Yay! Net neutrality is safe---- Wait, What? You f---ers...

[EricKei]

*sigh* Here we go again... You see? This is why we can't have nice things.

For the record, tho ... which party is seeking to screw this up is irrelevant. The cable companies simply target the winners. I don't really distinguish among corrupt politicians by party (and I've seldom encountered any who were not) They're all the same to me.

[fireheart17]

The cable companies simply target the winners.

For some reason, I thought of THIS when I saw this line: (apologies to those who actually do work for cable companies)

[wolfie]

Classic example of "Laws do the opposite of what their title claims". As for the claim that the FCC's move allows the government to dictate what priorities different internet traffic would have, that's pure BS - it's the "big pipe" companies that want to dictate priorities, and the FCC rules simply created a level playing field (i.e. all traffic must be treated equally).

[Jetfire]

And this mainly comes because the Big Pipe companies are also media companies.

Separate the delivery mechanism from the content production system, and ISP's would probably be fighting to see who can get the most to you regardless of what you want to bring in.

But because the Media owns the ISP, and the Media is scared that someone else will deliver other entertainment than what they are selling, they want to throttle and control the pipes.

Up here in Canada, Bell and a couple other companies just got their hands slapped. They have/had an app you could download to watch Bell Media shows on your (Bell network) smartphone for 5$/month, and it wouldn't count against your data cap. But if you were to watch say Netflix, it would count on your data plans. CRTC came in and said "Nope! You can't do that!", but Bell's still trying to fight it and say they can.

[Gravekeeper]

Isn't this the 4th or 5th time in a row now Bell has been slapped by the CRTC for some scheme or another?

[EricKei]

wolfie - Exactly. The type of control the bill will supposedly prevent is exactly the control the ISP's want...and will keep, if it passes.

[Racket_Man]

One weird side note to this

AT&T is rolling our 1G internet service in select cities here in the US at sub $100 per month fee.

http://www.cnet.com/news/at-t-finish...ion-in-austin/

One of the of the "services" they offer for a discount "fee" is they get to monitor ALL of your web traffic to " provide targeted ads" If you opt-out your monthly fee is $40+ higher.

https://gigaom.com/2015/02/19/dont-l...9-privacy-fee/

[wolfie]

One of the of the "services" they offer for a discount "fee" is they get to monitor ALL of your web traffic to " provide targeted ads"

They're treading on dangerous ground. One of the "perks" an ISP gets for NOT monitoring people's traffic is that they're legally not held responsible for said traffic. With this monitoring, if someone uses the service to carry out illegal activity (don't forget that silkroad used TOR, and its successors presumably use some method of concealing the content of the traffic) and AT&T doesn't immediately notify the authorities about the illegal activity, THEY can be held to be a party to it.

[Andara Bledin]

So true. Legitimate 'dumb pipes' have safe harbor and are free from liability for the traffic that uses them.

But if they're actively monitoring and shaping traffic, they might lose some of their safe harbor status dependant upon how they act in relation to the traffic.