OT: Comcast Wins Court Case: Net Neutrality Hampered
Comcast won a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in its case with the FCC over net neutrality. Essentially, the FCC was told it didn't have the authority to tell Comcast that it couldn't slow BitTorrent use.
However, the case has much larger implications, including use of other high bandwidth sites like Hulu and YouTube and larger end users of bandwidth.
Maybe this will spur the Net Neutrality Act...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/technology/07net.html?hp
Ask a ninja!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H69eCYcDcuQ
(While we're on the subject... what the hell happened to the embed option on Youtube?)
You've got to click on an embed button that will display the code now.
But on a number of the boxes, it just says "undefined." Did that happen with the old format, and I'm just forgetting?
Its under the video. The button that says embed on the right side.
It's still there. It is located below the video and you have to click on it to get the code.
EDIT: Wow, talk about response time and service. BOOM! MGoBlog'd
Can you rephrase the title to indicate that the decision is actually ANTI net-neutrality?
I'm pretty sure that was indicated by the phrase "Comcast wins"
I assumed that, but I don't think most people understand net-neutrality and might think Comcast is a good guy here.
If they're dumb enough to think that Comcast is the good guy because they failed to click the link and read the post, they deserve Comcast.
Until you get the herd of dumb lemmings moving you can't accomplish the change you want.
couldn't have said it better, himself
Doesn't "Comcast wins" imply that? Them being awful and all.
EDIT: Stupid Coyote.
My first impression, before reading the link, was that maybe since Comcast is a service provider, their winning the case against government interference was a good thing.
so much as it is anti-FCC power grab. People are freaking out about this decision, but most of those people are net-neutrality-at-any-cost types. Or they're people unfamiliar with the really complex nature of broadband/telecom regulation. As far as I'm concerned, this is the proper result. The FCC can't do whatever it wants under its "ancillary" jurisdiction. This decision basically says it has to be ancillary to some other authority that Congress has given it. If Comcast lost here (and I really like when Comcast loses stuff but still like this decision), the FCC would have essentially had unlimited power to regulate high-speed internet providers, which is really something you don't want in the long run. Either the FCC needs to reclassify broadband services so it can regulate them or Congress needs to come up with a solution. Basically, even if you're a fan of net neutrality, you should want to accomplish it via some other means.
Very true. The one issue I have with the ruling is that it places even more power into the hands of Congress to act appropriately with respect to net neutrality, and I have little faith in their ability to parse the nuances of the issue. My fear is that they'll either fashion an extremely weak set of statutes that favor the service providers or they'll create an overly-draconian and cumbersome system that will further retard the ISP's legitimate goals to improve service through some necessary throttling and investment in new means deliver data quickly and efficiently.
The FCC does have the authority to re-classify broadband services under Title II (instead of under Title I as was struck down in this case). For instance, DSL access to the Internet used to be Title II until it was deregulated by the FCC. This distinction is important b/c Title II involves common carriers and therefore restricts the sorts of things ISPs can control. So either the FCC can choose to re-classify or Congress can choose to grant the FCC the power to regulate. And a reasonable reading of the statute bears this out, I think. That is, the idea that Congress's grant of power here doesn't include what the FCC was trying to do.
In response to the person below who thinks this discussion is violating the MGoBlog rules, I think I disagree, but I'm happy to quit talking about it if people think it's too political.
I think people need to understand the ruling as anti-FCC. And while I'm all for net-neutrality, I want the FCC to STAY THE HELL AWAY from the internets. Government meddling = EPIC FAIL every single time.
Yeah, EPIC FAIL every time. Imagine if the internet had started out as a government project. It would have been terrible!!
To be more fair to the poster to whom you were responding, the more appropriate way to make his point (which is consistent with yours) is to say that every time the government meddles into something non-military epic fail ensues.
OK, so this is probably going to veer way over the no-politics line that this thread was in danger of crossing from the start, but I can't resist...
So what you're saying is that this would have been a more appropriate response?
That was funny. Although I would (in some cases strongly) disagree that all of the things mentioned in that link have been government successes, I will admit that it was well written.
This is like the one thing the FCC is doing that makes sense though. Prevent traffic prioritization and discrimination. I don't think it's a power grab at all. The alternative is what? Congress getting involved? A new department of internet traffic security? The FCC can simply enforce net-neutrality by punishing any ISP that breaks it. It's pretty simple.
A company builds a information transmission system. Other companies do the same. The bandwidth available is in fact finite, so when traffic peaks, everyone on the system gets slow transmission of content. A group of users develop, less than 10% of the entire customer base, who are heavy consumers of content, and they use at times, more than 70% of the available bandwidth. The company decides to charge to charge them more money for the bandwidth they use. So, those who use more of a service are asked to pay more than those who use less. Discrimination?
"So, those who use more of a service are asked to pay more than those who use less. Discrimination?"
Not at all. But charging someone who downloads 100GB of Michigan videos from bittorrent more than someone that streams 100GB of videos from Youtube is discrimination. Your example is not net-neutrality, the 2nd one is.
I think the Comcast vs. FCC Royal Rumble is relatively common knowledge here, I was just conveying the results of a court decision. I'm of the opinion that the FCC probably shouldn't be creating powers for itself, but that net neutrality is a good thing and should probably be legislated.
However, I understand where you are coming from, and I'll try to rephrase appropriately.
The asserted regulations are not necessarily new powers the FCC is creating. The FCC and other regulatory bodies (e.g. EPA) have a fairly broad operational range. Though, I still need to read over the case.
The basis of the lawsuit was that the FCC doesn't currently have jurisdiction over the internet. The court agreed with Comcast that they indeed do not currently have jurisdiction. Look for Congress to grant them that authority soon.
As I said, I work in telecom. I'm not sure where I come down on this. I like downloading torrents and watching live video online, but I also understand the logistical problems this causes the providers. There's a reason your internet pipe is advertised as an "up to" speed. All the providers oversell their capabilities by at least 3x.
So, if the pipe is meant to provide 100x of data speed, they will sell 300x of data speed because that magical 100x is reached so rarely that users don't notice. As more and more users begin to need and utilize 100% of their bandwidth more often it slows down the pipe for everyone. What we currently are doing is rebalancing the load on the systems.
Adding more bandwith is a possibility, but it is exremely expensive and even at that there are limitations. Just in the time I've been here we've gone from an OC-48 pipe being a big deal to OC-192's being common. The newest equipment we are putting in is capable of handling 24 OC-192 pipes simultaneously.
Putting it into perspective that a non-telecom person would understand...a single OC-192 pipe could carry 6,782,976 phone calls with a traditional phone at the same time.
Not sure what the solution is other than maybe to sell the wide pipes or unchoked service as a feature, but those aren't my decisions.
All the providers oversell their capabilities by at least 3x.
Not sure what the solution is other than maybe to sell the wide pipes or unchoked service as a feature, but those aren't my decisions.So they are overselling, then attempting to make it work by punishing people for using what they believe they purchased?
Allotting every customer full bandwidth all the time is an incredibly wasteful use of bandwidth. Even your plain telephone line (POTS) is "oversold". If everyone in your town went offhook at the same time, only the police, hospitals, and firestations would have dialtone.
With POTS service it is usually 12:1 meaning there are 12 customers for every available timeslot.
The only way I'm aware of to get your full bandwidth all the time is to purchase a dedicated T1, T3, or other. It's quite expensive though.
I'm not defending the practice, just explaining how it works.
I love it. Especially their new 24 Down, 3 Up connection.
I feel for everyone out there who can only get Comcast or Dial Up. That was me for the first 18 years of my life and still is my parents. Fortunately for them I'm not longer there to threaten the bandwidth cap.
for why Ann Arbor should get google fiber, I wrote "Comcast is the devil, please save us"
The telecoms will spend millions on making sure the status quo is maintained, to the detriment of all of us. Free marketz bitchez!
I'm looking to ditch Comcast when I move, going to be in a house with 4 people and would like the internet speeds to still be pretty good (mostly for gaming). This is for Ann Arbor by the way.
I'd prefer the end of net neutrality to the end of "unlimited" data plans. It will probably wind up being both, though.
I actually had a limited data plan for a little while with a satellite internet provider in a very remote area and I was really surprised at how little I used.
That may be because it was agonizingly slow, however.
die a slow, gruesome death.
For recommendations, see if Uverse is available... and by god, if Verizon FiOS is available in your area, get it please.
For gaming, and sharing with roommates... make sure you get one of the higher bandwidth packages and just split the cost.
What happened to the anti-politics rule on this board?
So IMO it's kind of important.
It's still politics, which is banned here and for good reason.
This isn't important to your experience on MGoBlog?
Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as communication that is not unreasonably degraded by other traffic.[1][2][3]
But it's still politics. Yes, nearly everyone on the internet is pro-net neutrality; however, not being controversial doesn't make it a non-political issue.
I don't see how it's political at all either. Can you give an example of how it's political?
Edit: I mean, is anyone (outside of companies that would receive kickbacks based on their favoritism to certain traffic) actually anti-net neutrality? I don't even see how it's a political issue in this context. It's equivalent to if a toll road wanted to charge a car more for carrying 100lbs of food than a car carrying 100lbs of stone. That's pretty insane isn't it?
Examples of it's political-ness are a Google search away. President Obama is a supporter of net neutrality and has stated he intends to sign a net neutrality act into law. Senator McCain introduced an anti-net neutrality bill. Many people believe that it should be up to the individual companies to decide their policies, and regulation in the form of a Net Neutrality Act would be an inappropriate application of government.
I mean, I'm all for net neutrality and honestly enjoy talking about it with my fellow MGoBloggers, but it definitely toes the forbidden political line.
EDIT: Oh, and it's not really equivalent to a toll-road. Time-Warner and other companies already have data caps in place for people who use large amounts of data, and no one is saying that's illegal. Net neutrality refers to the practice of a company discriminating what type of traffic, equipment, and modes of communication are allowed or disallowed. See bouje's Wikipedia copy-paste above.
The fact that politicians make something a political issue does not mean its a political issue to everyone else. By your logic, college football would be a political issue. So would corn.
Where to start? Because senators bring up college football doesn't make "college football" as a topic political. If someone were to start a thread, "Does Congress have a right to regulate how the NCAA determines its National Champion?" though, that would be political. That is a question of political ideology, as is this. Sorry.
Don't forget peanuts.
Reread my comparison to the toll road.
Fair enough, messed up my 100s vs. 10s. Apologies.
But do you see how this could be considered political to some? If not, fine, I'll leave it. I don't mind reading/discussing net neutrality on MGoBlog, but I do believe saying it's not political is wrong.
Court cases=not politics...
If, however, a court case is decided upon the issue of whether or not a government actor possesses a certain power to regulate in a given area, it can easily assume a political tone. Many of the largest political disputes are (or at least used to be) about whether or not the government has the power to act in a given way regarding a given issue.