Windows 10: FCC approves Net Neutrality rules

I don't think we get a vote, Cougar. Only the FCC gets a vote. I think.

 

One more time. It's not a Bill. It's not a law. It's a ruling by the FCC that Broadband now applies to an already established law that has been on the books for many years.

 

BT increased my speed without a price increase, went from a 40Mb connection to 80Mb connection without an increase in price, in fact it actually costs me £2 less *Smile

Based on my location i have always go very close to maximum speeds too.

 

We votied with our 4 million comments we sent to the FCC before they set the rules in stone.

 

Okay....
It's a ruling....
A ruling made by the FCC on a law from 1934...
And the citizens of the US still have not read the 'ruling's 323 pages.
A ruling made, even though there are obviously a lot of people who either didn't want this ruling or at least wanted to understand what it said and how it could affect the people, who theoretically are the ones, who the FCC work for.

 

The problem with that is most people won't read it and most of them who would wouldn't understand it.

 

Where is the 323 page you are talking about? I read another article(Sorry, no link) saying the FCC ruling is only 8 pages long not 323 pages.

 

There is no way that a complex ruling will only take up 8 pages. That's a summary not the details.

 

It's sure not that way in the u.s. that I've ever seen happen,
Personally dsl is as fast as u-verse which is still dsl with a different modem but allot more expensive,
If at&t had it's way I'd be paying 180.u.s a month instead of 102.60 for t.v. and internet.
Then you get into the cell silliness which a meager 200mb was like 80.us
I can't even talk to Comcast but they are about the same 180.00.

 

We can speculate 'til the cows come home but no one will really know what is going to come out of this until either we see that elusive document (and maybe not even then) or something actually happens. The ISPs are going to raise a ruction through the courts so the legality of the FCC's actions will be tested.

 

And I read that it's 317 pages. *Smile

 

The FCC's net neutrality rules: 5 things you need to know



The FCC's net neutrality rules: 5 things you need to know | PCWorld

 

This one will be a doozy in court action, which will come fast and furious--if ever there was a case of government overreach, this is surely it. First, the FCC is going to have to explain why it had already classified the Internet as an "Information Service" but now has reached the brilliant conclusion that the Internet is not really an "Information Service" after all (the FCC lied the first time?), but a telephone carrier company of the kind that the original Title II rules were created for--Ma Bell, etc. (Title II supported the government's right to make AT&T the legal long-distance monopoly in the country for decades, until a Federal judge declared the whole thing unconstitutional and dissolved the government's monopoly. Long distance phone service did not advance in the US until the government's monopoly was broken up and long-distance was deregulated in the '80's.) It should be very entertaining to watch the FCC--well, the three Democrat members of the FCC, anyway--explain all of the contradictions and misapplications of Title II to "the Internet." The FCC seems so stupid that it doesn't understand that no one company controls the Internet--the servers that people visit while on the Internet do not belong to the ISPs, but are all independently owned, etc. Grab your popcorn and prepare for a show...*Wink

 

That is the entire point of the exercise.

It's to prevent the ISPs from saying, "we don't like how much traffic waltc's server generates/receives, so we'll throttle his service until he coughs up more cash."

 

No, it's common carrier of the type all communications services are, not just the original AT&T (or ma bell). This includes Verizon, Sprint, etc.. almost all existing major ISP's are already common carriers anyways. Reclassifying something is not saying they "lied", it's that conditions have changed. Whereas previously it was ruled one way, it is now ruled another.

This is a common misconception. The fact is, AT&T *wanted* to be broken up, and in fact it was AT&T that sought legal action to be broken up. They wanted to be able to compete in other markets they were being barred from competing in, and they wanted to divest themselves of local CLEC's because they were money sinks.

It's a common fantasy that anti-monopoly heroes brought down the big phone company monopoly, when in fact it's the exact opposite. The monopoly itself wanted less regulation, so they demanded to be broken up (which they couldn't legally do themselves).

Regardless, Title II was extensively modified over the years since 1934. In fact, the largest such modification occurred in 1996, and one of the key things that legislation did was repeal the 1982 consent decree with AT&T that allowed the breakup. It treated video content over phone wires to be considered common carrier equivalent as well.

You do understand that one company hasn't own the phone handsets either since 1982. That's basically the equivalent. "The internet" isn't what's being regulated. Broadband is, which is a very specific set of services provided by communications companies, ie. The bandwidth.