[herbie]

Two comments
I was told that watching shows on the Bell app on my Bell iPhone didn't count on the data cap but watching another TV app does. Neutrality?
And I love hearing you guys in big cities bitch about your internet. Gave up watching mainly the spinning circle of Netflix after a half hour. I barely get 6MB downloads and pay $55 for premium internet. I was told it meant different things where you lived 6, 15, 25MB dependending on what they can deliver. In other words, what I pay would get 4 times the speed in a major center. Sounds like something that should be addressed first.

[OnTheIce]

herbie herbie:

Two comments
I was told that watching shows on the Bell app on my Bell iPhone didn't count on the data cap but watching another TV app does. Neutrality?
And I love hearing you guys in big cities bitch about your internet. Gave up watching mainly the spinning circle of Netflix after a half hour. I barely get 6MB downloads and pay $55 for premium internet. I was told it meant different things where you lived 6, 15, 25MB dependending on what they can deliver. In other words, what I pay would get 4 times the speed in a major center. Sounds like something that should be addressed first.

If you want big city services and infrastructure, move to the big city.

[N_Fiddledog]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

You're killing me Fiddle. My hair is greying and I'm dying.

Yes, PD you red scourge. Me and my new classic liberal buddies are coming for ya

Might as well just surrender our internetz and give up.

[Tricks]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

But here's my problem. Maybe you can explain it to me.

I'll do my best.

$1:

In the Washington Post link they're pissed because the right is in conspiracy mode over the FCC wanting to create regulations, but it won't tell people what those regulations are.

So, if the right is against the FCC, doesn't make the FCC the good guy in Washington Post-world?

So I go to the right wing media to see what they're actually saying about this issue.

They're saying the FCC is grabbing this regulatory authority without congressional oversight, as a kind of end run method of getting government control over the internet.

So that makes the FCC the bad guys in right wing world, right?

First problem. This isn't a left vs right issue. This isn't a corporation vs little guy issue. Plus journalists are idiots, especially from where you're probably reading. The best place to get a breakdown of this is at tech sites. This involves technology, and generally speaking, they don't know the difference between a laptop and a desktop. You're also probably reading articles from two different times. Last summer and now were very different.

$1:

OK, so then I watch Xerxes comedy video from the John Stewart spinoff guy. Shouldn't he be in the Washington Post camp? Shouldn't he be telling me the FCC are the good guys?

At the 2:30 Oliver says "The internet in it's current form is not broken, and the FCC is taking steps to fix that".

So he's against the FCC right? After that he's saying how the FCC is endorsing the big cable companies who are being favored by the Obama administration. As he describes it the strategy appears to be the Government takes control, and goes corporatist like good socialists would be expected to be. The cable companies get government pats on the head and the ability to strengthen their monopoly with selective over-pricing.

So what happened? Did the John Stewart guy join the right wing? He doesn't like that monopoly business. Who does? Grassroots conservatives are for competition.

That came out last summer when it looked like the FCC were not going to do what they just did. After that show millions of people wrote to the FCC to tell them to stop jerking off and do this right. And it apparently worked. By declaring the telecoms under Title II, they can't provide "fast lanes" to people who pay, they can't throttle speed, they aren't allowed to fuck with their connections basically.

$1:

So is that it then? Did some sort of common ground thing happen between grassroots conservatives and classic Liberals. Are we together again against the Progressives? Cause that would be cool. Old times, good times. Just like when we fought the Commies together.

You're looking at this as a right vs left issue. It isn't. And if Washington starts to make it one, they're more retarded than anyone could have imagined.

In a nutshell it is this. Comcast and their ilk wanted to charge netflix, google, facebook etc (giant websites) to get proper bandwidth needed for their services. Here's an example of the throttling.



This is all sorts of wrong.

1. They double dip. Consumers have to pay the ISP for access to the internet, and then the companies have to pay to get speeds that makes their shit work.

2. It will drive prices up for the consumer.

3. It can ruin startups. If a startup can't afford to pay for these faster lanes, they can't start.

The argument can also be made for anti-competition on the TV front. The ISPs are for the most part cable providers as well. What an easy way to make sure people don't cut their cable by making the biggest online streaming service either a) pay more or b) be unusable.

Make sense?

[Tricks]

herbie herbie:

Two comments
I was told that watching shows on the Bell app on my Bell iPhone didn't count on the data cap but watching another TV app does. Neutrality?
And I love hearing you guys in big cities bitch about your internet. Gave up watching mainly the spinning circle of Netflix after a half hour. I barely get 6MB downloads and pay $55 for premium internet. I was told it meant different things where you lived 6, 15, 25MB dependending on what they can deliver. In other words, what I pay would get 4 times the speed in a major center. Sounds like something that should be addressed first.

This also helps that. Right now Google fiber can't spread quickly because they're being blocked the access to existing conduits and poll attachments for their lines. Title II gives them access to that and it becomes much easier and cheaper to spread fiber.

[BeaverFever]

Tricks Tricks:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

But here's my problem. Maybe you can explain it to me.

I'll do my best.

$1:

In the Washington Post link they're pissed because the right is in conspiracy mode over the FCC wanting to create regulations, but it won't tell people what those regulations are.

So, if the right is against the FCC, doesn't make the FCC the good guy in Washington Post-world?

So I go to the right wing media to see what they're actually saying about this issue.

They're saying the FCC is grabbing this regulatory authority without congressional oversight, as a kind of end run method of getting government control over the internet.

So that makes the FCC the bad guys in right wing world, right?

First problem. This isn't a left vs right issue. This isn't a corporation vs little guy issue. Plus journalists are idiots, especially from where you're probably reading. The best place to get a breakdown of this is at tech sites. This involves technology, and generally speaking, they don't know the difference between a laptop and a desktop. You're also probably reading articles from two different times. Last summer and now were very different.

$1:

OK, so then I watch Xerxes comedy video from the John Stewart spinoff guy. Shouldn't he be in the Washington Post camp? Shouldn't he be telling me the FCC are the good guys?

At the 2:30 Oliver says "The internet in it's current form is not broken, and the FCC is taking steps to fix that".

So he's against the FCC right? After that he's saying how the FCC is endorsing the big cable companies who are being favored by the Obama administration. As he describes it the strategy appears to be the Government takes control, and goes corporatist like good socialists would be expected to be. The cable companies get government pats on the head and the ability to strengthen their monopoly with selective over-pricing.

So what happened? Did the John Stewart guy join the right wing? He doesn't like that monopoly business. Who does? Grassroots conservatives are for competition.

That came out last summer when it looked like the FCC were not going to do what they just did. After that show millions of people wrote to the FCC to tell them to stop jerking off and do this right. And it apparently worked. By declaring the telecoms under Title II, they can't provide "fast lanes" to people who pay, they can't throttle speed, they aren't allowed to fuck with their connections basically.

$1:

So is that it then? Did some sort of common ground thing happen between grassroots conservatives and classic Liberals. Are we together again against the Progressives? Cause that would be cool. Old times, good times. Just like when we fought the Commies together.

You're looking at this as a right vs left issue. It isn't. And if Washington starts to make it one, they're more retarded than anyone could have imagined.

In a nutshell it is this. Comcast and their ilk wanted to charge netflix, google, facebook etc (giant websites) to get proper bandwidth needed for their services. Here's an example of the throttling.



This is all sorts of wrong.

1. They double dip. Consumers have to pay the ISP for access to the internet, and then the companies have to pay to get speeds that makes their shit work.

2. It will drive prices up for the consumer.

3. It can ruin startups. If a startup can't afford to pay for these faster lanes, they can't start.

The argument can also be made for anti-competition on the TV front. The ISPs are for the most part cable providers as well. What an easy way to make sure people don't cut their cable by making the biggest online streaming service either a) pay more or b) be unusable.

Make sense?

As you mention, the issue has evolved over the years and I've only followed it from a distance.

Are you also saying thatwithout Net Neutrality we could see a day where, say, only Rogers customers would be able watch NHL games and only Bell customers be able to watch CFL games and only Shaw customers would be able to watch HBO shows so if you liked all 3 you're SOL?

[Thanos]

Sounds like Canada could use some kind of Net Neutrality of our own to keep customers from getting gouged by the big ISP's with the capping of unlimited internet and extra charging for using Netflix/streaming/torrenting. They act like broadband is some sort of finite non-renewable resource ('once you mine that internet out of the ground and use it it's gone forever - please conserve!') when in reality the ISP's themselves expand it's capacity every year. And they do it for a cost that's so low to themselves, that they've already pre-budgeted for years in advance, that there's no justifiable way to gouge the customer the way they do with their profiteering.

[Tricks]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Tricks Tricks:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

But here's my problem. Maybe you can explain it to me.

I'll do my best.

$1:

In the Washington Post link they're pissed because the right is in conspiracy mode over the FCC wanting to create regulations, but it won't tell people what those regulations are.

So, if the right is against the FCC, doesn't make the FCC the good guy in Washington Post-world?

So I go to the right wing media to see what they're actually saying about this issue.

They're saying the FCC is grabbing this regulatory authority without congressional oversight, as a kind of end run method of getting government control over the internet.

So that makes the FCC the bad guys in right wing world, right?

First problem. This isn't a left vs right issue. This isn't a corporation vs little guy issue. Plus journalists are idiots, especially from where you're probably reading. The best place to get a breakdown of this is at tech sites. This involves technology, and generally speaking, they don't know the difference between a laptop and a desktop. You're also probably reading articles from two different times. Last summer and now were very different.

$1:

OK, so then I watch Xerxes comedy video from the John Stewart spinoff guy. Shouldn't he be in the Washington Post camp? Shouldn't he be telling me the FCC are the good guys?

At the 2:30 Oliver says "The internet in it's current form is not broken, and the FCC is taking steps to fix that".

So he's against the FCC right? After that he's saying how the FCC is endorsing the big cable companies who are being favored by the Obama administration. As he describes it the strategy appears to be the Government takes control, and goes corporatist like good socialists would be expected to be. The cable companies get government pats on the head and the ability to strengthen their monopoly with selective over-pricing.

So what happened? Did the John Stewart guy join the right wing? He doesn't like that monopoly business. Who does? Grassroots conservatives are for competition.

That came out last summer when it looked like the FCC were not going to do what they just did. After that show millions of people wrote to the FCC to tell them to stop jerking off and do this right. And it apparently worked. By declaring the telecoms under Title II, they can't provide "fast lanes" to people who pay, they can't throttle speed, they aren't allowed to fuck with their connections basically.

$1:

So is that it then? Did some sort of common ground thing happen between grassroots conservatives and classic Liberals. Are we together again against the Progressives? Cause that would be cool. Old times, good times. Just like when we fought the Commies together.

You're looking at this as a right vs left issue. It isn't. And if Washington starts to make it one, they're more retarded than anyone could have imagined.

In a nutshell it is this. Comcast and their ilk wanted to charge netflix, google, facebook etc (giant websites) to get proper bandwidth needed for their services. Here's an example of the throttling.



This is all sorts of wrong.

1. They double dip. Consumers have to pay the ISP for access to the internet, and then the companies have to pay to get speeds that makes their shit work.

2. It will drive prices up for the consumer.

3. It can ruin startups. If a startup can't afford to pay for these faster lanes, they can't start.

The argument can also be made for anti-competition on the TV front. The ISPs are for the most part cable providers as well. What an easy way to make sure people don't cut their cable by making the biggest online streaming service either a) pay more or b) be unusable.

Make sense?

As you mention, the issue has evolved over the years and I've only followed it from a distance.

Are you also saying thatwithout Net Neutrality we could see a day where, say, only Rogers customers would be able watch NHL games and only Bell customers be able to watch CFL games and only Shaw customers would be able to watch HBO shows so if you liked all 3 you're SOL?

In those particular examples, I doubt it. There might be some restrictions to online content, or the area that it's provided. People can't watch Toronto games in Toronto unless they have a specific package if I remember right. But that's for cable. For online stuff, typically things like sports have a separate subscription you can get straight from the NHL or MLB to watch their stuff online. However, what it could do is say rogers owns Blue jays and Bell owns Argos. Rogers could throttle Argos content on their lines, and Bell can throttle blue jays, making them not worth watching.

Complete cutoff I can't see, the CRTC, even though they're useless, would probably step in on that one.

[Tricks]

Thanos Thanos:

Sounds like Canada could use some kind of Net Neutrality of our own to keep customers from getting gouged by the big ISP's with the capping of unlimited internet and extra charging for using Netflix/streaming/torrenting.

Part of what companies are fighting for is more competition. The U.S. is really bad for it, there are areas where there is literally only one company to get internet from. Title II should make it easier for new companies to come along because they can use existing infrastructure.

[Thanos]

The smaller companies are probably fighting for more competition, then they ran up against Comcast and it's paid-off lackeys in the US Congress. Good to see the FCC put a stop to Comcast and it's attempt at cornering/corporatizing of what should be regarded as a utility. Too bad it won't ever happen in Canada. Said it before, saying it again, when so-called competitors like the ISP's and other utilities collude to keep competition out of Canada, and exhibit other behaviours (like capping internet usage and imposing extra fees on what's already been paid for) typical to monopolies, then any claims to a free market are pretty much laughable at best. Corporatization inevitably leads to monopoly, and a state of affairs more costly to the customer than when certain utilities were entirely controlled by the provincial governments. And unfortunately things like this will probably always get worse because it's just another aspect of society that's now entirely controlled by The People That Never Lose.

[N_Fiddledog]

Tricks Tricks:

First problem. This isn't a left vs right issue. This isn't a corporation vs little guy issue. Plus journalists are idiots, especially from where you're probably reading.

True, but see that was the story. The Washington Post was calling 'conspiracy theory' on the right over their unwillingness to fall in line with the FCC ruling.

You appeared to be calling conspiracy freak on me, personally. This baffled me because as you've guessed I'm not even into the background technical details that much. I don't know enough about it to have a conspiracy theory. I tried to figure it out back in the days of Bush, I think it was. Didn't have much luck, so I ignored it for years.

I only posted the story because the developing battle between right and left over the FCC's hijacking of regulatory control interested me. Bureaucratic overreach and possible malfeasance was why I thought the story was worth posting.

$1:

Make sense?

Yes, thank you, except I still don't fully get what side the Obama regime is on. For the companies, right? So the FCC will be using their new regulatory control to feed stuff to the cable companies, correct?

[Tricks]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

True, but see that was the story. The Washington Post was calling 'conspiracy theory' on the right over their unwillingness to fall in line with the FCC ruling.

Because the right consists of, generally, seniors driving golf carts who can't set a clock on a microwave. Technology scares them. And the government scares them. And Obama scares them. Combine it all into one and of course they're going to freak out. They're also living 30 years ago.

$1:

You appeared to be calling conspiracy freak on me, personally. This baffled me because as you've guessed I'm not even into the background technical details that much. I don't know enough about it to have a conspiracy theory. I tried to figure it out back in the days of Bush, I think it was. Didn't have much luck, so I ignored it for years.

That was my bad, I thought you promoting the wackadoos.

$1:

Yes, thank you, except I still don't fully get what side the Obama regime is on. For the companies, right? So the FCC will be using their new regulatory control to feed stuff to the cable companies, correct?

Obama supports the use of Title II. Which is against the telecoms, but on the same side as the likes of Netflix, Google, Facebook etc. Whether or not it turns into the government over reaching into the telecom space remains to be seen. However something needed to be done, as the telecom companies frankly can't be trusted with jack shit.

[N_Fiddledog]

So why then does an entrepeneur like Mark Cuban appear to be coming out against the idea of the FCC taking regulatory control to reclassify 'information' services as 'Telecommunications' under Title II? He appears to believe the FCC regulations will stifle creativity?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... ast-lanes/

And the John Stewart replacement guy appeared to be saying it was the FCC that was a solution looking for a problem.

Is it possible that the government has used the boogie man of coming corporate controls to gain greater government control over the internet?

Why can't the FCC simply say everything remains as it is? There's no problem. Neither side can make one. Wouldn't that be a regulation people could get behind? Seeing as the government bureaucrats seem to want to make some.

[Tricks]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

So why then does an entrepeneur like Mark Cuban appear to be coming out against the idea of the FCC taking regulatory control to reclassify 'information' services as 'Telecommunications' under Title II? He appears to believe the FCC regulations will stifle creativity?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... ast-lanes/

Because Mark Cuban owns Magnolia Pictures, he has a horse in this game. The same throttling that net neutrality will prevent will help the Movie industry. He also wanted to put out a version of Loose Change, are you going to tell me that you believe in a conspiracy theory about 9/11 because Mark Cuban said so? I doubt that.

$1:

And the John Stewart replacement guy appeared to be saying it was the FCC that was a solution looking for a problem.

Again, that was summer vs now. A lot has changed out of the FCC. They were originally going to be going in favour of Telecoms. They aren't anymore. That's a good thing.

$1:

Is it possible that the government has used the boogie man of coming corporate controls to gain greater government control over the internet?

No, because it's well documented. See the video above for obvious throttling.

$1:

Why can't the FCC simply say everything remains as it is? There's no problem. Neither side can make one. Wouldn't that be a regulation people could get behind? Seeing as the government bureaucrats seem to want to make some.

The bolded shows you don't know what is going on. There is a big problem when Content providers are being extorted by telecom industries, and on the other side the consumers are being extorted to access those content providers.

[N_Fiddledog]

So what's this about then? It's recent.

$1:

The agency's new policy, approved as expected along party lines, reclassifies broadband, both fixed and mobile, as a more heavily regulated "telecommunications service," more like a traditional telephone service.

In the past, broadband was classified as a more lightly regulated "information service," which factored into a federal court's rejection of the FCC's previous set of rules in January 2014.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/ ... CA20150226

I didn't really understand it, but in the Brian Lilley video he was saying we have been able to keep internationals like the UN from getting too much control over the internet, because of protection offered by the way it's classified - as 'information services'. According to Lilley when they go from classification as information services to "Telecomm" that protection from a UN power grab vanishes.

Also this is interesting.

$1:

The shift gives the FCC more authority to police various types of deals between providers such as Comcast Corp (CMCSA.O) and content companies such as Netflix Inc (NFLX.O) to ensure they are just and reasonable for consumers and competitors.

Those guys you mentioned like Netflix, Google, and YouTube might have made a deal with the devil. Sounds like they're under government control now too. Sounds like Obama gives and Obama takes away now. Corporatism. 'Be a good boy and Obama give you a treat.' There's a possibility those guys should have been careful what they wished for.

And what's with that refusal to make these new FCC regulations public? Are they going to let people see them eventually? When?