Rules Of The Internet Now Complete In A Convenient 583-Page PDF

Status
Not open for further replies.

Urzu1000

Honorable
Dec 24, 2013
413
10
10,815
11
Could we get a list of more points? These are pretty basic. I'm interested in how this will affect competition.

(At work, I'll be reading the PDF later.)
 

Christopher1

Distinguished
Aug 29, 2006
663
2
19,015
5
Rule #1 is stupid and trivial. If you outlaw independent news services, it's okay to ban them? Dictators say cheers.
Rule #1 is exceedingly smart and takes care of something that was already happening.
They are not going to 'ban independent news services', it would not stand up under our Constitution and they would be spanked by the Supreme Court if they even tried.
Just another bunch of hyperbole from an extreme conservative.
 

Christopher1

Distinguished
Aug 29, 2006
663
2
19,015
5
Could we get a list of more points? These are pretty basic. I'm interested in how this will affect competition.
They have already said that the new rules would not have much of an effect on competition. The only thing that would do that is linesharing which the FCC has said that they are not going to put into place.
 

Osmin

Distinguished
Jan 19, 2012
132
0
18,680
0
Now I am going to wait for some consumer friendly news outlet to digest the 500+ rules to give an opinion on the overall effect. I would definitely fall asleep reading it and would miss important legal terminology. I would like to know if there are loop holes or what they will claim to be an oversight. Legal experts will be all over this to find a loop hole in order to take advantage of it. Just hope the consumer wins in the end and hope this was not just to calm down the people that were getting tired of the poor internet speeds at high prices. If they don't make the ISP upgrade their infrastructure to support the speeds they promise you, then it will not change things until your local city provides ISP services.
 

boogalooelectric

Distinguished
Jul 1, 2009
266
0
18,860
27
Its been a fun day reading all the comments on various sources reporting this, its a new game you can play called 'Find the shill'.

Anyone who goes on the attack about this is probably either employed by big telecom or a paid shill.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
Rule #3 sounds misguided: since Netflix relied heavily on a single transit provider to reach ISPs, that made Netflix vulnerable to single-point congestion. To the end-users, this gets perceived as throttling but since it is a transit issue, the third rule does nothing to prevent that.

At the same time, this rule also prevents services that could legitimately benefit from prioritized traffic forwarding (high quality VoIP, very low latency/jitter gaming and real-time streaming, etc.) from ever launching over public networks. To accommodate these types of service, extra capacity would need to get built to ensure promised quality standards are met and that spare capacity would usually be available for normal traffic when not in use by those who paid for it.
 

spiketheaardvark

Distinguished
Apr 14, 2009
127
9
18,715
7
Could we get a list of more points? These are pretty basic. I'm interested in how this will affect competition.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it took them 583 pages to state just these three rules. The instructions for a student to file a training grant with the NIH are 143 pages.
 

Reepca

Honorable
Dec 5, 2012
156
0
10,680
0
Rule #1 is stupid and trivial. If you outlaw independent news services, it's okay to ban them? Dictators say cheers.
Rule #1 is exceedingly smart and takes care of something that was already happening.
They are not going to 'ban independent news services', it would not stand up under our Constitution and they would be spanked by the Supreme Court if they even tried.
Just another bunch of hyperbole from an extreme conservative.
To be fair, there are plenty of examples of the Supreme Court letting unconstitutional stuff slide. Also, you had a pretty valid comment until you added "... from an extreme conservative". That's profiling/stereotyping, and it turns any discussion into an "us vs him/her/them" dialogue. Not good.

With regard to the article, while I'm all for keeping ISPs from limiting certain content, I can't help but imagine playing a game with 200 ping because someone in the house is downloading Ubuntu or something and thinking "why couldn't my game traffic have a fast lane?". Not that it works that way now - any time my sister watches Netflix the connection to the game servers goes to heck as is, but I feel like it's a missed opportunity.
 

rayden54

Honorable
May 14, 2013
184
0
10,690
2
Question 1: Is there anything in there to address ISPs charging outrageous prices for ridiculously low speeds (say $40+ for 1.8 Mbps)? Or improvements to the infrastructure? Subsidies? Anything that might help rural subscribers like myself?

Question 2: Does this address tiered pricing plans and/or data caps? Or throttling of specific USERS?
 

rluker5

Honorable
Jun 23, 2014
41
0
10,530
0
Question 1: Is there anything in there to address ISPs charging outrageous prices for ridiculously low speeds (say $40+ for 1.8 Mbps)? Or improvements to the infrastructure? Subsidies? Anything that might help rural subscribers like myself?

Question 2: Does this address tiered pricing plans and/or data caps? Or throttling of specific USERS?
The isp's are exempt from the thing on a case by case basis so that they can do the tiered plans under the "reasonable network management" section. Their plans and pricing will be at the mercy of the will of the regulators. Unless they opt out of any caps/throttling whatsoever. And your plan looks better than my rural one was 6 months ago :768k/$26m.
 

rayden54

Honorable
May 14, 2013
184
0
10,690
2
It's funny. They've increased the definition of broadband twice. Now the internet's a utility. I don't recall ever having the electricity suck this badly.

(So how did you get a better plan? My ISP used to offer a faster plan for a lot more money (years ago). Now the only plan they offer is for less than I'm getting right now- "Up to" 1 Mbps. Only reason we've got the 1.8 (actual plan is for 3 Mbps, but oh well) is because we've had it for years.)
 

rluker5

Honorable
Jun 23, 2014
41
0
10,530
0
(So how did you get a better plan? My ISP used to offer a faster plan for a lot more money (years ago). Now the only plan they offer is for less than I'm getting right now- "Up to" 1 Mbps. Only reason we've got the 1.8 (actual plan is for 3 Mbps, but oh well) is because we've had it for years.)[/quote]
I moved. also saved an hour a day driving and got natural gas out of the deal.
 

soccerplayer88

Distinguished
Feb 1, 2010
227
0
18,680
0
With regard to the article, while I'm all for keeping ISPs from limiting certain content, I can't help but imagine playing a game with 200 ping because someone in the house is downloading Ubuntu or something and thinking "why couldn't my game traffic have a fast lane?". Not that it works that way now - any time my sister watches Netflix the connection to the game servers goes to heck as is, but I feel like it's a missed opportunity.
That's what a router is used for. There is a little thing called QoS (Quality of Service). You limit the bandwidth per MAC address (or sometimes IP/Hostname).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS