Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
  On 11/22/2017 at 11:25 PM, Azalin said:

 

Bill? I don't remember any bill.

 

I do remember a proclamation of takeover by the former head of the FCC.

Expand  

I guess I don't remember a bill...but didn't they basically enforce net neutrality by reclassifying ISPs under a couple different acts? 

Posted
  On 11/23/2017 at 12:04 AM, GoBills808 said:

I guess I don't remember a bill...but didn't they basically enforce net neutrality by reclassifying ISPs under a couple different acts? 

Expand  

 

Yes, because regulating the Internet like a 1930 telecom monopoly makes a lot of sense to an administration that made fun of people who apparently didn't believe in science and progress.

Posted
  On 11/23/2017 at 12:14 AM, GG said:

 

Yes, because regulating the Internet like a 1930 telecom monopoly makes a lot of sense to an administration that made fun of people who apparently didn't believe in science and progress.

Expand  

I thought that was just a technicality. I mean that's how a lot of new law is made, by referring/classifying really old statutes that have since been expanded and refined to incorporate the changing landscape.

Posted
  On 11/23/2017 at 12:18 AM, GoBills808 said:

I thought that was just a technicality. I mean that's how a lot of new law is made, by referring/classifying really old statutes that have since been expanded and refined to incorporate the changing landscape.

Expand  

 

Nope, this was not a new law.  The only way that Obama/Wheeler could get away with their gambit was to use the exact terms of the 1930's regulations.

Posted
  On 11/23/2017 at 12:23 AM, GG said:

 

Nope, this was not a new law.  The only way that Obama/Wheeler could get away with their gambit was to use the exact terms of the 1930's regulations.

Expand  

Was this the ruling?

 

https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

 

Granted I only have a cursory understanding of the issue, but I glanced through it and it's very specific in describing prescriptive actions (usually they punt to case-by-case basis but still) for the kinds of issues I assume net neutrality seeks to address...it appears that 'edge providers' like Netflix that send huge amounts of data through ISP channels were straining data capacities? 

Posted
  On 11/23/2017 at 12:35 AM, GoBills808 said:

Was this the ruling?

 

https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

 

Granted I only have a cursory understanding of the issue, but I glanced through it and it's very specific in describing prescriptive actions (usually they punt to case-by-case basis but still) for the kinds of issues I assume net neutrality seeks to address...it appears that 'edge providers' like Netflix that send huge amounts of data through ISP channels were straining data capacities? 

Expand  

 

This is the official ruling in the Fed Register.  But your link also lays out the ridiculous assertion by Netflix & Google.  They are taking a disproportionate share of Internet traffic, but want others to pay for that transit.

Posted
  On 11/23/2017 at 12:41 AM, GG said:

 

This is the official ruling in the Fed Register.  But your link also lays out the ridiculous assertion by Netflix & Google.  They are taking a disproportionate share of Internet traffic, but want others to pay for that transit.

Expand  

So what did reclassifying ISPs do to address the payment-to-usage problem? And what's the law on who pays for it anyway? Is it just the responsibility of the ISP to keep increasing server capacity (or whatever) or are they allowed to charge Netflix by usage?

 

Posted
  On 11/23/2017 at 12:45 AM, GoBills808 said:

So what did reclassifying ISPs do to address the payment-to-usage problem? And what's the law on who pays for it anyway? Is it just the responsibility of the ISP to keep increasing server capacity (or whatever) or are they allowed to charge Netflix by usage?

 

Expand  

 

Plenty of discussion on this in the past.  Do a search.

 

But basically by reclassifying the ISPs as common carriers meant that they had to treat everyone the same and not prioritize services by fee or content.   Sounds great to liberals, but breaks down in practice, because Netflix demands are much greater than Mario's corner pizza shop.  So ISPs must upgrade their networks to transmit Netflix traffic, but can't charge Netflix more money for the transit.  So if the ISPs can't charge Netflix for the usage, guess who gets to pay the bill at the end of the day?

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
  On 11/23/2017 at 12:52 AM, GG said:

 

Plenty of discussion on this in the past.  Do a search.

 

But basically by reclassifying the ISPs as common carriers meant that they had to treat everyone the same and not prioritize services by fee or content.   Sounds great to liberals, but breaks down in practice, because Netflix demands are much greater than Mario's corner pizza shop.  So ISPs must upgrade their networks to transmit Netflix traffic, but can't charge Netflix more money for the transit.  So if the ISPs can't charge Netflix for the usage, guess who gets to pay the bill at the end of the day?

Expand  

Will do, much appreciated!

Posted
  On 11/22/2017 at 11:25 PM, Azalin said:

 

Bill? I don't remember any bill.

Expand  

 

"Trump's arbitrarily changing the law Obama arbitrarily created!  Fascism!"

 

Our upcoming civil war is going to be one of massive ignorance.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
  On 11/22/2017 at 5:18 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

You can usually get a good sense of what a Bill's true intent is by its name. Whatever the title of the bill is usually means the opposite: 

 

The Patriot Act = not at all patriotic. 

Affordable Care Act = not at all affordable

Net Neutrality = not really neutral. 

Expand  

 

  On 11/22/2017 at 6:29 PM, Tiberius said:

Tax cut and jobs act = tax cut for the wealthy 

Expand  

How do you screw that up based on his premise?  All you had to do was say the opposite...

 

Tax Cuts and Jobs act = increase in taxes and a decline in jobs.  

Posted
  On 11/23/2017 at 1:31 AM, Doc Brown said:

 

How do you screw that up based on his premise?  All you had to do was say the opposite...

 

Tax Cuts and Jobs act = increase in taxes and a decline in jobs.  

Expand  

 

Same way he screws up everything else.  He's an idiot.

×
×
  • Create New...