• Your favorite

    Apple

    ,

    iPhone

    ,

    iPad

    ,

    iOS

    ,
    Jailbreak
    , and
    Cydia
    site.
  • New Bill Looks to Halt Net Neutrality Rules Passed by the FCC


    Net neutrality seems to be under fire once again as several groups including 14 Republic representatives, introduced a bill to let Congress review the net neutrality rules passed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and potentially stop them. The bill, which was proposed by Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, claims that the rules are “heavy-handed” and would “slow Internet speeds, increase consumer prices and hamper infrastructure development.” He and the bill’s cosponsors are specifically looking to pursue a “resolution of disapproval,” which can’t be amended or filibustered and also requires a quick action by the Senate.

    For those of you who didn’t already know, Republicans have tried to previously block net neutrality as well but haven’t had much success. Although most of the FCC’s 2010 rules on the matter were ultimately tossed by a US appeals court ruling, Democratic control of the Senate blocked a Republican House resolution back in 2011. At the same time, the CTIA, the organization that represents cellular companies, filed a lawsuit in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to block the new rules. The association argued that it hopes to “protect the competitive mobile marketplace that thrived under a deregulatory framework for decades,” and charged that the FCC’s rules will let “government bureaucrats” dictate the success of mobile services.

    For those of you who didn’t know already, the FCC is seeking to classify Internet service providers (ISPs) as Title II common carriers and stop them from preferring some traffic over others. ISPs will already escape the full scope of Title II provisions such as rate regulation and the unbundling of last-mile infrastructure. Mobile data providers will only have to obey provisions against prioritizing different forms of traffic. The move will still help to stop things such as T-Mobile’s exemption of music services from datacaps.

    We’ll have to see how the story unravels by waiting patiently.

    Source: Doug Collins via PCWorld
    This article was originally published in forum thread: New Bill Looks to Halt Net Neutrality Rules Passed by the FCC started by Akshay Masand View original post
    Comments 6 Comments
    1. Jahooba's Avatar
      Jahooba -
      Good! The Obama administration hijacked the words "Net Neutrality" in naming this FCC plan, when all it will do is expand the US government's control and regulation of the internet. The Left loves to use terms that make its plans more appealing, like how they named that massive healthcare tax hike the "Affordable Care Act." It would be funny if it wasn't so horrifying.

      Now their plans to tax and regulate the internet comes in the form of a "Net Neutrality" plan. All this is is a Trojan horse for more tax increases which will stifle innovation and expansion and increase prices for the consumer.

      The FCC is currently being investigated for their actions and is being sued by many states whose laws are being overwritten by this FCC plan. This is what happens when you act unilaterally without congress.

      And anyway, this plan was designed as a fix for a problem that doesn't exist, so it's all a farce, a red herring to keep the courts busy and obfuscate the issue - one analyst calls it the "Lawyer Employment Act" - it's all meant to keep congress busy while Obama wheels and deals with Iran and Cuba. It's all a distraction from what the administration is doing with their other hand. Always watch the other hand!
    1. PCYoda's Avatar
      PCYoda -
      The real problem is that 'net neutrality' can't possibly exist. Networking simply doesn't work in a way that'd allow 'net neutrality' to work.

      First and foremost is user experience. Streaming video and voice-over-IP are areas where users will notice any degradation of service continuity and quality. Networking equipment is specifically configured to account for the user experience through QoS tagging - without QoS tagging traffic, a VoIP call or a Netflix streaming movie could be disrupted by, for example, Bittorrent traffic. If Bittorrent traffic drops packets or isn't a completely steady stream, a user won't really notice; if a VoIP call starts dropping packets or having lag, voice quality will noticably degrade.

      Then there's the problem of bandwidth. Network switches are generally uplinked at less than the total aggregate speed of the individual switch. For example, a 48 port gigabit switch can pass 96 gigabits of bandwidth at full duplex; if the switches are uplinked by a 40Gb link (80 Gb at full duplex), that means that the switch communicates at 16Gb/s less - 16.6% less speed - to the next hop in the network than the switch supports. Typical internet connections get routed between 5-10 hops. If this speed degradation happens at each hop in the tree, you can see why it becomes important to prioritize certain types of traffic.

      When you consider how much bandwidth Netflix uses, for example, then you have to take a step back and think "whose responsibility is it to ensure high quality of service?" Net Neutrality advocates rail against the fact that Comcast charged Netflix to get better service quality on their network - however, to be honest, Comcast charging Netflix and arranging to more directly connect their networks was the ONLY way to properly pass that amount of traffic with any decent level of QoS. By having bigger, more direct uplinks between their networks. Equipment and wiring isn't free. Someone had to pay for it. If Comcast can't charge the consumer extra for using Netflix in particular, and they can't charge Netflix because that'd be arranging to create a 'preferred route' for traffic, then why should Comcast foot the bill just to appease one data hungry service? Netflix would end up profiting off of network upgrades that Comcast would essentially be forced to do because of them; or, Comcast wouldn't do the upgrades, and customers would complain about both services. It benefits Netflix and Comcast both to enter into the arrangement - and it does nothing to degrade the quality of the internet for other services. In fact, it enhances the quality of service for other internet sites by offloading Netflix's traffic away from the routes that their traffic takes.

      It's laughable to me that 'net neutrality' hawks cling on to it because they think that somehow mom and pop websites are going to have to pay huge bills to get their slice of the internet, yet they don't realize that allowing the bigger players to negotiate direct, prioritized connections actually BENEFITS those mom and pop websites because of the sheer fundamentals of how network uplinking works... they're potentially at risk of causing the very problems they seek to prevent.
    1. severe's Avatar
      severe -
      I like turtles.
    1. Bo Troxell's Avatar
      Bo Troxell -
      Quote Originally Posted by severe View Post
      I like turtles.
      Makes sense to me.
    1. luvmytj's Avatar
      luvmytj -
      WTF.


      When you consider how much bandwidth Netflix uses, for example, then you have to take a step back and think "whose responsibility is it to ensure high quality of service?" Net Neutrality advocates rail against the fact that Comcast charged Netflix to get better service quality on their network - however, to be honest, Comcast charging Netflix and arranging to more directly connect their networks was the ONLY way to properly pass that amount of traffic with any decent level of QoS. By having bigger, more direct uplinks between their networks. Equipment and wiring isn't free. Someone had to pay for it.
      So by your logic a company who makes a power hungry appliance should pay a fee to the power company because they own the lines that bring the power to your house to power it? Example - the power companies should charge Fedders a fee to use the electric lines since their air conditioner uses more service than an led light bulb.
      True competition & regulation will keep the fees down and services up. We need regulation to keep the monopoly internet companies in check. Without it, the fees to have & use internet services will skyrocket as the big boys buy up all the little guys for all the control. That will never work out for consumers, only the companies in control. American industry control at it's finest.
    1. madon's Avatar
      madon -
      Quote Originally Posted by luvmytj View Post
      WTF.




      So by your logic a company who makes a power hungry appliance should pay a fee to the power company because they own the lines that bring the power to your house to power it? Example - the power companies should charge Fedders a fee to use the electric lines since their air conditioner uses more service than an led light bulb.
      True competition & regulation will keep the fees down and services up. We need regulation to keep the monopoly internet companies in check. Without it, the fees to have & use internet services will skyrocket as the big boys buy up all the little guys for all the control. That will never work out for consumers, only the companies in control. American industry control at it's finest.
      In your example there IS a fee for the power hungry appliance - the difference is that in the case of electricity the consumer foots the increased bill rather than the manufacturer - ultimately someone has to pay for the needed capacity no matter what the resource in question, be it bandwidth or electricity. If we want unmetered internet connections then the extra costs will obviously have to come from the companies providing the content rather than the end users.