Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #6827 > unrolled thread

holy crap: America's FCC passes Net Neutrality law

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  holy crap: America's FCC passes Net Neutrality law RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2015-02-26 23:58 +0000
    Re: holy crap: America's FCC passes Net Neutrality law Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-02-27 07:59 +0000
      Re: holy crap: America's FCC passes Net Neutrality law Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2015-02-27 09:39 +0000
      Re: holy crap: America's FCC passes Net Neutrality law RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2015-02-27 13:27 +0000
        Re: holy crap: America's FCC passes Net Neutrality law Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-02-27 15:47 +0000
    Re: holy crap: America's FCC passes Net Neutrality law RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2015-02-27 15:36 +0000
      Re: holy crap: America's FCC passes Net Neutrality law Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-02-28 03:26 +0000

#6827 — holy crap: America's FCC passes Net Neutrality law

No link to provide, but you'll find coverage at both slashdot.org and
soylentnews.org :

The US government passed new legislation that enforces net neutrality
and outlaws 'internet fast lanes' and prioritization of certain kinds of
traffic.  It also allows the USG to regulate ISPs like a utility.

This is almost too good to hope for.  The good thing about being so
consistently disappointed by the USG over the past few years is that
when they get something right, you are filled with a sense of elation.
I'm amazed the corporate interests didn't win this one.

Naturally, the vote passed along largely party lines.

Off to pour myself a glass of scotch to celebrate.  This is a great day
for the Internet!

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#6830

In article <mcobvj$jgr$1@solani.org>, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com>
wrote:

>No link to provide, but you'll find coverage at both slashdot.org and
>soylentnews.org :
>
>The US government passed new legislation that enforces net neutrality
>and outlaws 'internet fast lanes' and prioritization of certain kinds of
>traffic.  It also allows the USG to regulate ISPs like a utility.
>
>This is almost too good to hope for.  The good thing about being so
>consistently disappointed by the USG over the past few years is that
>when they get something right, you are filled with a sense of elation.
>I'm amazed the corporate interests didn't win this one.
>
>Naturally, the vote passed along largely party lines.
>
>Off to pour myself a glass of scotch to celebrate.  This is a great day
>for the Internet!

For that part of the Internet in the US, you mean. Nothing to do with
the rest of us, although others may take note.

-- 
"People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility
with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy
Microsoft because the IBM Selectric didn't suck much" - P Seebach, afc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6831

On 27/02/15 07:59, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <mcobvj$jgr$1@solani.org>, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> No link to provide, but you'll find coverage at both slashdot.org and
>> soylentnews.org :
>>
>> The US government passed new legislation that enforces net neutrality
>> and outlaws 'internet fast lanes' and prioritization of certain kinds of
>> traffic.  It also allows the USG to regulate ISPs like a utility.
>>
>> This is almost too good to hope for.  The good thing about being so
>> consistently disappointed by the USG over the past few years is that
>> when they get something right, you are filled with a sense of elation.
>> I'm amazed the corporate interests didn't win this one.
>>
>> Naturally, the vote passed along largely party lines.
>>
>> Off to pour myself a glass of scotch to celebrate.  This is a great day
>> for the Internet!
> 
> For that part of the Internet in the US, you mean. Nothing to do with
> the rest of us, although others may take note.

"Others" meaning in particular the British government, which has, in
almost all of its post-WW2 manifestations, done little more than emulate
every anti-democratic measure, corporate collusion or military adventure
which the USG bankrolls with American taxpayers money.

This is the kind of legislation which has become exceptionally rare on
both sides of the Atlantic, benefiting a majority of citizens rather
than giving more power to an already-privileged minority.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6836

On 2015-02-27, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>>Off to pour myself a glass of scotch to celebrate.  This is a great day
>>for the Internet!
>
> For that part of the Internet in the US, you mean. Nothing to do with
> the rest of us, although others may take note.

Point taken!  No worries though, man:  You can pour yourself a scotch
too if you like.  

As for 'nothing to do with the rest of us,' I'd argue you would indeed
be impacted if the US implemented some ass-hatted packet filtering
system.  Lots of popular internet sites are American companies.  Usenet,
happily, would remain unaffected for the reasons its original architects
saw more clearly than their successors did.

Hils makes some good (political) points below, too.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6842

In article <mcprck$ah$3@solani.org>, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com>
wrote:

>On 2015-02-27, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>>>Off to pour myself a glass of scotch to celebrate.  This is a great day
>>>for the Internet!
>>
>> For that part of the Internet in the US, you mean. Nothing to do with
>> the rest of us, although others may take note.
>
>Point taken!  No worries though, man:  You can pour yourself a scotch
>too if you like.  
>
>As for 'nothing to do with the rest of us,' I'd argue you would indeed
>be impacted if the US implemented some ass-hatted packet filtering
>system.

A donkey with a hat doing packet filtering, eh? I guess that'd slow
things down a bit.

-- 
"I love the way that Microsoft follows standards. 
 In much the same manner as fish follow migrating caribou."
                                               - Paul Tomblin, ASR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6841

On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 23:58:43 +0000 (UTC)
RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:

> Naturally, the vote passed along largely party lines.
> 
> Off to pour myself a glass of scotch to celebrate.  This is a great day
> for the Internet!

And Comcast has already threatened to sue:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/26/comcast-we-will-sue-to-slow-the-web.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6854

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 23:58:43 +0000 (UTC)
> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:

> > Naturally, the vote passed along largely party lines.
> > 
> > Off to pour myself a glass of scotch to celebrate.  This is a great day
> > for the Internet!

> And Comcast has already threatened to sue:
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/26/comcast-we-will-sue-to-slow-the-web.html

This is not surprising.

Going from a system where they (the ISP's) get to double bill to
deliver the bits to a system where they can only single bill, cuts off
an easy revenue enhancement stream.

Naturally they will sue.  You know it is not in their interest if they
are suing you about it.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web