on television. In this case, good.


5- US govermnment court appeals, gd or bad, why?

Neither good, nor bad. Not the highest court in the united states, and this court only has a small jurisdiction in the DC area.


6- What are we routing for here?

Consumers should be rooting for the FCC


7- Does it only apply for the US?

It applies to the US and traffic that is routed through the US.


8- Fries with the tacos, senor?

Si.

[CYBER]

Let us suppose you own a taco cart. In this analogy your customers are the Internet users. You, the cart owner, are the ISP, and the ingredients are the content providers (google, netflix, etc). Normally, when a user wants a taco (or a web service) they go up to the cart, take what they want and as much as they want on a plate. Everyone gets their favorite types of tacos and they can eat as much as they want. However, sometimes users prefer one ingredient a lot, say... ground beef and lettuce. They love it so much that your users are fucking crowding around the taco cart trying to get a lot, but there's a problem of capacity. Normally, this shouldn't be an issue, because as a taco cart owner, you borrowed money from the local government with the intention of opening more taco carts to keep up with customer demand. After all, in a modern society, every man woman and child should have access to tacos, right? But instead of opening more taco carts, you spent that money on hookers and blow. So now, you want to charge the special ingredients more money to give them more space on the cart. So if everyone wants ground beef, you offer two or three trays of beef instead of the one tray equal to what everyone else (lettuce, tomatos, etc) has.

Net Neutrality, or in our case, Taco Neutrality is the idea that you, as the taco cart owner, may not discriminate against one ingredient compared to others. You are simply the provider of tacos and should not interfere with the ingredients or the customers' access to those ingredients.



The FCC's right to slow down traffic isn't really what's at issue here. The FCC wants to mandate that ISPs maintain network neutrality.



In this case, bad.



Good when they want to improve the rights of consumers, bad when they make sure you can't swear on television. In this case, good.



Neither good, nor bad. Not the highest court in the united states, and this court only has a small jurisdiction in the DC area.



Consumers should be rooting for the FCC



It applies to the US and traffic that is routed through the US.



Si.
ah, yo comprendo la situación de ahora. Gracias, senor.

[What]

so.....pew pew can still happen?

[Steamer]

so.....pew pew can still happen?

That pew pew may be limited to the providers discretion. Think denial.

[jeb the hick]

XFINITY INTERNET BY COMCAST NOW OFFERING THE GAMER PACKAGE. FOR AN EXTRA $19.99/month YOU CAN GAME WITH CONFIDENCE KNOWING YOUR FRAG TRAFFIC IS PRIORITIZED. IT'S A M-M-M-M-M-MONSTER DEALLLLL

[Steamer]

Lol. 5

[Sin]

Niggers are gonna start making "Premium Packages" like cable television. YOU CAN GET HBO SKINEMAX BLOWTIME AND MORE FREE FOR THE FIRST 3 MONTHS! (then $1k a month after that)