Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

Net Neutrality ...


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#1 ONLINE   SayWhat?

SayWhat?

    Know Nothing

  • Registered
  • 5,654 posts
Joined: Jun 06, 2009

Posted 20 November 2010 - 04:52 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2...utrality.wired/

http://www.wired.com...roups-push-fcc/

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said the Comcast ruling and Google and Verizon's separate plan threw a hitch in his agency's own network neutrality plans.

Federal Communication Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski blamed the lack of a new policy for network neutrality on a federal court's decision to expel his agency's bid to regulate Comcast's online management.

Genachowski, who spoke at the Web 2.0 Summit here Nov. 17, also said a parallel network neutrality plan from Google and Verizon threw a hitch in FCC plans, too.

Network neutrality calls for Internet service providers to treat all traffic equally and not give preferential treatment to some Websites over others. Net neutrality is a staple of the FCC National Broadband Plan to connect all individuals and businesses to broadband Internet service.



http://www.eweek.com...hairman-230523/

The first two articles get a bit too political to post snippets here.

And, yeah, this has to do with TV considering the discussions here about IpTV and restrictions of switching to it from satellite due to bandwidth limits and broadband availability.
Help stamp out Twits and Twitterers!

HD, SchmacHD!! Just be glad you've got a picture at all.

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#2 OFFLINE   lwilli201

lwilli201

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,988 posts
Joined: Dec 22, 2006

Posted 21 December 2010 - 03:04 PM

I guess you can say it hit the fan today.
1-HR21-100, 2-HR21-700, 1 w/eSATA, all networked, unsupported MRV. AT9 Dish(110 & 119 disabled) and SWM8.

#3 OFFLINE   klang

klang

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 1,268 posts
  • LocationNear Houston, TX
Joined: Oct 14, 2003

Posted 21 December 2010 - 05:08 PM

Well this is rich, The new rules are a secret. :nono2:

The courts and/or congress are going to slap it down anyway.

#4 OFFLINE   HIPAR

HIPAR

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 749 posts
Joined: May 14, 2005

Posted 21 December 2010 - 06:24 PM

It's not about bits and bytes. What this is really about is establishing a legal basis for regulation of the Net as a telecommunications service. Then, all kinds of fees and taxes can be assessed. Look at your telephone bill.

--- CHAS
But I don't want to go among mad people

#5 OFFLINE   olguy

olguy

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,234 posts
Joined: Jan 09, 2006

Posted 22 December 2010 - 08:52 AM

In spite of being told by a Federal Appeals Court last April that the FCC did not have the authority do do this, the FCC did it anyway. In spite of warnings from some congressmen and senators regarding this the FCC did it anyway. I wonder just how long this rule will stand?
Just another old geezer killin' time till time kills me.

#6 OFFLINE   Paul Secic

Paul Secic

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,156 posts
Joined: Dec 16, 2003

Posted 22 December 2010 - 11:55 AM

In spite of being told by a Federal Appeals Court last April that the FCC did not have the authority do do this, the FCC did it anyway. In spite of warnings from some congressmen and senators regarding this the FCC did it anyway. I wonder just how long this rule will stand?


Um two weeks.

Enjoying AT 250 HBO, 

 

Equipment: VIP 722 reciever


#7 OFFLINE   Luck255

Luck255

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 134 posts
Joined: Mar 04, 2009

Posted 22 December 2010 - 04:39 PM

So I'm pretty confused about this. The FCC passed net neutrality, which is regulating the internet or not? And in which ways? I just read about a dozen articles online, all extremely biased, either saying this is good because it makes the internet fair and free (keeps it the same way it is) or that it is bad because it allows censorship (changes the way the internet is). I guess what I'm trying to ask is, if I want the internet to remain the way it is would I be for or against "net neutrality"?

#8 ONLINE   Nick

Nick

    Keep going - don't give up!

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 21,322 posts
  • LocationThe Beautiful Golden Isles of Coastal Georgia
Joined: Apr 23, 2002

Posted 22 December 2010 - 04:57 PM

...and what about the rest of the world? Will net neutrality, whatever it means or however it is implemented, put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage or make us the target of derision?

Personally, I'd like to see Big Brother keep hands off but I may change my tune if Comcast ever throttles my NetFlix.

.


~ 12 Year Anniversary ~
Charter Gold Club Member
DBSTalk Club ~ 21k Club
Top 10 Poster

.


#9 OFFLINE   xmetalx

xmetalx

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 289 posts
Joined: Jun 02, 2009

Posted 22 December 2010 - 05:22 PM

Net neutrality, as I understand it, is the first example you gave, basically keeping it 'free' and unbiased so that companies/businesses/governments can't censor it.... if you want the internet to stay how it is you should be 'for' net neutrality.
DirecTV employee since 2008
Opinions expressed by me are my own and do not necessarily reflect
those of DBSTalk.com, DIRECTV, Dish Network, or any other company.


There's no place like ~/

#10 ONLINE   SayWhat?

SayWhat?

    Know Nothing

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 5,654 posts
Joined: Jun 06, 2009

Posted 22 December 2010 - 06:57 PM

^^^ Ditto.
Help stamp out Twits and Twitterers!

HD, SchmacHD!! Just be glad you've got a picture at all.

#11 ONLINE   trh

trh

    This Space for Sale

  • Registered
  • 3,367 posts
  • LocationNE FL
Joined: Nov 02, 2007

Posted 22 December 2010 - 07:10 PM

...and what about the rest of the world? Will net neutrality, whatever it means or however it is implemented, put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage or make us the target of derision?

Personally, I'd like to see Big Brother keep hands off but I may change my tune if Comcast ever throttles my NetFlix.


Big Brother has already messed this up with allowing the telecommunication monopolies. If we had a free market and competition, maybe we'd have faster and cheaper internet? Take a look at this overview quote and link from GIZMODO in 2009 concerning broadband speeds & costs around the world:

Number one is, predictably, Japan, where the average broadband speed is 60mbps and they pay $0.27 per 1mbps. We, in comparison, average 4.8mbps and pay $3.33 per 1mbps, putting us at #15. Be sure to click the above image to see it in its full glory.



Gizmodo

Your scenario is viable. As the rules currently stand, there is nothing to stop COMCAST from throttling back your Netflix access.

So while I agree that as a nation we need less regulation, I think we need to have some baseline regulations in place to ensure total access to the internet.

#12 ONLINE   Nick

Nick

    Keep going - don't give up!

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 21,322 posts
  • LocationThe Beautiful Golden Isles of Coastal Georgia
Joined: Apr 23, 2002

Posted 22 December 2010 - 09:39 PM

In the long term, the principal of net neutrality could prove to be almost as important as the First Amendment itself. (Underlining below for emphasis)

FCC passes first net neutrality rules
The Washington Post
-- By Cecilia Kang

The Federal Communications Commission voted Tuesday to approve its first ever Internet access regulation, which ensures unimpeded access to any legal Web content for home Internet users.

The same provisions do not apply as strongly to cellphone users because the agency voted to keep wireless networks generally free of rules preventing the blocking and slowing of Web traffic.

The FCC's three Democratic members made up a majority of votes in favor of the so-called net neutrality regulation, which was introduced more than a year ago by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.

The rules have sparked intense debate and lobbying over whether such legislation is needed, and are likely to face a legal challenge. Genachowski has argued that Internet access rules would protect companies just starting out on the Web, as well as consumers who are increasingly relying on the Internet for news, entertainment and communications.

The agency's two Republican members voted against the rules, showing support for Internet service providers who say the regulation will impede their ability to create new business plans that expand their roles over the Internet economy.

Genachowski said the measure represents a compromise between industry and consumer interests. >>>

Full story @ http://voices.washin...rc=nl_natlalert

Edited by Nick, 22 December 2010 - 09:51 PM.

.


~ 12 Year Anniversary ~
Charter Gold Club Member
DBSTalk Club ~ 21k Club
Top 10 Poster

.


#13 OFFLINE   olds403

olds403

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 332 posts
Joined: Nov 20, 2007

Posted 23 December 2010 - 07:20 AM

The internet has gotten along just fine without the "help" of the FCC until now, it is not necessary and will ultimately lead to more regulations and restrictions than freedoms & "neutrality".

#14 OFFLINE   Voyager6

Voyager6

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 27 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2006

Posted 23 December 2010 - 08:26 AM

NN is attempting to stop the companies that control the bandwidth from getting into business models where they make money by stopping, or making it very inconvenient, what you want for companies that will pay them more for what they want you to see.

Exactly. The FCC is attempting to prevent those companies that own the fiber from charging rates appropriate with usage. That is, regulate the ISP's as utilities without actually calling them utilities. The Courts have specifically told the FCC they do not have the authority from Congress to do this. Congress has yet to change the law to allow the FCC to regulate the ISP's. Yet, the FCC has decided to do it anyway. I predict a quick injunction and/or slap down from Congress.
Equipment: SD105 modified for the 500+, D500 for 61.5, DPP44, 722K, 622, 211K, 211 (2)
E* subscriber since 1997

#15 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 40,114 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 23 December 2010 - 08:40 AM

Exactly. The FCC is attempting to prevent those companies that own the fiber from charging rates appropriate with usage.

Have the actual rules been released yet or is everyone still discussing this based on the worst case scenarios put forward from each side of the argument?

From what I've read, charging rates appropriate with usage will be fine ... but charging higher rates due to content that competes with services the ISP provides (or any other content based rate) will not be appropriate.

Charge for bits, bytes and baud ... not what is encapsulated in the data.

#16 OFFLINE   patmurphey

patmurphey

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 542 posts
Joined: Dec 21, 2006

Posted 23 December 2010 - 09:33 AM

Have the actual rules been released yet or is everyone still discussing this based on the worst case scenarios put forward from each side of the argument?

From what I've read, charging rates appropriate with usage will be fine ... but charging higher rates due to content that competes with services the ISP provides (or any other content based rate) will not be appropriate.

Charge for bits, bytes and baud ... not what is encapsulated in the data.


I don't think that the initial round of rules will be particularly offensive. I think they are meant to appear positive. The issue is the right to regulate and what could come of that in the future.

#17 OFFLINE   Voyager6

Voyager6

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 27 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2006

Posted 23 December 2010 - 10:27 AM

I don't think that the initial round of rules will be particularly offensive. I think they are meant to appear positive. The issue is the right to regulate and what could come of that in the future.


The FCC shouldn't be setting any rules on "net neutrality" without specific Congressional authority. The Federal Court of Appeals has stated the FCC does not have the legal authority. I haven't heard that the Supreme Court has overturned this decision.
http://www.nytimes.c...logy/07net.html

U.S. Court Curbs F.C.C. Authority on Web Traffic
By EDWARD WYATT
Published: April 6, 2010
WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that regulators had limited power over Web traffic under current law. The decision will allow Internet service companies to block or slow specific sites and charge video sites like YouTube to deliver their content faster to users.

The court decision was a setback to efforts by the Federal Communications Commission to require companies to give Web users equal access to all content, even if some of that content is clogging the network.

The court ruling, which came after Comcast asserted that it had the right to slow its cable customers’ access to a file-sharing service called BitTorrent, could prompt efforts in Congress to change the law in order to give the F.C.C. explicit authority to regulate Internet service.



http://www.washingto...0040600742.html

Court rules for Comcast over FCC in 'net neutrality' case

By Cecilia Kang
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 7, 2010

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to force Internet service providers to keep their networks open to all forms of content, throwing into doubt the agency's status as watchdog of the Web.

The FCC has long sought to impose rules requiring Internet providers to offer equal treatment to all Web traffic, a concept known as network neutrality. But in a unanimous decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that the agency lacked the power to stop cable giant Comcast from slowing traffic to a popular file-sharing site.


Equipment: SD105 modified for the 500+, D500 for 61.5, DPP44, 722K, 622, 211K, 211 (2)
E* subscriber since 1997

#18 OFFLINE   djlong

djlong

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,223 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire
Joined: Jul 08, 2002

Posted 23 December 2010 - 12:40 PM

Wasn't it earlier this year that certain customers who were on a particular cable system were prevented from accessing Hulu via their cable-based internet connections?

THAT is what Net Neutrality is all about.

It's about preventing Comcast from forcing you to pay for cable when all you want is internet. The FCC *did* this when the players were the telephone companies and the service in questions was DSL and ADSL. Phone companies didn't want to offer "naked DSL" (DSL without you having a landline). I was a beneficiary of that, though I didn't need to be.

I've since given up the copper POTS line for a fiber line and moved my land-line number to a VOIP system. So, in a sense, I have "naked fiber".

#19 OFFLINE   phrelin

phrelin

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 13,524 posts
  • LocationNorthern California Redwoods
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Posted 23 December 2010 - 01:38 PM

All this debate puzzles me. The private sector did not put a dime into "inventing" the internet. It was taxpayer money spent by the government. The government should have a right to say how it is used by the private sector. If Congress chooses to give it all away to conglomerates to use huge asset developed by the government to suck money from our pockets into theirs, that's our fault.

The FCC is trying to keep the "information superhighway" invented using government money from becoming a series of more or less interconnected toll booths favoring those with huge amounts of money over those without. The long-term perception is that our economic well-being as a nation would be better served with an interstate highway system.

"In a hundred years there'll be a whole new set of people."
"Always poke the bears. They sleep too much for their own good."

"If you're good enough, they'll talk about you." - Tom Harmon
A GEEZER who remembers watching TV in 1951 and was an Echostar customer from 1988 to 2008, now a Dish Network customer.
My AV Setup
My Slingbox Pro HD Experience
My Blog: The Redwood Guardian


#20 OFFLINE   rocatman

rocatman

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 815 posts
Joined: Nov 27, 2003

Posted 23 December 2010 - 03:46 PM

All this debate puzzles me. The private sector did not put a dime into "inventing" the internet. It was taxpayer money spent by the government. The government should have a right to say how it is used by the private sector. If Congress chooses to give it all away to conglomerates to use huge asset developed by the government to suck money from our pockets into theirs, that's our fault.

The FCC is trying to keep the "information superhighway" invented using government money from becoming a series of more or less interconnected toll booths favoring those with huge amounts of money over those without. The long-term perception is that our economic well-being as a nation would be better served with an interstate highway system.


It is good to see someone knows the history of the internet. I was fortunate to be able to use while working for the Department of the Navy in 1987.




Protected By... spam firewall...And...