Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

My Internet speed is currently 50/4. It used to be 70/2.5, but the subscription changed. The modem actually synced at 70/6 when I last checked, meaning that's the maximum speed I could get over VDSL if I paid almost twice as much. Over cable a slightly higher speed might be possible, but not for less money and besides the cable company has horrid policies.

Oak-- I'd like to know why you think AT&T and Comcast have any interest in protecting your freedoms. Their running record isn't terribly good to date, given free reign they would have monopolies in no time and you would have to accept poor service at outrageous prices, with no recourse.

Comcast is a virtual monopoly around here. The only alternative is DSL, which gives you significantly less speed per buck since it's not subsidized by TV subscribers.

I don't trust the government. I trust AT&T and Comcast even less. As it is, net neutrality at least gives a start-up a chance-- small though it is. Take away net neutrality and allow the big companies to do as they see fit without regulation---nobody else gets to play and that's that.

Quote from: Macallan on 2015-03-03, 10:17:55

Comcast is a virtual monopoly around here. The only alternative is DSL, which gives you significantly less speed per buck since it's not subsidized by TV subscribers.

I have Centurylink DSL, which has been experiencing solid growth around here and the equivalent plan from Comcast costs considerably more. Their downside is incompetent tech support. There was an outage, so I tried to call them after the normal solutions failed me. So their tech support guy said there was maintenance in Las  Vegas, but my address /should/ be okay and I have no problems since Google can load (despite the fact if I tried to click any link from the search results, that site wouldn't load.)  It turned out that the issues was Century Link's DNS servers, but the tech support guy apparently had no way to know this. But I wonder if Comcast's "tech support" is really any better trained and better tools and can do much more than tell their customers to unplug their modem and plug it back in.

So their tech support guy said there was maintenance in Las  Vegas, but my address /should/ be okay and I have no problems since Google can load

For a time. And may Great Cthulhu make you forget to pester us again when it expires.

What annoys me to no end is that comcast forces you to buy a TV package in order to get internet.

I don't like Xfinity's TV service. Perhaps I just don't watch tv enough to be used to it. Over a year now and I still haven't mastered the interface, lol.

Quote from: Macallan on 2015-03-04, 00:47:08

For a time. And may Great Cthulhu make you forget to pester us again when it expires.

You do have to occasionally remind them you exist tho.

Quote from: Macallan on 2015-03-04, 00:47:08

What annoys me to no end is that comcast forces you to buy a TV package in order to get internet.

I don't like Xfinity's TV service. Perhaps I just don't watch tv enough to be used to it. Over a year now and I still haven't mastered the interface, lol.

I just don't watch TV. And my wife works for DirecTV so we get their everything-and-the-kitchen-sink package for almost free.

I've been waiting for the regulations to be published

2.
No Unreasonable Interference or Unreasonable Disadvantage to Consumers
or Edge Providers

20.
The key insight of the virtuous cycle is that broadband providers have both the incentive
and the ability to act as gatekeepers standing between edge providers and consumers. As gatekeepers,
they can block access altogether; they can target competitors, including competitors to their own video
services; and they can extract unfair tolls. Such conduct would, as the Commission concluded in 2010,
“reduce the rate of innovation at the edge and, in turn, the likely rate of improvements to network
infrastructure.”23 In other words, when a broadband provider acts as a gatekeeper, it actually chokes
consumer demand for the very broadband product it can supply. 

Consumers are unlikely to know (or care) about why a particular video takes two seconds to load or is constantly rebuffering, and
will abandon those edge providers that they perceive as providing a slower and thus less enjoyable experience.”);
Kickstarter Comments at 3-4 (“Users will not accept slow load times and choppy videos.”).

70.
Verizon subsequently challenged the Open Internet Order in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit, arguing, among other things, that the Open Internet Order exceeded the
Commission’s regulatory authority and violated the Act.88 In January 2014, the D.C. Circuit upheld the
Commission’s determination that section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 granted the
Commission authority to regulate broadband Internet service providers,89 and that the Commission had
demonstrated a sound policy justification for the Open Internet Order. Specifically, the court sustained
the Commission’s findings that “absent rules such as those set forth in the Open Internet Order,
broadband providers represent a threat to Internet openness and could act in ways that would ultimately
inhibit the speed and extent of future broadband deployment.”90 

The Continuing Need for Open Internet Protections

75.
In its remand of the Commission’s Open Internet Order, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the
underlying basis for the Commission’s open Internet rules, holding that “the Commission [had] more than
adequately supported and explained its conclusion that edge provider innovation leads to the expansion
and improvement of broadband infrastructure.”111 The court also found “reasonable and grounded in
substantial evidence” the Commission’s finding that Internet openness fosters the edge provider
innovation that drives the virtuous cycle.112 The record on remand continues to convince us that
broadband providers—including mobile broadband providers—have the incentives and ability to engage
in practices that pose a threat to Internet openness, and as such, rules to protect the open nature of the
Internet remain necessary. Today we take steps to ensure that the substantial benefits of Internet
openness continue to be realized.

77.
The record before us also overwhelmingly supports the proposition that the Internet’s
openness is critical to its ability to serve as a platform for speech and civic engagement,118 and that it can
help close the digital divide by facilitating the development of diverse content, applications, and
services.

Technical Ability

85.
As the Commission explained in the Open Internet Order, past instances of abuse
indicate that broadband providers have the technical ability to act on incentives to harm the open
Internet.153 Broadband providers have a variety of tools at their disposal that can be used to monitor and
regulate the flow of traffic over their networks—giving them the ability to discriminate should they
choose to do so. Techniques used by broadband providers to identify and select traffic may include
approaches based on packet payloads (using deep packet inspection), network or transport layer headers
(e.g., port numbers or priority markings), or heuristics (e.g., the size, sequencing, and/or timing of
packets).154 Using these techniques, broadband providers may apply network practices to traffic that has a
particular source or destination, that is generated by a particular application or by an application that
belongs to a particular class of applications, that uses a particular application- or transport-layer protocol,
or that is classified for special treatment by the user, application, or application provider.155 Application-
specific network practices depend on the broadband provider’s ability to identify the traffic associated
with particular uses of the network. Some of these application-specific practices may be reasonable
network management, e.g., tailored network security practices. However, some of these techniques may
also be abused.156 Deep packet inspection, for example, may be used in a manner that may harm the open
Internet, e.g., to limit access to certain Internet applications, to engage in paid prioritization, and even to
block certain content.157 Similarly, traffic control algorithms can be abused, e.g., to give certain packets
favorable placement in queues or to send packets along less congested routes in a manner contrary to end
user preferences.158 Use of these techniques may ultimately affect the quality of service that users receive,
which could effectively force edge providers to enter into paid prioritization agreements to prevent poor
quality of content to end users. 

245 See supra Section III.B. See also Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group, Port Blocking at 2 (2013)
http://www.bitag.org/documents/Port-Blocking.pdf, (“Because Port blocking can affect how particular Internet
applications function, its use has the potential to be anti-competitive, discriminatory, otherwise motivated by non-
technical factors, or construed as such.”); Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications, A View of
Traffic Management and Other Practices Resulting in Restrictions to the Open Internet in Europe at 8-9 (May 29,
2012), http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-
agenda/files/Traffic%20Management%20Investigation%20BEREC_2.pdf 

Some might wonder why this is so…

Promoting Investment with a Modern Title II

37.
Today, our forbearance approach results in over 700 codified rules being inapplicable, a
“light-touch” approach for the use of Title II. This includes no unbundling of last-mile facilities, no
tariffing, no rate regulation, and no cost accounting rules, which results in a carefully tailored application
of only those Title II provisions found to directly further the public interest in an open Internet and more,
better, and open broadband. Nor will our actions result in the imposition of any new federal taxes or fees;
the ability of states to impose fees on broadband is already limited by the congressional Internet tax
moratorium.
38.
This is Title II tailored for the 21st Century. Unlike the application of Title II to
incumbent wireline companies in the 20th Century, a swath of utility-style provisions (including tariffing)
will not be applied. Indeed, there will be fewer sections of Title II applied than have been applied to
Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS), where Congress expressly required the application of
Sections 201, 202, and 208, and permitted the Commission to forbear from others. In fact, Title II has
never been applied in such a focused way.

Nor will our actions result in the imposition of any new federal taxes or fees;
the ability of states to impose fees on broadband is already limited by the congressional Internet tax
moratorium. 

1.1 Law The action of refraining from exercising a legal right, especially enforcing the payment of a debt.

verb

[NO OBJECT]
Stop oneself from doing something:
she refrained from comment