The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

[Rimbaud]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

This isn't a SCOTUS ruling, so it's a bit off-topic (and certainly off-topic from the flame war that seems to be going on), but: can someone explain to me why the recent appellate decision (effectively) doing away with the FCC's net neutrality policy is being billed as "the end of the Internet as we know it"?

ISPs can throttle certain sites so they run slowly (or not at all), so unless you (or those sites) give them more money, say goodbye to awesome streaming sites.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

ISPs can throttle certain sites so they run slowly (or not at all), so unless you (or those sites) give them more money, say goodbye to awesome streaming sites.

Imagine the money they'll rake in from Netflix.

 

[unofan]

This isn't a SCOTUS ruling, so it's a bit off-topic (and certainly off-topic from the flame war that seems to be going on), but: can someone explain to me why the recent appellate decision (effectively) doing away with the FCC's net neutrality policy is being billed as "the end of the Internet as we know it"?

Because it means Comcast can throttle Netflix traffic while promoting their own VoD traffic. Get ready for content based pricing and being effectively blocked from disfavored sites.

 

[jmh]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I understand what it means in a literal sense. I don't understand why this is the end of the world. So maybe Netflix winds up being a couple of bucks more a month? I read the post on Gizmodo where they said it discourages innovation, but I guess I just don't see it; if your innovation is some site that uses a massive amount of bandwidth, shouldn't there be some added cost to that? They used an analogy to tolls and cars; don't toll roads and bridges charge huge trucks more than passenger cars?

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I understand what it means in a literal sense. I don't understand why this is the end of the world. So maybe Netflix winds up being a couple of bucks more a month? I read the post on Gizmodo where they said it discourages innovation, but I guess I just don't see it; if your innovation is some site that uses a massive amount of bandwidth, shouldn't there be some added cost to that? They used an analogy to tolls and cars; don't toll roads and bridges charge huge trucks more than passenger cars?

They don't close the road so only trucks with a "Comcast is awesome" bumper sticker can use them while other trucks pile up on the on ramp waiting for a chance to get on - or use the back roads and take forever to reach their destination.

If I'm a technology innovator, I can rule out any invention that uses broadband - unless I can convince Comcast, Time Warner or another big provider to buy it - because no one will ever see it.

 

[Rimbaud]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I understand what it means in a literal sense. I don't understand why this is the end of the world. So maybe Netflix winds up being a couple of bucks more a month? I read the post on Gizmodo where they said it discourages innovation, but I guess I just don't see it; if your innovation is some site that uses a massive amount of bandwidth, shouldn't there be some added cost to that? They used an analogy to tolls and cars; don't toll roads and bridges charge huge trucks more than passenger cars?

When has putting restrictions on a service that showed no real problems or need for restrictions actually helped?

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I would also point out, from a technological standpoint, have you done a trace on almost every page you download? It hits about seven or eight different nodes and gets carried by several different companies. Even if you are watching Comcast VoD there is no guarantee it is Comcast all the way to your PC. It may be carried by AOL, TWC, ATT, Sprint...whomever...TWC might decide to throttle Comcast in favor of their own on-demand video service. What about ESPN, HBO or any other streaming sites?

The Internet could quickly go back to dialup quality.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I understand what it means in a literal sense. I don't understand why this is the end of the world. So maybe Netflix winds up being a couple of bucks more a month? I read the post on Gizmodo where they said it discourages innovation, but I guess I just don't see it; if your innovation is some site that uses a massive amount of bandwidth, shouldn't there be some added cost to that? They used an analogy to tolls and cars; don't toll roads and bridges charge huge trucks more than passenger cars?

What prevents Comcast from saying, screw a few extra bucks. We want to drive you out of business. We're going to block all traffic from Netflix even if our customers would pay $10/mo to access it. And despite what the courts say, it's not like the majority of those customers can go elsewhere. Most areas have a phone company and a cable company offering internet service. Many states have made it illegal to turn the internet into a municipal utility ala water/electric.

There's no way this isn't a loss for the end user.

Edit: And as far as the car/truck analogy, net neutrality still allows ISP's to charge based on bandwidth usage. This is more like saying "we'll charge X for a truck carrying Corleone olive oil but Y for anything else."

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

What prevents Comcast from saying, screw a few extra bucks. We want to drive you out of business. We're going to block all traffic from Netflix even if our customers would pay $10/mo to access it. And despite what the courts say, it's not like the majority of those customers can go elsewhere. Most areas have a phone company and a cable company offering internet service. Many states have made it illegal to turn the internet into a municipal utility ala water/electric.

There's no way this isn't a loss for the end user.

Edit: And as far as the car/truck analogy, net neutrality still allows ISP's to charge based on bandwidth usage. This is more like saying "we'll charge X for a truck carrying Corleone olive oil but Y for anything else."

My director of IT services, Mr. Brasi, will be contacting you shortly.

On a lighter note, I can see various providers charging a premium for users who view lots and lots of on-line content as opposed to viewing Comcast/Verizon/Time Warner's cable content.

Me? I just want a way to watch TSN here in the States.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

You're being far too restrictive in your allocation of power to the judiciary - under your model, judges would essentially only be there to proofread the laws and send them back to the legislature if the judges believe they are too vague or need updating. Any time a case arose that didn't quiiiiiite fit the framework of the law, instead of interpreting the law to determine how it should be applied to the new/unforeseen situation, the judges would have to send the issue back to Congress who would effectively become a jury for every such case. "But what did you mean here? And here? And there?" Completely unworkable.

Really? Maybe Congre$$ would stop being lazy and write good, tight, laws that leave little wiggle room. Right now Congre$$ writes a jumble and lets God (oops, the courts) sort it out.

And, I see another judge used Justice Kennedy's opinion on DOMA to strike down the legislature (people's) will on same sex marriage. Justice Scalia was dead on in his dissent.

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

My director of IT services, Mr. Brasi, will be contacting you shortly.

Your IT guy sleeps with the fishes.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Really? Maybe Congre$$ would stop being lazy and write good, tight, laws that leave little wiggle room. Right now Congre$$ writes a jumble and lets God (oops, the courts) sort it out.

And, I see another judge used Justice Kennedy's opinion on DOMA to strike down the legislature (people's) will on same sex marriage. Justice Scalia was dead on in his dissent.

With the collection of folks now on Capital Hill, good, tight laws is somewhere down the priority list near only spending money they have to spend.

Agreed on Scalia, as he often is.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

can someone explain to me why the recent appellate decision (effectively) doing away with the FCC's net neutrality policy is being billed as "the end of the Internet as we know it"?

Propaganda from Google and Netflix. the only thing the ruling means is that high-bandwidth users might have to pay proportionate to their actual usage, just like electricity or water.

It's actually the opposite, its' a great step in the preservation of the internet as we know it!

If the FCC ruling were to stand, it would open the door for other countries to try to impose their controls on the internet too. If we want to preserve the internet as we know it, we need to keep any and all governments away from running it, including our own. there are plenty of totalitarian regimes who would love to use the FCC rule as cover to impose their own controls too.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

What prevents Comcast from saying, screw a few extra bucks. We want to drive you out of business. We're going to block all traffic from Netflix even if our customers would pay $10/mo to access it.

Existing anti-trust law.

Were Comcast to try such a tactic, we'd soon see internet service providers completely separated from content providers across the board as part of a settlement decree with the DoJ, similar to the way AT&T was split up years ago, in which long-distance service was separated from local telephone service.

 

[unofan]

Existing anti-trust law.

Were Comcast to try such a tactic, we'd soon see internet service providers completely separated from content providers across the board as part of a settlement decree with the DoJ, similar to the way AT&T was split up years ago, in which long-distance service was separated from local telephone service.

Yeah, because cable companies carry every channel out there and never block their customers from receiving them due to pay disputes.

Get ready for tiered pricing internet based on content as well as usage. Comcast can't until 2018 due to a previous settlement, but Verizon's corporate speak press release signals that it's coming pretty clearly.

It's ironic you use at&t as your example, considering the reconsolidation that has been going in the area since then.

 

[jmh]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

When has putting restrictions on a service that showed no real problems or need for restrictions actually helped?

Clarifying - I'm not saying it helps, I'm not saying it's good, I just didn't really get why it's AS BAD as people were making it out to be.

And, I see another judge used Justice Kennedy's opinion on DOMA to strike down the legislature (people's) will on same sex marriage. Justice Scalia was dead on in his dissent.

The people's will SHOULDN'T ****ING MATTER if the people's will is to deny to some people the rights that are granted to others. What if some state passed a law that said "white people aren't allowed to get married"? So why should they be allowed to pass a law that says "gay people aren't allowed to get married"?

 

[Handyman]

SHOULDN'T ****ING MATTER if the people's will is to deny to some people the rights that are granted to others. What if some state passed a law that said "white people aren't allowed to get married"? So why should they be allowed to pass a law that says "gay people aren't allowed to get married"?

Do you really need to ask? Put it this way if OK had passed a law protecting Gay Marriage and the court overturned it what do you think the response would be?

Now you have your answer.

 

[unofan]

Clarifying - I'm not saying it helps, I'm not saying it's good, I just didn't really get why it's AS BAD as people were making it out to be.?

Because telecom companies in the US suck, and if you give them an inch they will take a mile. I get why service in b.f.e. Iowa sucks, it is expensive to service a sparsely populated rural area. I don't get why service in NYC or Chicago or other major cities suck. If Seoul and tokyo can have gigabit service for $20/month, there is no reason our major cities can't have that at that price either.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Because telecom companies in the US suck, and if you give them an inch they will take a mile. I get why service in b.f.e. Iowa sucks, it is expensive to service a sparsely populated rural area. I don't get why service in NYC or Chicago or other major cities suck. If Seoul and tokyo can have gigabit service for $20/month, there is no reason our major cities can't have that at that price either.

The reason we can't have gigabyte service is three-fold. First, it's expensive to replace existing infrastructure. Second, replacing that service within high-density areas isn't going to do much good when you're trying to get data packets from said BFE Iowa. Third, regulators and/or politicians would cry foul if there was a systematic, long-term plan to provide a superior high-speed service only to certain areas and not have plans to provide the same to others.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

The reason we can't have gigabyte service is three-fold. First, it's expensive to replace existing infrastructure. Second, replacing that service within high-density areas isn't going to do much good when you're trying to get data packets from said BFE Iowa. Third, regulators and/or politicians would cry foul if there was a systematic, long-term plan to provide a superior high-speed service only to certain areas and not have plans to provide the same to others.

Has more to do with profit then anything else. Nobody long term invests anymore.