GoBills808 Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 What will erasing the 2015 bill accomplish?
/dev/null Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 31 minutes ago, GoBills808 said: What will erasing the 2015 bill accomplish? What did the 2015 accomplish?
GoBills808 Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 14 minutes ago, /dev/null said: What did the 2015 accomplish? I thought it prevented ISPs from dictating or hindering individuals' internet accessibility re: variable rates and content management...no?
B-Man Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 Quote Bill de Blasio✔@NYCMayor Just a few thoughts on #NetNeutrality – first of all, access to a free and open internet is a fundamental right of every citizen. (1/4) 3:46 PM - Nov 22, 2017
Azalin Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 1 hour ago, GoBills808 said: What will erasing the 2015 bill accomplish? Bill? I don't remember any bill. I do remember a proclamation of takeover by the former head of the FCC.
Tiberius Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 Oh, so we are going to be liberated by Trump?
GoBills808 Posted November 23, 2017 Posted November 23, 2017 36 minutes ago, Azalin said: Bill? I don't remember any bill. I do remember a proclamation of takeover by the former head of the FCC. I guess I don't remember a bill...but didn't they basically enforce net neutrality by reclassifying ISPs under a couple different acts?
GG Posted November 23, 2017 Posted November 23, 2017 9 minutes ago, 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? 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.
GoBills808 Posted November 23, 2017 Posted November 23, 2017 Just now, 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. 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.
GG Posted November 23, 2017 Posted November 23, 2017 Just now, 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. 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.
GoBills808 Posted November 23, 2017 Posted November 23, 2017 Just now, 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. 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?
GG Posted November 23, 2017 Posted November 23, 2017 3 minutes ago, 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? 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.
GoBills808 Posted November 23, 2017 Posted November 23, 2017 Just now, 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. 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?
GG Posted November 23, 2017 Posted November 23, 2017 3 minutes ago, 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? 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? 1
GoBills808 Posted November 23, 2017 Posted November 23, 2017 1 minute ago, 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? Will do, much appreciated!
DC Tom Posted November 23, 2017 Posted November 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Azalin said: Bill? I don't remember any bill. "Trump's arbitrarily changing the law Obama arbitrarily created! Fascism!" Our upcoming civil war is going to be one of massive ignorance. 1
Doc Brown Posted November 23, 2017 Posted November 23, 2017 8 hours ago, 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. 6 hours ago, Tiberius said: Tax cut and jobs act = tax cut for the wealthy 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.
Tiberius Posted November 23, 2017 Posted November 23, 2017 1 minute ago, 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. Sometimes I just need to slow down
3rdnlng Posted November 23, 2017 Posted November 23, 2017 16 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Sometimes I just need to slow down On the contrary. You've always been slow.
DC Tom Posted November 23, 2017 Posted November 23, 2017 2 hours ago, 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. Same way he screws up everything else. He's an idiot.
Recommended Posts