It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Won't need to... the House isn't reinstating this crappy law, no way in hell.
originally posted by: Guyfriday
I take it you don't have Comcast? Infact, I'm sure you don't have any of the major ISPs? They all have structured services where you pay more for faster internet access. It gets covered up as gear rental fee's but really it's just a few lines of code in your account that limits the speed that you're getting. How was that "Net Neutrality", all that stupid rule did was allow major companies to make backdoor deals with cities for exclusive access to their areas (regional monopolies if you will)
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Actually, it's the lack of competition.
Why the U.S. Has Fallen Behind in Internet Speed and Affordability
originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
What a dumb argument. The term "net neutrality" was coined in order to describe the type of open internet we enjoy today and have for the past two decades. Your argument is so fallacious it's laughable.
originally posted by: dug88
originally posted by: Grambler
I am noy informed enough to have an opinion on rather this is good or bad.
I do wonder though if this isnt a first step in the government saying other things are like a utility.
I can see republicans that are angry with google, facebook, and twitter now saying they should be able to ensure those "utilities" do not censor conservative views.
It would be interesting to see both sides flip their arguments if it comes to that.
This makes no sense. That would be like saying the guy that bottles and sells water would be a utility because he's a company profiting from water....
People really don't seem to be able to grasp the difference between the internet itself and companies that exist on the internet....
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
What a dumb argument. The term "net neutrality" was coined in order to describe the type of open internet we enjoy today and have for the past two decades. Your argument is so fallacious it's laughable.
I thought it was painfully obvious we were speaking about the FCC’s net-neutrality rules, and not the idea of net-neutrality. I should have know better.
originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: luthier
Which lawsuit specifically?? I never see any actual citations referencing such activity by ISP's in the past, especially considering that such behavior was already prohibited with penalties outlined in the Telecommunication act of 1996 under PART II--DEVELOPMENT OF COMPETITIVE MARKETS-sec. 104 "Sec. 104. Nondiscrimination principle."
Nearly every part of the 1996 law has a section against discriminatory practices, which is what the meda , rich elites, and talking heads are trying to sell us.
I just wish somebody would provide something in legal writing that supports the claims being made.
In September 2012, a group of public interest organizations such as Free Press, Public Knowledge and the New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute filed a complaint with the FCC that AT&T was violating net neutrality rules by restricting use of Apple's video-conferencing application FaceTime on cellular networks to those who have a shared data plan on AT&T, excluding those with older, unlimited or tiered data plans.[
In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. The FCC issued a Letter of Inquiry to Madison River, initiating an investigation. To avoid litigation, Madison River agreed to make a voluntary payment of fifteen thousand dollars and agreed to not block ports used for VoIP applications or otherwise prevent customers from using VoIP applications.
Frontier Communications and a cable industry front group have sued the state of West Virginia over efforts to improve competition in the state.
The former owner of a small internet service provider in South Texas is suing Comcast, accusing the telecom giant of intentionally—or by way of its own negligence—destroying his business and seizing his customers.
The telecoms giant was sued [PDF] by Texas-based ISP and TV carrier En-Touch Systems for charging exorbitantly high prices for a local sports channel AT&T owned in the Houston market. The suit, filed in AT&T subsidiary DirecTV's home of Los Angeles, CA, accuses AT&T of violating the Sherman and Clayton antitrust Acts as well as the California Cartwright act.
COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.
AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.
In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.
In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.
Throughout 2013 and early 2014, people across the country experienced slower speeds when trying to connect to certain kinds of websites and applications. Many complained about underperforming streaming video from sites like Netflix. Others had trouble connecting to video-conference sites and making voice calls over the internet.
The common denominator for all of these problems, unbeknownst to users at the time, was their ISPs’ failure to provide enough capacity for this traffic to make it on to their networks in the first place. In other words, the problem was not congestion on the broadband lines coming into homes and businesses, but at the “interconnection” point where the traffic users’ request from other parts of the internet first comes into the ISPs’ networks.
originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: stormcell
I recall reading in a previous tellcom act document that actually had legal writing that already prevented the practices described with penalties even outlined.
Have you any examples of where this behavior has actually resulted in a situation described that was e xempt from those penalties and prohibitions or which company was guilty of such activity before NN??
originally posted by: worldstarcountry
And and and... They were all resolved through the existing mechanisms outline in the existing 1996 revised telecommunications act.