View Full Version : Net neutrality
Dist. Expert 26
12-14-17, 16:23
I saw on social media that the FCC has sent Net Neutrality to Congress, and if they pass it Trump gets the deciding vote.
Is this worth getting wound up over?
Dionysusigma
12-14-17, 16:55
You have exceeded your allotted bandwidth for Internet Discussion Forums this month. Upgrade your internet experience at Comcast.net to continue reading this page!
Selected packages include ($69.99 each):
Information - Google, Wikipedia, IMDB, selected internet forums, and more!
Shopping - Amazon, Brownells, Midway, Primary Arms, G&R Tactical, and many more!
Online Streaming - YouTube, SoundCloud, Netflix, Hulu, HBO Go, Pandora
Social Media - Instagram, Facebook, CastGroup (an exciting new service featuring minimal ads every 20 seconds!), and more!
Doc Safari
12-14-17, 16:57
I woke from a horrible dream where the entire internet was owned by Photobucket.
Depends on whether you think government should be involved in regulating internet content. I would honestly rather have it in the hands of Congress than some unelected regulators if I had to choose between the 2 evils.
I’d rather let the market decide and instead on regulating, Congress figures out a way to increase ISP competition so consumers can choose. Not sure how that can happen when infrastructure expenditures are accounted in the billions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3ZOKDmorj0
AKA
No more vidya or dirty pitchers
Dist. Expert 26
12-14-17, 17:13
Depends on whether you think government should be involved in regulating internet content. I would honestly rather have it in the hands of Congress than some unelected regulators if I had to choose between the 2 evils.
I’d rather let the market decide and instead on regulating, Congress figures out a way to increase ISP competition so consumers can choose. Not sure how that can happen when infrastructure expenditures are accounted in the billions.
I don't think .gov should have anything to do with the internet. At all. Government interference has never, ever, made things better.
I always get concerned when the government proposes something that's "Neutral", "Common", Equal" or "Fair".
Just consider Common Core, where high grades are lowered for some, and lower grades get increased for others. I recall something from the past called The Fairness Doctrine and equal time requirements for broadcasters.
For the web, I kind of like the Wild West appeal to it. A wide open place of pure hell or great ecstasy, ignorance or knowledge. I personally should have started my own version of Facebook®. I would have called it: InYourFacebook®, a hell-hole of non-stop written and visual attacks; the MMA or Thunderdome of Social Media. It might have been fun...
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-14-17, 17:50
Net Neutrality sounds so good. Calling it Public Bathroom Internet is more akin to what it really is. Bandwith becomes something that is wide open to whoever wants to piss and crap all over it and you get left with the mess. Neither side is perfect, but to say that being against Net Neutrality is evil isn't really helping things. Mark Cuban is against it, not a died in the wool theocrat conservative.
Dionysusigma
12-14-17, 17:50
For the web, I kind of like the Wild West appeal to it. A wide open place of pure hell or great ecstasy, ignorance or knowledge. I personally should have started my own version of Facebook®. I would have called it: InYourFacebook®, a hell-hole of non-stop written and visual attacks; the MMA or Thunderdome of Social Media. It might have been fun...
That's called 4chan.org
Net Neutrality sounds so good. Calling it Public Bathroom Internet is more akin to what it really is. Bandwi(d)th becomes something that is wide open to whoever wants to piss and crap all over it and you get left with the mess. Neither side is perfect, but to say that being against Net Neutrality is evil isn't really helping things. Mark Cuban is against it, not a died in the wool theocrat conservative.
Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech
And I'm not really grasping your explanation. "being against Net Neutrality is evil isn't really helping things." Clarify? :confused:
Outlander Systems
12-14-17, 18:12
False.
/b/ and infinity-chan are the true final frontiers.
Dionysusigma
12-14-17, 18:24
How about this: Net Neutrality ensures Shall-Issue Internet Access for everyone. Repealing Net Neutrality allows ISPs to become May Issue. Large corporations, transcending states, have a wider-sweeping influence than a state-by-state law, and if you want to carry a 9mm or larger, you have to pay a monthly fee. Smaller ISPs can still technically be Shall Issue, but with nothing larger than .32 ACP. If you don't like having to pay the extra monthly fee, you can always go to a .32...
How about this: Net Neutrality ensures Shall-Issue Internet Access for everyone. Repealing Net Neutrality allows ISPs to become May Issue. Large corporations, transcending states, have a wider-sweeping influence than a state-by-state law, and if you want to carry a 9mm or larger, you have to pay a monthly fee. Smaller ISPs can still technically be Shall Issue, but with nothing larger than .32 ACP. If you don't like having to pay the extra monthly fee, you can always go to a .32...
ISPs have no incentive to do that. In fact the better analogy would be.... So you want to shoot a mini-gun! Hellz to the yeah!! Bring your Amex.
ISPs want you using the service as much as possible and they know you have a finite sum of money to do so. They want to keep your faucet running.
On the other hand, once the .gov get's it's claws into something as big as the Internet then it's all over. Then they can regulate your entire life because it will be on the Internet..... but they need to be sure all the citizens are fully connected first.
The ISPs give, invent, offer for sale.
The .gov takes away.
It has always been that way.
Just leave my vidya and dirty pitchers alone and we'll be cool.
On the other hand, once the .gov get's it's claws into something as big as the Internet then it's all over.
Lots of comments in this thread similar to this one.
I should point we have been operating under .gov "Net Neutrality" since day 1. Yep, 110 baud modems to 200+Mbs. teletypes to 4K video on demand. All on .gov watch.
Dionysusigma
12-14-17, 20:11
I really, REALLY hope I'm wrong. But I stand by what I've posted.
Lots of comments in this thread similar to this one.
I should point we have been operating under .gov "Net Neutrality" since day 1. Yep, 110 baud modems to 200+Mbs. teletypes to 4K video on demand. All on .gov watch.
How do you figure that?
How do you figure that?
Cause it is true?
Today the FCC voted to repeal the current Net Neutrality rules. .gov is now OUT of the internet, not INTO it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html
Its not a big deal, but this will allow YouTube to restrict certain content or limit it from search results. Facebook could restrict content based on any number of subjects like during an election, they could push the candidate Facebook favors and restrict any news, stories or post about the other. Google could restrict certain sites from appearing in the search results unless they paid to have them "stand out". AT&T could restrict content from companies like Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner etc and vice versa.
Apparently this all has to do with terrorism and national security as does everything else this day in age. But I doubt it will come to anything today or tomorrow. Most companies like Google, Verizon, AT&T, Facebook, YouTube have already been found guilty of doing these sort of things and have each paid fines. Now they wont pay fines.
If you ISP doesn't like porn, they will restrict those websites for you, if they don't like conservative websites, they could restrict those as well.
Its not a big deal, but this will allow YouTube to restrict certain content or limit it from search results. Facebook could restrict content based on any number of subjects like during an election, they could push the candidate Facebook favors and restrict any news, stories or post about the other. Google could restrict certain sites from appearing in the search results unless they paid to have them "stand out". AT&T could restrict content from companies like Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner etc and vice versa.
This is already allowed.
The end of Net Neutrality means your ISP can block access to m4carbine.net, or charge you more to reach it at slower speeds.
This is already allowed.
The end of Net Neutrality means your ISP can block access to m4carbine.net, or charge you more to reach it at slower speeds.
totally agree, I might have worded it wrong but, companies get fined today for steering an after the end of NN, they will be able to do it freely and like you said, charge for it.
I think a lot of people are misinformed as to what Net Neutrality is.
The short version is this. Under the idea of Net Neutrality your internet provider can not throttle or block data for any reason.
This means that if Comcast decided they wanted to make a competitor to facebook they can not decide to block or slow down Facebook to encourage people to use their version instead.
It also means they can not block access to pages they don't like or lock them behind a paywall. Take the same Comcast. Lets say a very liberal management team takes over. They decide they don't like anything to do with firearms unless it is gun control. Well they could redirect any request for m4c.net to VPC.org.
But Kwelz you say. "The free market will sort that out. People will revolt and the companies that do this would lose business and have to change it." Ehhhh. Yeah. In theory sure.. But in reality we, as consumers are pretty much stuck. See currently most of the people in the United states live in an area where they only have 1 internet provider unless you count cellular or satellite. Which honestly aren't even worth mentioning. So your options are to deal with whatever jthey want to do to you. In my area we kind of had two choices. They merged earlier this year. Did I mention the 90% increase in my bill that came along with that? And now I don't have a choice to switch too. Same applies here.
"Ok smartass. But that means it is the perfect opportunity for a new competitor to come in. Right"? Uhhh.. Dang. See Infrastructure is expensive. So much so that only the absolute largest companies can afford to do it. Google estimates that a new national network would cost over 140 Billion dollars. And that is just for the fiber. Not connecting it to every home, not for support and logistics. Just for laying the fiber. There was an issue for a local expansion around here recently. One new neighborhood located less than a mile from the current system. total cost? $385,000 just to get it there and ready to go. Small companies can only work on extremely small scales or if they rent from the existing ISPs which is an entirety different set of issues.
"Oh come on my friend. This is all just conjecture. There is no reason to impose regulations because these companies MIGHT do something". /sigh. Sorry guys. Here is a very short and incomplete list of some of the more blatant and public events that lead to the ideal of Net Neutrality.
MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.
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.
TELUS: In 2005, Canada’s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.
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.
WINDSTREAM: 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.
MetroPCS: 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.
PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites.
AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.
EUROPE: A 2012 report from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications found that violations of Net Neutrality affected at least one in five users in Europe. The report found that blocked or slowed connections to services like VOIP, peer-to-peer technologies, gaming applications and email were commonplace.
VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.
AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.
VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.
The ones from Verizon are especially disturbing. And lets remember that the current FCC chair who has lead the charge on repealing Net Neutrality was an Attorney for them and has advocated for them over the years.
"But Kevin. You know as well as I do that we got into this because of Government regulations". Well yes. Actually we agree on that for the most part. Throughout history the government has imposed rules and regulations based off the suggestions of whomever paid enough to the campaign funds of certain elected officials. We all know how that game works. And we can point the finger all we want. I am all for looking at exactly how we got here. But the fact is that we are here. And Deregulating at this point won't help at all because we are far over the tipping point.
So the solution? Treating the ISPs like a Utility. It is the least invasive and restrictive way to do it. Just like your Water company can't charge you more to fill up your bathtub than they can for the equivilent amount of water sprayed on your lawn. The ISPs should not be able to charge you more for access to M4Carbine than they do to CNN.
Bandwidth is not a Finite resource like water or electricity. People think of it like that but it really isn't. Bandwidth is more like the pipes that bring the water or the lines that transmit electricity. The Data that flows through them isn't the business of the ISPs. Once we allow them to dictate what we can and can't see we are completely at their mercy. And while, like most of you, I abhor government regulations this is one of the few times they are needed. It isnt' governmental control of the internet. In fact it is the exact opposite. It is the government saying that nobody can control the internet. Nobody can block or slow down access to information. Yes a page can delete info, or a forum can block a user. But the ability to access those things can not be blocked because your provider decides they are feeling frogy that day.
Cause it is true?
Today the FCC voted to repeal the current Net Neutrality rules. .gov is now OUT of the internet, not INTO it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html
Exactly... but you said.....
I should point we have been operating under .gov "Net Neutrality" since day 1.
So we are back to pre Obama. The .gov began to operate under NN with Obama. It sounds like you were saying we had been under NN since the Internet began.
NN=Obama=Everyone the same.
So we are back to pre Obama. The .gov began to operate under NN with Obama.
No, Obama did not change anything. Obama and pre-Obama are the same thing.
It sounds like you were saying we had been under NN since the Internet began.
Correct, we have.
NN=Obama=Everyone the same.
NN= how it was since day 1
People seem to think Obama changed something, he did not.
NN began in 2015 wth Obamas FCC now we are back to pre 2015.
NN began in 2015 wth Obamas FCC now we are back to pre 2015.
No it did not. The internet has been operating under NN since day 1. This Obama started nonsense has to be the biggest Fake News Story of the year.
No it did not. The internet has been operating under NN since day 1. This Obama started nonsense has to be the biggest Fake News Story of the year.
Renegade, I actually posted a number of examples of why Net Neutrality was passed. Yes the Idea of the internet is free and open with no restrictions. However ISPs have been encroaching on that ideal for years. Throttling services, outright blocking others. There were hundreds of examples given when all this started being an issue. Frankly this is one of about 3 things that happened under Obama that I actually agreed with. It really was needed. And undoing it concerns me greatly.
If you say so...... but the Internet was basically unregulated. Then the FCC regulated it ( NN ), now it is basically unregulated again..
Or, to look at it another way. Pre 2015 the ISPs were not Utility. In 2015 Obama made them Utility. Now they are back to being not Utility.
Granted there is always some regulation but the term NetNeutrality means the ISP has control taken from it and placed in the hands of .gov. It means the .gov gets to tell those huge businesses how they will operate in certain regards.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2014/11/13/net-neutrality-is-a-bad-idea-supported-by-poor-analogies/#eee86bcdc8f1
Renegade, I actually posted a number of examples of why Net Neutrality was passed. Yes the Idea of the internet is free and open with no restrictions. However ISPs have been encroaching on that ideal for years. Throttling services, outright blocking others. There were hundreds of examples given when all this started being an issue. Frankly this is one of about 3 things that happened under Obama that I actually agreed with. It really was needed. And undoing it concerns me greatly.
I agree, I was using DOCKMASTER back in early 80s when there Internet had about 500 computers attached. It is very frustrating so many folks have been misinformed ... intentionally IMO.
If the internet operated under NN before Obama what Obama era NN was being repealed and why is it a big issue??
This is exactly why government regulator involvement is a monkey ****ing a football. 90% of people have ZERO idea what NN regulations are being rolled back, what they mean and where they came from. Go figure.
If we want government involved with the internet, then let’s do it via elected representatives rather than unaccountable regulators. I’m definitely not an expert here but it seems to me that the issues with throttling and such came about for 1 primary reason. ISP are now also content suppliers. ATT has U-verse and the related video on demand services. Verizon, Comcast and Clink do the same thing. They of course want you to buy their content along with their service. If an ISP was a simple service provider they wouldn’t give a hoot whose service they were delivering. All they would care about is the safe delivery of some other companies content. The other issue is the fact that these providers have very little overlap. In many areas there is only 1 provider so there is very little competition. That’s NEVER good for the consumer.
Lots of comments in this thread similar to this one.
I should point we have been operating under .gov "Net Neutrality" since day 1. Yep, 110 baud modems to 200+Mbs. teletypes to 4K video on demand. All on .gov watch.
Patently false. The net neutrality rules the FCC is rolling back came into existence in 2015.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2014/11/13/net-neutrality-is-a-bad-idea-supported-by-poor-analogies/#eee86bcdc8f1
That is an often quoted article with many false statements that are easily proven as such. Mainly they fall back on the free market idea which as I mentioned above, doesn't work in this case because of the way the system is set up.
If you say so...... but the Internet was basically unregulated. Then the FCC regulated it ( NN ), now it is basically unregulated again..
No, No, No.
When the geeks made the internet, they decided all packets were equal, and no packets were more equal than others. That is how the internet has been run since, except for a few instances in ~2013 when businesses tried to change it, at which time Obama codified the existing informal rules. So the geek rules have been in effect since day 1.
Obama changed NOTHING. He just put into writing how it was already operating.
Patently false. The net neutrality rules the FCC is rolling back came into existence in 2015.
Which were the existing informal rules since day 1.
No, No, No.
When the geeks made the internet, they decided all packets were equal, and no packers were more equal than others. That is how the internet has been run since, except for a few instances in ~2013 when businesses tried to change it, at which time Obama codified the existing informal rules. So the geek rules have been in effect since day 1.
Obama changed NOTHING. He just put into writing how it was already operating.
Ahhh. I see your point. And you are correct.
The problem with this reversal of the NN ruling is that it takes away any ability to enforce those rules. The geeks are pretty much at the mercy of the robber barons.
I’m definitely not an expert here but it seems to me that the issues with throttling and such came about for 1 primary reason. ISP are now also content suppliers. ATT has U-verse and the related video on demand services. Verizon, Comcast and Clink do the same thing. They of course want you to buy their content along with their service. If an ISP was a simple service provider they wouldn’t give a hoot whose service they were delivering. All they would care about is the safe delivery of some other companies content. The other issue is the fact that these providers have very little overlap. In many areas there is only 1 provider so there is very little competition. That’s NEVER good for the consumer.
Pretty much.
The geeks are pretty much at the mercy of the robber barons.
The geeks are all retired philanthropic billionaires now, it is the common guy who is about to get hosed.
And by the time the common guy figures out he was lied to, it will be too late to fix.
Which were the existing informal rules since day 1.
The FCC doesn't have the authority to repeal ideas, so thats kind of outside the scope of the discussion.
Andy
Pretty much.
Why can’t congress either pass a law that states you’re a service provider or a content provider, but you can’t be both.
Better yet let’s have congress pass a law stating that an ISP must deliver every packet no matter it’s origin at their advertised data rate at any time if day. I’m sick and tired of paying for 24 Mbs service but really getting 8-10.
Dist. Expert 26
12-14-17, 23:33
Why can’t congress either pass a law that states you’re a service provider or a content provider, but you can’t be both.
Better yet let’s have congress pass a law stating that an ISP must deliver every packet no matter it’s origin at their advertised data rate at any time if day. I’m sick and tired of paying for 24 Mbs service but really getting 8-10.
The second part I can get behind. That falls under the concept of false advertising, which is a type of fraud, thus even libertarians can endorse the idea.
Why can’t congress either pass a law that states you’re a service provider or a content provider, but you can’t be both.
Better yet let’s have congress pass a law stating that an ISP must deliver every packet no matter it’s origin at their advertised data rate at any time if day. I’m sick and tired of paying for 24 Mbs service but really getting 8-10.
I disagree with the first part. A company should be able to expand the services it wishes to offer. Nothing wrong with doing both as long as you are fair.
The second is something that I hope happens. I understand that there are a lot of factors in internet sped and they can't guarantee service speeds all the time. But it is stupid how badly it goes.
I tried one of the "Alternatives" we always hear we have. Was promised 24Mbs speed. At the best of times I got less than 10. And it went down every day at 1AM. EVERY SINGLE DAY!
Another little fact most people don't know.. The ISPs like to make it sound like the bandwidth they provide is a precious commodity that is expensive and we have to be careful.
Well the actual cost of that? Less than a single penny per Gb.. Actually around about .5 of a penny currently with it decreasing steadily. That means that even your heaviest users such as myself, use so little data that you couldn't even buy a large Starbucks coffee with what it cost them.
When the geeks made the internet, they decided all packets were equal, and no packets were more equal than others.
Ok, the equal packet theory... I guess that works. Kinda like the equal radio waves. The ones the FCC regulates. the ones used by the alphabet soup media that only speak the truth and never feed us only what they want us to hear.
I've never had any issues with my ISP regulating me.
I basically don't trust Google, Facebook,or AT&T any more than I trust Comcast.
I trust the .gov even less than all those.
I mean the way you are describing it there is no issue to be concerned with.
Pre Obama Geeks declare all is well and equal --- Obama declares all is well --- Trump declares screw you Obama, the geeks already had it covered.
So if all three are the same thing, why does the .gov need to be involved in private business. Why not let the free market settle it.
It's all going to come down to money and who's pocket it goes in.
How is someone like me going to get hosed and why will it be too late when I find out?
Well the actual cost of that? Less than a single penny per Gb.. Actually around about .5 of a penny currently with it decreasing steadily. That means that even your heaviest users such as myself, use so little data that you couldn't even buy a large Starbucks coffee with what it cost them.
If it's that cheap why don't more people get in the game?
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-15-17, 00:20
I disagree with the first part. A company should be able to expand the services it wishes to offer. Nothing wrong with doing both as long as you are fair.
The second is something that I hope happens. I understand that there are a lot of factors in internet sped and they can't guarantee service speeds all the time. But it is stupid how badly it goes.
I tried one of the "Alternatives" we always hear we have. Was promised 24Mbs speed. At the best of times I got less than 10. And it went down every day at 1AM. EVERY SINGLE DAY!
Another little fact most people don't know.. The ISPs like to make it sound like the bandwidth they provide is a precious commodity that is expensive and we have to be careful.
Well the actual cost of that? Less than a single penny per Gb.. Actually around about .5 of a penny currently with it decreasing steadily. That means that even your heaviest users such as myself, use so little data that you couldn't even buy a large Starbucks coffee with what it cost them.
So bandwith is either essential free or it is so costly that no one will invest in it. The issue is the next increment on a cable system costs very little, to start a new network is really expensive.
Now, with net neutrality, no one in their right mind would put money down to start new systems- and I think the bigger issue is to add new capacity, why do it if you can't control it.
I still don't get the ISPs blocking websites. Slow down; maybe. More likely make sure their streaming media and that of partners that pay gets priority; yes.
I'm willing to pay for access and speed. To me, Net Neutrality sounds like Free Day at the Zoo. I hate free day at the zoo. Too many people, no parking, my kids can't see anything. I'm willing to pay so that I can park, get what I want and see the attractions.
Public commons always gets jacked and becomes crap with out some kind of ownership.
I said earlier:
Neither side is perfect, but to say that being against Net Neutrality is evil, isn't really helping things. added a comma.
The media (who have a dog in this fight BTW) and others make it seem as though anyone that opposses NN is just a shill of big business and are evil. That isn't a real great place to work out a good ssytem, and is more of the Progressive demonization tactics.
If it's that cheap why don't more people get in the game?
That is what it costs to provide the actual bandwidth. The up front cost though is far higher. We are talking Billions of Dollars for state or regional level stuff and high millions for small scale. There are very few companies who have the d;financing and desire to do it. Even google is only doing it in a few select markets. On top of the cost is the simple Logistics of it all.
Lets say that tomorrow I find out I have inherited billions of dollars. After I buy every gun I have ever wanted and my Mclaren 570s, I decide I want to make Indiana better by creating a new ISP that services everything south of Indianapolis. I have two options. I can rent the lines of existing ISPs or I can install my own. Renting the current lines poses a number of issues. I am at their mercy as far the the backbone goes. They can really screw with my ability to provide service, and I have no control over the hardware involved in actually servicing my clients. This is besides the regulatory nightmare involved.
So I decide I am going to sink my billions into putting in fiber.
I have the cost of the fiber itself.
The installers equipment.
Burying the lines. This includes going under roads, etc.
The COs and Data center(s).
Not to mention servers, a support center (unless you want me to outsource to India), then final run cost to get all of this into neighborhoods and buildings.
All of this is before we even talk about personnel costs.
And the single biggest thing that nobody likes to talk about. Real estate. The ultimate Finite resource. No a Fiber or Cable line doesn't take up much room. But you still have to lay it everywhere. And it cant' interfere with any existing lines. We all hate regulations but look at some photos of telephone poles in developing nations where they don't have some of the same rules. While hilarious it is also a reminder that common sense sometimes takes a back seat to doing whatever people want.
The current ISPs exist because they were able to build up over the last 125 years or so. But now they are in a position of power. They can and do crush anyone who tries to encroach on what they see as their territory. If they can't win in court then they just buy up the offender and make it part of their own.
Their goal is to eventually merge into one giant conglomerate again. Currently there are only 10 ISPs with more than 1 Million subscribers in the US. Only TEN. And of those the top 2 have more than the other 8 combined. It really is reaching scary levels. They have practical monopolies in their areas and they want a full monopoly if they can get it.
So bandwith is either essential free or it is so costly that no one will invest in it. The issue is the next increment on a cable system costs very little, to start a new network is really expensive.
Now, with net neutrality, no one in their right mind would put money down to start new systems- and I think the bigger issue is to add new capacity, why do it if you can't control it.
I still don't get the ISPs blocking websites. Slow down; maybe. More likely make sure their streaming media and that of partners that pay gets priority; yes.
I'm willing to pay for access and speed. To me, Net Neutrality sounds like Free Day at the Zoo. I hate free day at the zoo. Too many people, no parking, my kids can't see anything. I'm willing to pay so that I can park, get what I want and see the attractions.
Public commons always gets jacked and becomes crap with out some kind of ownership.
I said earlier:
added a comma.
The media (who have a dog in this fight BTW) and others make it seem as though anyone that opposses NN is just a shill of big business and are evil. That isn't a real great place to work out a good ssytem, and is more of the Progressive demonization tactics.
I said the current ones providing the data is cheap. It is the Infrastructure that is expensive, but once that is in place the costs are much lower. Do you have a few billion laying around to get started?
As for the rest. They have every interest in blocking sites. Lets say a competitor of Youtube pays them money to block you tube, or they create an alternative and block it so you have to use theirs. Not only could they do it but they HAVE done it.
I've never had any issues with my ISP regulating me.
I basically don't trust Google, Facebook,or AT&T any more than I trust Comcast.
I trust the .gov even less than all those.
1) Because they have not been allowed to till yesterday.
2) Well with no nNN, you just put a whole lot of trust in them.
3) There was nothing to trust with the govt, they just said "treat all packets equal" and do what you want.
I still don't get the ISPs blocking websites. Slow down; maybe. More likely make sure their streaming media and that of partners that pay gets priority; yes.
No different than how travel websites only show you flights and hotels for those they are partnered with.
The problem is since most folks do not have a lot of choices in their internet provider, and zero choice in who their providers gets backbone services from you cannot easily go elsewhere.
Think of it this way:
Do you like your internet? Has it been working good all these years?
Well .gov just broke it for you.
Dist. Expert 26
12-15-17, 08:04
It's utterly insane how much it costs to run fiber optic. The casino I used to work at was in the process of upgrading when I left. Just to put new lines in for the table games area (about 120 tables) was going to cost nearly a million dollars. And they aren't paying for real estate, telephone poles, etc.
Living in the mountains I'll likely never have landline internet, and if I do it'll be 20 years behind current technology. Which means my choices are A) Satellite internet or B) Mobile hotspot. Currently option B is better, but I still can't stream movies, play video games, download music, etc.
So if Verizon decides to choke me out of certain sites, I'm just screwed. Wonderful.
Outlander Systems
12-15-17, 08:10
This.
The day is rapidly approaching where I go full sneakernet and say, "**** this shit."
I am going to drop a prophecy. If the ISPs start to play **** **** games, geekdom will erect an alternet...
1) Because they have not been allowed to till yesterday.
2) Well with no nNN, you just put a whole lot of trust in them.
3) There was nothing to trust with the govt, they just said "treat all packets equal" and do what you want.
There are valid arguments on both sides.
The doomsday sayers here are quite frankly, full of shit drama queens. I for one trust the ISP's more than the Government because they have to answer to paying customers.
This isn't breaking anything and will likely improve service for everyone because the ISP's will be able to treat packets differently. Not all packets need or deserve equal treatment. Some applications are latency sensitive and prioritizing them will improve service. This also allows traffic shaping which will improve the utilization of available bandwidth. Quality of service is a GOOD THING, not a bad thing. Corporate networks have been using Quality of Service since around 2003 or earlier. Government control of technological advancements is stupid.
Anyone saying this is doomsday is ignorant or has an agenda.
There are valid arguments on both sides.
The doomsday sayers here are quite frankly, full of shit drama queens. I for one trust the ISP's more than the Government because they have to answer to paying customers.
Occam's Razor will apply. Since most of the internet backbone is run by cable TV companies, expect your ISP bill to start to look like your cable TV bill. That is the model they use and like.
skywalkrNCSU
12-15-17, 08:46
Just wait for the next mass shooting where the shooter “bought his gun online” or “built his assault rifle through online purchases” as the media will report and there is an outcry for people to limit access to information allowing people to do that. You get some heavy hitters on the left to invest in telecom companies and use their power to get them to block access to that content or throttle it to unusable levels. That could not happen with NN but it absolutely can happen now. Comcast could completely block you from viewing any gun message board or viewing any gun related videos and if you have no other ISP choice or other ISP’s jump on board you are just SOL.
The Republicans leading this charge was not for capitalism, it was crony capitalism pure and simple. The ISP’s don’t want NN gone so they can give the customers better service at a lower price, they want it gone so they have more control/power and can charge you more. The wool Republicans and Ajit Pai pulled over the eyes of so many on the right under the guise of reversing Obama’s evil government regulatory policies is disgusting and pure propaganda. These people were bought and paid for by the telecom companies and there isn’t even any hiding it.
People who keep claiming that the free market will solve these issues don’t understand how free markets work. One of the first things you learn in economics is a requirement for a free market is low barriers to entry. Providing internet service has an extreme barrier to entry as many other posters before me have pointed out.
Think of it this way:
Do you like your internet? Has it been working good all these years?
Well .gov just broke it for you.
Think of it this way:
Did your internet work in 2015? Does it still work?
Well, the government is going to leave it alone before they break it.
I have not seen such panic since Y2K.
Andy
Or.....
Maybe the Internet NFA just got repealed.
M60s aren't cheap but you can buy one. Shutting down content you don't agree with? Somebody could easily put it all up there.
I don't like Nazis, don't care nor qualify for White Nationalism, but there are several non-critical historical films of WWII Germany that are placed in limited state on YouTube. The only way to get around it is to have someone chiding the events of 80 years ago. Like "just showing what some dude shot on camera in '38" and bam. Limited state.
But nothing blatantly Communist nor glorifying the Soviet Union is censored. None.
They shut down stuff that is "too right leaning" or hurts too many feelings. Instead of just making it 18 only, they place it in a phantom zone.
I don't agree with. well, a lot of things about life in general, but everyone should have a say. I dont have to listen nor participate but to govern via denial of service or whatnot is pretty messed up.
Like they could now theoretically make www.Imaracistasshole.net and let people just go buck wild and if people are willing to pay to see, thats their problem.
I think more competition might be good. A main selling point could be "Interwebscast ISP: Come on over and show your ass!"
The more you hide from people the more you can't hide. There are subjects that were EASILY findable on old Yahoo or Excite that you gotta almost know how to find. (Like the armed Black Panther hostage takeover of Cornell's Willard Straight Hall)
Remember GeoCities and Angelfire? People could, if they knew to HTML, make their own personal sites dedicated to their own personal hobbies or ideas.
Facebook and 9/11 and the PATRIOT Act (you ARE a patriot, aren't you?) put us in a bizarre internet dark age.
It was more accessible, but nerfed and made for dumber people.
It was the AWB of the internet. Shop and post kittens all you want but watch what you say about government and mind your wrongthink.
The government is the ultimate self imposed middleman and its easier to get whatever internet in other countries than here. Like Central Europe.
The internet isn't a public utility. These people want money. Not to be watchdogs.
.
Honestly I hope this all brings down google, fakebook, and youtube.
I could discern for myself without someone telling me something was "fake news" or "inappropriate"
I hope this bursts a lot of bubbles.
Why can’t congress either pass a law that states you’re a service provider or a content provider, but you can’t be both.
When Republicans control Congress, nothing gets passed.
When Democrats control Congress, everything you do not want gets passed.
Think of it this way:
Did your internet work in 2015? Does it still work?
For the 87th time, The internet has been working the same since day 1. All that happened in 2015 is the informal rules it was working under became formal rules.
American has been mislead into thinking something changed in 2015 when it did not.
The internet as you have known it will now be different and most likely cost more with less choice. just like cable TV since it will now be run by the the sample people.
Whiskey_Bravo
12-15-17, 08:52
Occam's Razor will apply. Since most of the internet backbone is run by cable TV companies, expect your ISP bill to start to look like your cable TV bill. That is the model they use and like.
I know this has been pointed out but I just wanted to make sure. You know the internet existed before 2015 right, and that it worked just fine? I have been paying for internet since the 90s in one form or another(back when you had to actually use a phone line). NN didn't change anything or make anything better for users. The internet will still work now that NN is gone.
Doc Safari
12-15-17, 08:54
I don't know how much of Glenn Beck to believe, but he stated earlier today that Google was pretty much the main force behind net neutrality. That makes me against it right there.
Occam's Razor will apply. Since most of the internet backbone is run by cable TV companies, expect your ISP bill to start to look like your cable TV bill. That is the model they use and like.
Incorrect.
Most of the internet backbone is run by Verizon - SingTel - At&t - Sprint - BT - Level3 - China Unicom - China Telecom - NTT and other large service providers. Cable TV companies are bit players, who play mostly at the edge.
ETA: I left out Deutsche Telecom who is a major regional player in Europe off the above list.
I don't know how much of Glenn Beck to believe, but he stated earlier today that Google was pretty much the main force behind net neutrality. That makes me against it right there.
Pretty much.
If Gulag and Democrats hate it then I like it
I know this has been pointed out but I just wanted to make sure. You know the internet existed before 2015 right, and that it worked just fine? I have been paying for internet since the 90s in one form or another(back when you had to actually use a phone line). NN didn't change anything or make anything better for users. The internet will still work now that NN is gone.
Yes I worked for one of the Internet Pioneers in the early days like in the 70s.
What you are missing, because you have been lied to, is the rules prior to 2015 and after 2015 were the SAME. They only changed YESTERDAY.
For the 87th time, The internet has been working the same since day 1. All that happened in 2015 is the informal rules it was working under became formal rules.
skywalkrNCSU
12-15-17, 08:57
I don't know how much of Glenn Beck to believe, but he stated earlier today that Google was pretty much the main force behind net neutrality. That makes me against it right there.
And Comcast, one of, if not the, most despised companies on this planet was leading the charge to have NN reversed.
NN was not the government regulating the internet, it was the government telling telecoms they had to leave the internet open and to not regulate it. The misinformation campaign against NN is mind boggling.
Incorrect.
Most of the internet backbone is run by Verizon - SingTel - At&t - Sprint - BT - Level3 - China Unicom - China Telecom - NTT and other large service providers. Cable TV companies are bit players, who play mostly at the edge.
Not gonna touch outside the US, but most of the US companies own or have interest in cable TV players. ATT, comcast, Time Warner, etc.
The entire industry is merging and the lines between carrier and provider are disappearing.
The old days when MCI or ATT ran the backbone and Prodigy Compuserve, etc connected you to the internet are gone.
Whiskey_Bravo
12-15-17, 09:05
For the 87th time, The internet has been working the same since day 1. All that happened in 2015 is the informal rules it was working under became formal rules.
Serious question then. Informal rules that became rules and now are not rules 2 years later will turn into something drastically different? I was watching Netflix and downloading crap tons of stuff in 2015, then NN hit and I did the same thing. That is going to change now?
For the 87th time, The internet has been working the same since day 1. All that happened in 2015 is the informal rules it was working under became formal rules.
American has been mislead into thinking something changed in 2015 when it did not.
The internet as you have known it will now be different and most likely cost more with less choice. just like cable TV since it will now be run by the the sample people.
I absolutely agree America is being misled into thinking something changed when it did not, both in 2015 and in 2017.
Im bowing out, I am stubborn and the discussion is civil.
Andy
Serious question then. Informal rules that became rules and now are not rules 2 years later will turn into something drastically different? I was watching Netflix and downloading crap tons of stuff in 2015, then NN hit and I did the same thing. That is going to change now?
When Internet was created, the geeks decided all packets are equal, and no packet is more equal. Treat all traffic the same. Kinda like in the interstate highway, first in, first out. No toll roads, no throttling, no HOV lanes. As the internet expanded, folks adopted these rules and we were all happy. Now we move through the 90s, 00s, and into about 2013. At this time some providers decided to setup toll roads and throttling on portions of the internet they administered. in 2015 FCC said no, you must operate like we always have been.
Yesterday that all changed, and FCC said will allow carriers to do what they want with what they administer.
While there is little real competition, there is also little real incentive for the ISP's to go as far as the doomsday possibility. They know if they make any big waves people are watching now.
The internet needs to grow and infrastructure is expensive. Nobody thought most TV and movie rental would end up going through the net. NN allows some creative ways to charge the big users. (And the possibility of screwing the little guy) With NN I think we would have ended up paying more by the amount of data used.
In the end I see both sides but think it's irrelevant. We will end up paying either way. Now people will ask Congress to do NN and that is where it should have happened all along.
skywalkrNCSU
12-15-17, 09:13
Serious question then. Informal rules that became rules and now are not rules 2 years later will turn into something drastically different? I was watching Netflix and downloading crap tons of stuff in 2015, then NN hit and I did the same thing. That is going to change now?
Streaming content and not paying for a cable subscription has become increasingly popular since 2015 and now most ISP’s have streaming services and cable type packages. Now they could easily throttle your Netflix viewing unless you pay more per month while allowing their streaming services higher speeds to make you want to sign up for their services instead. People have been cutting the cord en masse and it is hurting the telecom companies. Now they have another means of getting you to go back to their cable model or just charging you the same as if you did but you just want to stream your Netflix.
There is no way this is a win for the consumer. You can find examples internationally where those countries do not have NN protections and it is not a good thing.
Not gonna touch outside the US, but most of the US companies own or have interest in cable TV players. ATT, comcast, Time Warner, etc.
The entire industry is merging and the lines between carrier and provider are disappearing.
The old days when MCI or ATT ran the backbone and Prodigy Compuserve, etc connected you to the internet are gone.
My Several hundred Million $$ budget says otherwise, those companies are getting a lot of that money. The big players provide peering and International connectivity and that is where their money is made.
Your home ISP connection is small potatoes and small bandwidth.
"The Geeks" didn't decide all packets are created equal. "The Geeks" didn't know better at the time of creation and the technology wasn't there to do anything different. When "the geeks" discovered things worked better by differentiation of packets, they developed a new technology to improve things.
You won't win this argument with me, so please, just let it be........
ETA: I was one of the "geeks" involved with the development of Quality Of Service and Traffic shaping for the internet among other things.
Doc Safari
12-15-17, 09:19
So, if I'm putting two and two together properly, the end of net neutrality could stifle the trend toward "cutting the cable" because how the providers can charge extra for popular content?
My Several hundred Million $$ budget says otherwise, those companies are getting a lot of that money. The big players provide peering and International connectivity and that is where their money is made.
Your home ISP connection is small potatoes and small bandwidth.
Not talking about mom & pop ISP.
ATT is $163B company
Verizon is $126B company
Comcast is a $50B company
TimeWarner is $28B company
etc
There is no money in backbone services, is is all in owning content. This why the carriers have all been moving to buy content providers. And google, Facebook, netflix, Twitter, are still on the table to be bought.
If shit gets expensive, drop it.
When I had cable and they jacked up the price, I'd threaten to drop it. They'd lower the price to keep me in "the family"
They practically begged me for real when I was totally done.
I have a healthy dvd collection of films I like and now just stream films for like 2 dollars at my own damn house away from sorry ass people.
They have retro channels I can get on antennae.
If people try to throttle me or jack a price then I will drop it. Enough people drop they will want their business.
Like I already dropped Netflix anyways because all the movies were lame or things I have seen. Their originals are sad (except for Siege at Jadotville, that was badass).
And when they dumped X Files then I was done. I saw em all first run and the show still comes on midnights some weekends on normal TV but dumpimg them was it for me.
Can track down complete collection on blu ray. Its gotten cheaper.
Naw.....aint skeered
1) Because they have not been allowed to till yesterday.
2) Well with no nNN, you just put a whole lot of trust in them.
3) There was nothing to trust with the govt, they just said "treat all packets equal" and do what you want.
1) But there is no incentive for them to block my content. That's like saying the power company would want to turn my power on an off. Ideally they want everyone's power on and they want me to fire up every device I own.
2) No, there is no additional trust. If I am standing in a room alone and am told, in a few minutes at least one murderer will enter the room with me. I don't shift trust around the room. Person A enters. Person B enters, Person C enters. Person B says Person A is a murderer. Well that's nice but I still don't trust any of you.
3) They can't likely say, we would eventually like to have full control over the Internet with politically like minded people in charge. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc.
Have you got a HAM license? Is it Tech, Gen or Extra? The tiered system the .gov imposes. What if I'm not smart enough to pass the Extra exam? You are now more equal than me with your Extra license. Let's all get together and buy an M4C Broadcast TV Network, how much will that cost? I guess not much since .gov controls the spectrum and they are all about equality?
I totally get what you and kwelz are saying I just don't think it's all going to be wine and roses. If NN is equality could someone really compete with say Google at this point? I don't see how. However, if it's deregulated, isn't the door more open than closed? How will things change with quantum computing? Will Fiber go the way of Copper? Aren't we going wireless?
As to a monopoly. Have you ever noticed that the price of "X" is the same from Verizon or Comcast? The price of "Y" is the same from BestBuy or Walmart.
If Comcast is told through NN that their profits will be going down. What will they do. Well they will do what every business does. Scale back. But you say it's too expensive for anyone else to enter the game. Ok, but that opens the door to lease bandwidth unencumbered. Ok now it's Me--miniISP--Comcast. Somebody has to get paid. I still pay $1 but miniISP now gets .75 and Comcast gets .25 whereas before Comcast got $1.
To me it all just seems like a political shell game. Google has been shown to have search results that were tailored to their desired results. All these people are in it for themselves and their ideals and every day to someone, "X" corporation is the evil one.
So with all that don't you at least think that through Congress, We The People, should vote on it. Not allow it to be an FCC decision? Would you feel the same about say a BATF ruling? Practically everyone here will say get rid of BATF, but the FCC is good to go even though they have facilitated for us the Broadcast environment we live in.
I'm open to being educated and re-educated on the matter, but when the .gov/FCC says 'hey we got this', I tend to think... here we go again. I honestly wish there was unlimited Internet access everywhere in the USA. Not that I need it but becasue there would be more people out there with new ideas and such. I can pick up a phone and call a friend who remembers when there was no TV.... I -almost- remember that. Microsoft ( the same people that want NN call it MicroShaft, M$, the devil, etc. ) just introduced their quantum computing developer kit. To say we can't have more and that things will get worse, just seems counter intuitive to me. I just see this as natural emerging rumblings and in no way OMG they are going to block M4C.
skywalkrNCSU
12-15-17, 09:47
You don’t see how they would have incentive to throttle content? Netflix is eating into their profits at a rapid pace and now they can make Netflix less appealing or make you pay more to have it the same as you did before. That’s just one example but to pretend like they have no incentive to change things now that they have the ability is crazy. A companies motive is to grow and increase profits, the FCC just gift wrapped them a way to do just that purely at the expense of the consumer.
Whiskey_Bravo
12-15-17, 09:55
Was Netflix around in 2015? Were they throttling and charging more for Netflix bandwidth usage then? I watched a lot more Netflix streaming then than I do now so just wondering. 2015 wasn't the 90s when the internet was new.
1) But there is no incentive for them to block my content. That's like saying the power company would want to turn my power on an off. Ideally they want everyone's power on and they want me to fire up every device I own.
Of course there is. If Time Warner is your provider and since they own CNN, they have an incentive to get you to watch CNN and not Fox or someone else.
These relationships exist all over business. Try ordering Pepsi in a McDonald’s for example.
Whiskey_Bravo
12-15-17, 10:10
These relationships exist all over business. Try ordering Pepsi in a McDonald’s for example.
I now see the need for a soda neutrality law....
Outlander Systems
12-15-17, 10:10
Renegade, SkywalkerNCSU, and Firefly are speaking the truth.
You can lead a horse to water...
Renegade, SkywalkerNCSU, and Firefly are speaking the truth.
You can lead a horse to water...
Credentials please.
Outlander Systems
12-15-17, 10:18
t. Reformed IT Dude.
Credentials please.
You don’t see how they would have incentive to throttle content? Netflix is eating into their profits at a rapid pace and now they can make Netflix less appealing or make you pay more to have it the same as you did before. That’s just one example but to pretend like they have no incentive to change things now that they have the ability is crazy. A companies motive is to grow and increase profits, the FCC just gift wrapped them a way to do just that purely at the expense of the consumer.
Yes, that's call a free market.
Let's say you own a large property with a Lake. You make ice for the residents in the area.
I move in and rent access to your Lake.
I open an ice house.
I give away ice just because I'm a nice guy.
You say screw that, I'm not renewing your lease.
I say screw you, I have political friends and get them to force you to rent to me AND allow me to do whatever I want with the lake water. After all, when that lake began, way back in time, it was free for anyone to use.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-15-17, 10:33
Serious question then. Informal rules that became rules and now are not rules 2 years later will turn into something drastically different? I was watching Netflix and downloading crap tons of stuff in 2015, then NN hit and I did the same thing. That is going to change now?
So I have a 1TB/month plan with comcast/xfinity and never get close to going over. I can see the nightmare scenarios, but the reality is probably different. What these iSPs can do verysus what they will do are different things.
I see the issue a bit like the telecom stuff, by the time the govt has figured out a system, the tech has already passed. I have cable option, I have the Century Link option, there is satellite too and I guess going wireless (at what cost?). Does NN affect all of these, including the wireless?
Credentials please.
Research it for yourself. It is public knowledge how the internet was operating prior to 2015.
Or just believe CNN, NBC, ABC, Wall Street Journal. Not like they are owned by Time-Warner, Comcast, Disney, Fox and have a stake in this, Oh wait, they are owned by them....
Yes, that's call a free market.
There is no free market anywhere in the universe. Everything is regulated by someone, for the benefit of someone else.
So I have a 1TB/month plan with comcast/xfinity and never get close to going over. I can see the nightmare scenarios, but the reality is probably different. What these iSPs can do verysus what they will do are different things.
The most likely scenario is to do what they are already doing and move to cable tv model. Comcast owns a variety of media companies they will package those for a price. Others will be charged ala carte or not available. So if Comcast partners with ARFCOM, and Botach, instead of m4carbine and BravoCo, how does that work for you?
If shit gets expensive, drop it.
When I had cable and they jacked up the price, I'd threaten to drop it. They'd lower the price to keep me in "the family"
They practically begged me for real when I was totally done.
I have a healthy dvd collection of films I like and now just stream films for like 2 dollars at my own damn house away from sorry ass people.
They have retro channels I can get on antennae.
If people try to throttle me or jack a price then I will drop it. Enough people drop they will want their business.
Like I already dropped Netflix anyways because all the movies were lame or things I have seen. Their originals are sad (except for Siege at Jadotville, that was badass).
And when they dumped X Files then I was done. I saw em all first run and the show still comes on midnights some weekends on normal TV but dumpimg them was it for me.
Can track down complete collection on blu ray. Its gotten cheaper.
Naw.....aint skeered
The internet isn't cable TV. It has become an integral part of our society and economy. Lets ignore the Netflix and FB side of things. What if they decide to charge more if you want to access shopping sites? Or how about Charging more for any site you may need for work? The internet is more like phone service than TV service in how it impacts our world today. Most people can't "just drop it" .
So I have a 1TB/month plan with comcast/xfinity and never get close to going over. I can see the nightmare scenarios, but the reality is probably different. What these iSPs can do verysus what they will do are different things.
I see the issue a bit like the telecom stuff, by the time the govt has figured out a system, the tech has already passed. I have cable option, I have the Century Link option, there is satellite too and I guess going wireless (at what cost?). Does NN affect all of these, including the wireless?
Net Neutrality applied to all types of data carriers not just land based ISPs.
While Wireless and Satellite sound like options and the FCC tried tro claim they count as competition, that isn't really the case. Neither of these are stable or provide the speed that even qualifies as broadband.
For the most part the people who are opposed to Net Neutrality seem to fall into two crowds.
The "It doesn't affect me crowd" Which are wrong because it does affect them even if they don't think it does.
And the people who don't fully understand the issue. This group may have heard some of the ISP talking points and believed them or just not like any government regulation as well.
But in the ned the people who are most affected by this are the little guys. Gun channels on Youtube, and pages like M4carbine.net are now at the mercy of management of these companies. Some people think that this isn't a problem. After all just use a VPN right? That is all fine and good until they block all VPN traffic as well.
They could get the same results if NN stayed.
Service goes to data not access speed, and like the wireless carriers they make partner services unlimited. SSDD.
The consumer always ends up paying anyway and we use more with streaming.
The debate is interesting, but missed the main point.
My problem with the FCC NN starts and ends with them claiming the authority to regulate something.
By all means, if you think the sky is falling call your representatives and ask for a law. But don't sit here and tell me the ends justify the means.
Think of it this way:
Did your internet work in 2015? Does it still work?
Well, the government is going to leave it alone before they break it.
I have not seen such panic since Y2K.
AndyThanks for posting truth rather than fud!
Less .gov is generally a good thing imo.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
My problem with the FCC NN starts and ends with them claiming the authority to regulate something.
Congress gave them that authority.
You really think we would be better off if FCC did not have authority to regulate? Anyone shouild be allowed fire up a xmitter at any wattage on any freq and transmit?
Less .gov is generally a good thing imo.
Well you just got a whole lot more .gov in your life.
Outlander Systems
12-15-17, 11:38
Amen.
I don't understand why that concept is so hard to comprehend.
Well you just got a whole lot more .gov in your life.
The internet isn't cable TV. It has become an integral part of our society and economy. Lets ignore the Netflix and FB side of things. What if they decide to charge more if you want to access shopping sites? Or how about Charging more for any site you may need for work? The internet is more like phone service than TV service in how it impacts our world today. Most people can't "just drop it" .
Please show me where in the Constitution it says you have a "Right" to the internet.
Show me where it says you have a "Right" to a telephone. Sadly the 1st Amendment doesnt say you have the right to someone else's private service.
That's like saying you have a "Right" to Healthcare, a "Right" to electricity, and a "Right" to running water.
No. Not rights. All were considered luxuries.
They are free to charge more for shopping sites and I am free to go to brick and mortar or order out of a good old fashioned Catalogue.
I had a life before "easy internet" and I will have one after.
People can still burn movies and trade on flash drives like folks used to do back in the day. There was a kid who for a blank tape and five bucks would copy a Metallica or 2pac tape for you because his dad had a high speed dual cassette player and Official Cassettes in those days cost 20 dollars. CDs could be $50.
It will go back to the original PeopleNet which wasn't a bad thing.
You view this as evil corporations run amok.
I view this as Praise, Jesus we get some fresh air. If Hungary can get super high speed data on $5 SIM cards whydafuq are we paying umpteen dollars a month for the SSDD?
Why is Google the defacto ruler of American internet?
Why is Facebook the defacto prison intake for the internet
Why is LinkedIn the defacto permanent record?
Why is Twitter the only voice and they can silence you for things you don't even say on their platform?
Why is instagram twitter for the illiterate?
And why are the all connected in their business dealings?
Because they were EXPLOITING "Net Neutrality"
It was more like Net De-Militarized Zone.
Walls, Mines, mirror soldiers, dudes on the tower.
Not this Athenian Democracy where all had a voice in the Forum of Discourse.
With Freedom comes risk.
I swear some people sound like hippie college kid Bernie types who think Socialism is a free apartment, free college, free car, free wifi, and free birth control pills when discussing this topic.
AOL used to be huge until they weren't.
How? Local ISPs.
Don't be afraid. You arent stuck with your black Model T anymore. In time you can get your blaze orange Dodge
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-15-17, 12:04
The most likely scenario is to do what they are already doing and move to cable tv model. Comcast owns a variety of media companies they will package those for a price. Others will be charged ala carte or not available. So if Comcast partners with ARFCOM, and Botach, instead of m4carbine and BravoCo, how does that work for you?
This gets back the 'could' status that would raise holy hell with their customers. These guys are only going to be able to press the issue as far as they can with out pissing people off and forcing the conversation about monopoly access.
Here is the simple other side argument that I see. Since everything is bits, with NN if nothing has priority, than what is to make sure my HDTV comcast cable channels aren't playing for the same bandwith as the guy streaming Japanese anime nextdoor? Isn't that what we are eventually talking about?
There is no free market anywhere in the universe. Everything is regulated by someone, for the benefit of someone else.
You had me til you start saying things like this. But it also points out the issue with 'the commons' nature of the NN. If no one really 'owns' that broadband capacity, who in the heck is incentivized to take care of it and expand it?
The whole NN reminds me of the Obamacare debate/sell. As in that it will all be just as good, cheaper and you keep everything. Well, that didn't work out.
So what are the downsides to NN? Like I said before, Mark Cuban is against it, and he isn't a Trump guy.
So what are the downsides to NN? Like I said before, Mark Cuban is against it, and he isn't a Trump guy.
Cuban owns a couple of obscure cable channels. This is good for him. No different then how he sold broadcast.com to yahoo. He is in heaven.
Here is the simple other side argument that I see. Since everything is bits, with NN if nothing has priority, than what is to make sure my HDTV comcast cable channels aren't playing for the same bandwith as the guy streaming Japanese anime nextdoor? Isn't that what we are eventually talking about?
And the guy next door wants t know what is to make sure his streaming Japanese anime isn't playing for the same bandwith as your HDTV comcast cable channels .
What we are talking about is timewarner owns cnn, and comcast owns nbc, etc. and they have no incentive to help you visit their competitors.
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/12/15/what-net-neutrality-rollback-means-to.html
Pretty much exactly what some of us have been saying.
On Thursday, the FCC repealed Obama-era "net neutrality" rules, junking the longtime principle that all web traffic must be treated equally. The move represents a radical departure from more than a decade of federal oversight
Under the new rules approved Thursday, companies like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T would be free to slow down or block access to services they don't like.
People who keep claiming that the free market will solve these issues don’t understand how free markets work. One of the first things you learn in economics is a requirement for a free market is low barriers to entry. Providing internet service has an extreme barrier to entry as many other posters before me have pointed out.
Somebody paid attention!
Some of the comments on here are a good reminder that many people don't fully understand the impact that the i tenet has had on the world nor the way that it works.
The old adage of "you can't unring a bell" there was a time we could do without cars. Or the telephone. Or anything else. But the world is where it is now and without these things our society doesn't function. The same applies to the internt now.
No we do t have a right to it. But we do need it to function.
Doc Safari
12-15-17, 12:49
Some of the comments on here are a good reminder that many people don't fully understand the impact that the i tenet has had on the world nor the way that it works.
The old adage of "you can't unring a bell" there was a time we could do without cars. Or the telephone. Or anything else. But the world is where it is now and without these things our society doesn't function. The same applies to the internt now.
No we do t have a right to it. But we do need it to function.
And also don't forget that if things get too bad someone will simply design something else that people will flock to.
"For every correction there is an equal and opposite screw up". Or is that the other way around?
Some of the comments on here are a good reminder that many people don't fully understand the impact that the i tenet has had on the world nor the way that it works.
The old adage of "you can't unring a bell" there was a time we could do without cars. Or the telephone. Or anything else. But the world is where it is now and without these things our society doesn't function. The same applies to the internt now.
No we do t have a right to it. But we do need it to function.
Which does support the argument that the internet is a utility and should be regulated as such, as much as I find the idea repugnant.
Andy
skywalkrNCSU
12-15-17, 12:54
Yes, that's call a free market.
Let's say you own a large property with a Lake. You make ice for the residents in the area.
I move in and rent access to your Lake.
I open an ice house.
I give away ice just because I'm a nice guy.
You say screw that, I'm not renewing your lease.
I say screw you, I have political friends and get them to force you to rent to me AND allow me to do whatever I want with the lake water. After all, when that lake began, way back in time, it was free for anyone to use.
Back to my first post in this thread, it is not a free market. A free market requires low barriers to entry which this is definitely not.
Well you just got a whole lot more .gov in your life.and I wonder what secret provisions they wrote in to surveil it. Not like they don’t anyway. But to quote Doc Holiday in Tombstone - “Now it’s legal...”
Outlander Systems
12-15-17, 13:03
It's not a secret.
Here's the deal. You sign a contract with the ISPs when you agree to their Terms Of Service.
It's not an encroachment upon your 4th and 5th amendment protections when they turn your data over willy nilly to whomever requests it, be said entity public or private.
Play in someone else's sandbox; live by someone else's rules.
I trust the boys in DC and at Fort Meade with my information far more than I do Comcast or Verizon.
Just sayin'.
and I wonder what secret provisions they wrote in to surveil it. Not like they don’t anyway. But to quote Doc Holiday in Tombstone - “Now it’s legal...”
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/12/15/what-net-neutrality-rollback-means-to.html
Pretty much exactly what some of us have been saying.
On Thursday, the FCC repealed Obama-era "net neutrality" rules, junking the longtime principle that all web traffic must be treated equally. The move represents a radical departure from more than a decade of federal oversight
Under the new rules approved Thursday, companies like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T would be free to slow down or block access to services they don't like.
Not a comment on the poster, a comment on the article quoted - where was I during these "decades" of oversight under the Obama era rules?
Its like the author took a bunch of talking points, wrote them in gibberish on slips of paper, chewed them up, swallowed them, puked on the keyboard and hit enter. Why would I lend credence to anything the article says?
Andy
Not a comment on the poster, a comment on the article quoted - where was I during these "decades" of oversight under the Obama era rules?
Its like the author took a bunch of talking points, wrote them in gibberish on slips of paper, chewed them up, swallowed them, puked on the keyboard and hit enter. Why would I lend credence to anything the article says?
Andy
Yeah it was closer to 8 years not 10+ under Obama. Of course since the backbone carriers are federally regulated, he also could have said since day 1.
I didn't think the backbone carrier regulations were affected by these rule changes. Like you said, they go way back.
Imma go wrap presents now. I am still bitter about our entire senate race and am posting like The Don tweets.
Andy
Congress gave them that authority.
Not that I can find.
"The Communications Act of 1934 combined and organized federal regulation of telephone, telegraph, and radio communications. The Act created the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to oversee and regulate these industries. The Act is updated periodically to add provisions governing new communications technologies, such as broadcast, cable and satellite television."
Congress gave specific authority of what was to be regulated and updated it with specific new technologies. They have not that I can find included the internet yet.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-15-17, 13:45
Cuban owns a couple of obscure cable channels. This is good for him. No different then how he sold broadcast.com to yahoo. He is in heaven.
On the same issue, I don't trust the media companies to report this correctly since they would benefit from NN, correct?
Back to my first post in this thread, it is not a free market. A free market requires low barriers to entry which this is definitely not.
By your definition there are pretty much no free markets. So steel production should be nationalized?
Not that I can find.
"The Communications Act of 1934 combined and organized federal regulation of telephone, telegraph, and radio communications. The Act created the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to oversee and regulate these industries. The Act is updated periodically to add provisions governing new communications technologies, such as broadcast, cable and satellite television."
Congress gave specific authority of what was to be regulated and updated it with specific new technologies. They have not that I can find included the internet yet.
Well not my area of expertise. I guess someone should have sued them when they did it. But I am sure in their mind it fell within the scope above.
On the same issue, I don't trust the media companies to report this correctly since they would benefit from NN, correct?
Well the easiest way to misrepresent the truth is what you don't say, like when they call it "Obama era Rules" and do not mention those have been the defacto rules since day 1.
By your definition there are pretty much no free markets. So steel production should be nationalized?
No I am saying steel production does not operate in a free market. How you go from that to is should be nationalized, WTF knows.
I don't need the internet.
I do NOT trust the government more than I do anybody else.
This is the same US Govt that lets low level faggots and turncoats have access to things they can leak to whomever the F ever if their "conscience" tells them to do so.
I can elect not to use a damn thing. Go back to a flip phone, break out the VHS, and encrypt my shit if I had shit worth encrypting.
We can't "fire" the Govt short of hardcore armed rebellion (and nobody is doing that. And the people that REALLY want to do that are either retarded or obese or both and would be easily, easily shut down by like basic uniform patrol rookies on their first day off FTO)
I can, however, elect to not buy peoples services. Read the Fein print and if no likey, no usey.
They lose my business.
Some of youse almost want Obamacare for the Internet.
You are welcome to those opinions but I disagree.
There are people living in RVs in the desert who dont care what who does what.
I see this as killing the Second Death Star
For the unhip, Bell was called the Death Star because of its ominous logo.
Remember the Lily Tomlin Operator skit?
"Whaddya gonna do? We're the phone company!" as she held her head back and laughed.
Somehow....just....somefreakinghow, I'm not using Bell, AT&T, or none of that.
Magically life has gone on. I know folks with HELLACIOUS AT&T bills that get throttled and I don't.
Not everything bad is good.
Not everything good is bad.
skywalkrNCSU
12-15-17, 13:55
On the same issue, I don't trust the media companies to report this correctly since they would benefit from NN, correct?
By your definition there are pretty much no free markets. So steel production should be nationalized?
It isn’t my definition, this is economics 101. I’m not trying to be condescending when I say this either, there are assumptions that have to be met and without low barriers to entry you don’t have a free market. If Comcast controls all the internet in one area and they know that the barriers for entry are high for any competitor then they will not act in a manner that would occur in a free market which needs either competition or possible competition. Low barriers to entry allow for possible competition and would require the company to act in a manner as if there were competitors.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-15-17, 14:05
Well the easiest way to misrepresent the truth is what you don't say, like when they call it "Obama era Rules" and do not mention those have been the defacto rules since day 1.
No I am saying steel production does not operate in a free market. How you go from that to is should be nationalized, WTF knows.
Those are two weak-sauce answers. That you would so quickly dismiss the media's conflict of interest without any comment is interesting. Media companies would benefit the most from NN, correct?
I was taking your point that internet access isn't free market because of the barriers to entry, which you seem to imply there has to be some action on it, right. Govt action in this case? If that were the case, that anything not operating as a true free market (pimp free prostitution is about the only one I can come up with off the top of my head) needs regulation?
Listen, I'm starting to warm to the NN, but the mantra that the only upside is on Comcast to screw people makes me nervous. Maybe it is simple as that. But, It isn't like media content companies and Google don't have enough money to make their side win.
By your definition there are pretty much no free markets. So steel production should be nationalized?
Whoa! Wait a minute!
Regulation is entirely different than nationalization.
Those are two weak-sauce answers. That you would so quickly dismiss the media's conflict of interest without any comment is interesting. Media companies would benefit the most from NN, correct?
I was taking your point that internet access isn't free market because of the barriers to entry, which you seem to imply there has to be some action on it, right. Govt action in this case? If that were the case, that anything not operating as a true free market (pimp free prostitution is about the only one I can come up with off the top of my head) needs regulation?
I am not sure what you are asking. Perhaps we leave the steel industry out of this and just focus on the internet?
Listen, I'm starting to warm to the NN, but the mantra that the only upside is on Comcast to screw people makes me nervous. Maybe it is simple as that. But, It isn't like media content companies and Google don't have enough money to make their side win.
Nobody knows what the future holds, post NN. What we do know at least IMO, is the Internet has been working pretty good since day 1, and I see no need to make big changes, and the last thing change I want is to allow it to be run by the cable companies. They already screwed up cable, now they are going after internet.
But I could be wrong, maybe they will make it better, faster all while making it cheaper.
Funny, but when a common carrier like UPS blocks access (no machine guns) or charges a premium (handguns must go over night), folks go bat-shit crazy. But somehow it is OK for the cable companies to run the internet the same way?
Outlander Systems
12-15-17, 14:17
Please, someone explain to me how rescinding the following is, "good" for me?
105. No-Blocking. First, we adopt a bright-line rule prohibiting broadband providers from
blocking lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices. This “no-blocking” principle has
long been a cornerstone of the Commission’s policies.239 While first applied in the Internet context as part
of the Commission’s Internet Policy Statement, the no-blocking concept dates back to the Commission’s
protection of end users’ rights to attach lawful, non-harmful devices to communications networks.240
106. No-Throttling. Second, we adopt a separate bright-line rule prohibiting broadband providers from
impairing or degrading lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, application, service,
or use of non-harmful device. This conduct was prohibited under the commentary to the no-blocking rule
adopted in the 2010 Open Internet Order.
https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf
http://i.imgur.com/wNpCNi3.png
Oh you mean like how people were already censoring the internet before but are open about it now ?
Pretty good.
If I get throttled, I move or I dont use.
Again people in the literal former Warsaw Pact have better internet than we do and they do it without Net Neutrality.
People were already ripping down skinhead sites and all that.
Yet somehow Daesh Hajis can spur insurrection and wire money with no problem.
Which one is an annoyance and which one is a national threat.
I dont approve of either one.
Remember internet c. 1999?
We are a little closer now than farther with the death of Net DMZ
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-15-17, 14:44
I am not sure what you are asking. Perhaps we leave the steel industry out of this and just focus on the internet?
Nobody knows what the future holds, post NN. What we do know at least IMO, is the Internet has been working pretty good since day 1, and I see no need to make big changes, and the last thing change I want is to allow it to be run by the cable companies. They already screwed up cable, now they are going after internet.
But I could be wrong, maybe they will make it better, faster all while making it cheaper.
Funny, but when a common carrier like UPS blocks access (no machine guns) or charges a premium (handguns must go over night), folks go bat-shit crazy. But somehow it is OK for the cable companies to run the internet the same way?
Thanks, I do think a big problem is that as you stated, no one really knows what will happen- and there are no good analogies- it is what it is and it ain’t anything else.
Of course, if the ISPs act badly, I can’t see them being able to stop congress from acting. I would think that standard anti-trust law still applies?
Back to my first post in this thread, it is not a free market. A free market requires low barriers to entry which this is definitely not.
... and back to my unanswered questions......
Will quantum computing have an impact?
Will wireless have an impact
Is this a market endeavor, that will have an impact?
https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2017/12/13/at-t-georgia-power-test-gigabit-internet-service.html
It seems you guys are suggesting the Internet should be the way it was the day it was invented and no one is looking at emerging technologies. I just find it hard to believe we are stuck here and now with what we have and I've never know the .gov to make things better. They take a little today and little tomorrow. Next year they have a lot.
Of all things, technology, and you guys are basically saying it's nope, game over, you want on the Internet and now they can control your mind.
I just think that sounds like BS. There has to be someone that will develop a new way and why would you want the .gov in control of how it has to play out.
All that aside from the fact I don't believe Comcast is out to get me.
skywalkrNCSU
12-15-17, 14:55
Even with NN there is still plenty of incentive for innovation, especially in the wireless space. We just haven’t produced technology that is worth the cost if you have access to landline based service. There are many areas that have one ISP, others that might have two big players and some regional ones. If someone could develop wireless technology that provided high speeds, stable performance, no data caps, at a reasonable price people would leave Comcast, Verizon, Spectrum, and AT&T in droves. People loathe those companies and are dying for an alternative and that is why people are so excited for Google Fiber in area where they are working on it.
They are rolling it out to San Antonio and people can’t wait to dump the traditional ISP’s but it is taking FOREVER and the availability is nowhere near as broad as they hoped it would be because it is so expensive and difficult to roll out. If they could accomplish the same thing via wireless the infrastructure demands would be a drop in the bucket comparatively. NN isn’t what is stopping companies from pursuing that but our technological capabilities are.
Without NN ISP’s will be able to charge more for less so if anything it would provide less incentive for current ISP’s to innovate since it is not a free market.
Dist. Expert 26
12-15-17, 15:07
To piggyback on the above post, I think wireless is the way of the future for all but the heaviest users. The cost of building a new cell tower is a drop in the bucket when compared to running fiber optic. Because the cost is lower, the barriers to entry are significantly easier to overcome.
To piggyback on the above post, I think wireless is the way of the future for all but the heaviest users. The cost of building a new cell tower is a drop in the bucket when compared to running fiber optic. Because the cost is lower, the barriers to entry are significantly easier to overcome.
I am in rural area (no cable options) and on wireless and get 50 mbs, with 200 mbs expected by end of next year.
Dist. Expert 26
12-15-17, 15:42
I am in rural area (no cable options) and on wireless and get 50 mbs, with 200 mbs expected by end of next year.
Same. It doesn't hurt that I can see the cell tower on the other side of the valley, but I get WAY better speed than I could ever hope for with satellite.
With 5G networks on the way I think wired internet will become largely obsolete just like land line phones.
skywalkrNCSU
12-15-17, 15:51
My parents have a place out in the country and their only options are satellite (which is expensive and if you go over 2GB gets REALLY expensive real quick), using your cellphone as a hotspot with less than LTE speeds, or because they have a line of sight to a tower they can beam a signal directly to their house. They use the last option because it’s cheaper and has no data cap but they don’t really get more than 10 MB speeds. Gets the job done but if they weren’t in the line of sight they would not have any good options.
I absolutely think wireless is the future though but we have a ways to go before we get there.
Key item - "those who request it". I'm sure we are moving closer to 1984 and Big Government having an all seeing eye now that NN passed. That's JMO.
It's not a secret.
Here's the deal. You sign a contract with the ISPs when you agree to their Terms Of Service.
It's not an encroachment upon your 4th and 5th amendment protections when they turn your data over willy nilly to whomever requests it, be said entity public or private.
Play in someone else's sandbox; live by someone else's rules.
I trust the boys in DC and at Fort Meade with my information far more than I do Comcast or Verizon.
Just sayin'.
I am in rural area (no cable options) and on wireless and get 50 mbs, with 200 mbs expected by end of next year.
What is the latency and Jitter? That is extremely good speeds for wireless. And that is the kind of technology we need to see.
A couple more things if anyone is actually still reading details. Nothing in the Net Neutrality rules stated the kind of service. SO emerging carrier technology has no impact. Send the signal over wireless, COAX, POTS, fiber, or something completely different, it doesn't matter. It just says that if you provide the service it must be open an equal.
Now I am curious as to why people think that somehow stifles innovation or will cause fa slowdown int he development of new technology. I hear that line all the time but have seen nothing that supports it. Event he examples that Pai tried to use ended up being lies. Not even misunderstandings but blatant lies. So can anyone explain that reasoning?
Even with NN there is still plenty of incentive for innovation,
Maybe I can try it this way.....
I am not an opponent of NN per se. Nor am I totally convinced it's the right thing.
I have asked... with the advent of quantum computing, AirGig, IR and other wireless technology..... which are all acknowledged innovations. Will they create more ISP competition? Varied ways for us to have access. That is question 1 Would a reasonable person, in light of innovations, expect ISP competition or a new dynamic in Internet access?
I have asked about the comfortable dynamic between politics and the alphabet soup media. I would find it incredibly difficult to assume they are just sitting idly by twiddling their thumbs as they watch the Internet crush their power base of influence. They own the TV Broadcast market and to me it would seem only logical that they too would want to have that same influence on the Internet. They got where they are under the FCC. Seems a friendly arrangement. Question 2 - Why should we have no concern with regard to .gov + regulation + history.
... and finally I have zero concern how any of this impacts someone today. I am wondering with NN or without, what will things be like in say 20 years.
I have read pro and con opinions on the matter but no one really seems to be able to come up with a convincing over view. Also no one seems to want to admit that everyone is in it for themselves which again is politics as usual.
Here is a link to an over view of two pro / con opinions. I will admit, I can see the NN side and it sounds reasonable but I also see where we are now with the 'old school way'. We have Google collecting and pushing us in directions they choose. We have ISPs that charge the same prices for the same thing. We have businesses that built themselves up over time and are now being told by supposedly We The People that ok, we'll take control of that now. To me the latter sounds like a form of imminent domain without just compensation..... and again the .gov is famous for that.
So with those specifics in mind. Can someone convince me we are not burning witches?
Here is the link I mentioned. In fact they have many good articles. M4C requires I post a paragraph or so on this link. The are basically the FCC of this forum which I often forget. I feel that I have addressed the link I am about to post and that anyone reading this thread would gather that as well. But.. in keeping with the rules.....
The link will discuss some of the following presented here as excerpts and more information regarding Net Neutrality.
The stakes are rising with the promise of new Net applications, such as communication among autonomous vehicles. Also at stake is the future of wire-line telephone service,
The fundamental technical challenge is getting the Net to carry traffic that it was never meant to handle. Internet packet switching was designed for digital file transfers between computers, and it was later adapted for e-mail and Web pages. For these purposes the digital data does not have to be delivered at a specific rate or even in a specific order, so it can be chopped into packets that are routed over separate paths to be reassembled, in leisurely fashion, at their destinations.
By contrast, voice and video signals must come fast and in a specific sequence.
Perhaps I am wrong but a lot of what I read does not seem to point to the "equal packet theory" but rather inequality of Internet traffic is a necessity.
The packet coding built into LTE and VoLTE is a different matter because that traffic goes over wireless networks, which do have limited internal capacity. The LTE packet coding standard reflects the mobile environment and the introduction of new services. It assigns a special priority code to real-time gaming traffic, which requires very fast transit times to keep competition even. It also divides video into two classes with distinct requirements.
Those excerpts are from 2015 in this link --- https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/net-neutralitys-technical-troubles
This link is an opinion up to the minute and has a direct link for a case against NN and a case for NN.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/telecom/internet/what-happens-now-that-the-fcc-repealed-net-neutrality
Everything seems a whole more complicated to me than simply the Internet is supposed to be equal for all.
Outlander Systems
12-16-17, 09:50
Autonomous vehicles and medical devices are excepted from the, "equality of packets" under NN.
This is a win for the ISPs; not us.
Autonomous vehicles and medical devices are excepted from the, "equality of packets" under NN.
This is a win for the ISPs; not us.
So should the ISPs not be allowed to win? Or rather, are you saying the ISPs never had an equal share to us. They took our works and now they profit from them? Because the other side of that is the ISPs were the ones that did all the work to get us this far and now we want to take it away. Also isn't the plan that the FTC protect us?
IOW, if I build a business I don't want the public and .gov taking it away from me when I got there playing by their rules. So which is the most accurate view? I'm honestly asking... I don't know.
But answers like... 'because it's true, we loose, it's crazy not to want NN' those don't seem to come with a lot of factual support when you look deeper at the subject. As a matter of fact, under NN, I got my first Use Cap notice ever and my prices went up. One was AT&T(altered my unlimited plan) the other Comcast.
RetroRevolver77
12-16-17, 10:18
Wasn't Obama for Net Neutrality? Pretty much says all I need to know.
So should the ISPs not be allowed to win? Or rather, are you saying the ISPs never had an equal share to us. They took our works and now they profit from them? Because the other side of that is the ISPs were the ones that did all the work to get us this far and now we want to take it away. Also isn't the plan that the FTC protect us?
IOW, if I build a business I don't want the public and .gov taking it away from me when I got there playing by their rules. So which is the most accurate view? I'm honestly asking... I don't know.
But answers like... 'because it's true, we loose, it's crazy not to want NN' those don't seem to come with a lot of factual support when you look deeper at the subject. As a matter of fact, under NN, I got my first Use Cap notice ever and my prices went up. One was AT&T(altered my unlimited plan) the other Comcast.
This.
Why people want the internet regulated is crazy.
ISPs dont have political interest. They just want money.
People (Google) ALREADY sell your info and have been doing so.
People forget it was Obama who said he wanted an "Off Button" for the internet.
If you post wrongthink on Anything part of Gulag they were censoring it even with Net Neutrality.
People think "Oh no, Oh No teh corporations! Teh Corporations!"
And I'm thinking "Finally some more corporatism to bypass all this government"
lol why the trail of tears for essentially the end of Internet AWB?
What you call Net Neutrality, I call Net DMZ
Outlander Systems
12-16-17, 11:00
I'll leave this here one last time:
105. No-Blocking. First, we adopt a bright-line rule prohibiting broadband providers from
blocking lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
IOW, if I build a business I don't want the public and .gov taking it away from me when I got there playing by their rules. So which is the most accurate view? I'm honestly asking... I don't know.
From reading your posts you know much more about it than I do. However, I see some issues with the quoted statement.
From what I understand of the issue there were essentially no government rules until the Obama Administration enacted NN, which essentially codified the Generally Accepted Internet Procedures/Principles that everyone had been operating under.
As I understand it, the issue NN addressed was that some companies were violating the GAIP, which the industry as a whole had robustly grown under. So if we look at it from that respect, nothing was taken away, the rules were codified because a couple of companies violated the spirit of the generally accepted industry rules.
As a consumer I understand the need for some degree of government regulation to ensure my interests are protected from predatory profiteering.
Look at it this way, how would you feel if you bought a brand new Ford only to find that it slowed automatically whenever you drove past a business that Ford had an interest in or paid relationship with? You probably wouldn't by another Ford would you? What if every manufacturer did this? What is your recourse? Would you like the government to step into the the fray in a limited fashion?
I may be a simpleton, but that is the way I look at it.
Wasn't Obama for Net Neutrality? Pretty much says all I need to know.
Pretty sure Obama was also for eating and breathing. Go ahead and apply that litmus test to those. :rolleyes:
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-16-17, 11:22
Interesting that people think that we need to keep the ISPs under the govt thumb until wireless can kill them....
That’s the major issue with govt regulating technology, it is solving yesterdays problems, with new problems while tomorrow is already here.
Interesting that people think that we need to keep the ISPs under the govt thumb until wireless can kill them....
That’s the major issue with govt regulating technology, it is solving yesterdays problems, with new problems while tomorrow is already here.
If you want to hear some scary stuff. Re: the bitcoin thread. Go to Youtube and listen to speeches and interviews with Anotopolous. Keep in mind that he is not necessarily speaking about money and a get rich investment.
There is a huge incentive for the .gov to control all it can.
I don't want to have to type a paragraph about a link. Go to youtube and look up Antonopoulos -- a suggested search might be... Disrupt Conference - What is Bitcoin? or perhaps Interview at London Real" - Andreas Antonopoulos
So a question actually comes to mind. If all hell did break loose, would you rather have to battle what is referenced here as a single entity(monopoly) OR, would you rather have to wonder how some many entities got control of your life through a technology that you basically didn't even know existed.(google, .gov, Facebook, and whatever collection/control device they build. Facebook... I think it's facebbok is planning to build a data center here where I live.
Go talk to someone of average means that lives in SanFran and ask them how safe their home is? They are being priced out of their apartments and guess who is moving in? Rich techies that can drop millions in cash. IOW, people that have been living the tech life and have risen to a far higher standard of living.
I have had a SanFran musician tell me that story. He actually doesn't know where he will go. His home is also his studio due to technology so basically his livelihood is being taken. I had it verified just a couple weeks ago buy someone from SanFran that has moved here and her husband is a SAP guy, so she knows the tech world.
@26Inf wrote:
From reading your posts you know much more about it than I do.
Well I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. I honestly am asking "what about this" questions. It's like being handed a puzzle with no picture to go by adn being told, just sit there and assemble it, it's going to look great when you are done. Well it might take me years to assemble and realize what it is and it might end up being a really nice portrait of Obama.
..and as to Obama... The Obama, Google, FCC, Facebook, etc does raise an eyebrow for me. But I know Obama was an opportunistic guy so I could see his action being no more than AlGore saying he is father of the Internet.... but... that still leaves Google, Facebook, et al.. and they want to control BigData because it is BigMoney. Which I can't blame them for but it still doesn't make their competition or someone that decided to be in a different but necessarily connected business to be the bad guy. We don't know what motives are for the so called good guys. All we know is they need full access to the Internet to get to what we have.... which is basically our daily lives and freedom.
skywalkrNCSU
12-16-17, 14:12
Interesting that people think that we need to keep the ISPs under the govt thumb until wireless can kill them....
That’s the major issue with govt regulating technology, it is solving yesterdays problems, with new problems while tomorrow is already here.
It’s not really that, it’s once wireless becomes viable then your free market argument would hold some water.
Why can’t congress either pass a law that states you’re a service provider or a content provider, but you can’t be both.
It's that simple. You could even allow a corporations to be both as long as no filter in, blocking, prioritization, or delaying takes place.
No different than how travel websites only show you flights and hotels for those they are partnered with.
The problem is since most folks do not have a lot of choices in their internet provider, and zero choice in who their providers gets backbone services from you cannot easily go elsewhere.Except the travel sites don't have an effective Monopoly based on right of way physical plant.
There is a reason the cable and phone companies are regulated by the PSC in most areas.
I always get concerned when the government proposes something that's "Neutral", "Common", Equal" or "Fair".
Just consider Common Core, where high grades are lowered for some, and lower grades get increased for others. I recall something from the past called The Fairness Doctrine and equal time requirements for broadcasters.
For the web, I kind of like the Wild West appeal to it. A wide open place of pure hell or great ecstasy, ignorance or knowledge. I personally should have started my own version of Facebook®. I would have called it: InYourFacebook®, a hell-hole of non-stop written and visual attacks; the MMA or Thunderdome of Social Media. It might have been fun...
I agree. Sort of like the Affordable Care Act, isn't. Straight out of 1984: The Ministry of Love, The Ministry of Peace, etc....
Except the travel sites don't have an effective Monopoly based on right of way physical plant.
There is a reason the cable and phone companies are regulated by the PSC in most areas.
exactly
Pretty sure Obama was also for eating and breathing. Go ahead and apply that litmus test to those. :rolleyes:
Dang, did Obama try to regulate those too? Cause that’s our context. ;)
On NN, I’m more curious/optimistic how this change will play out the next few years. I’m rural and get unlimited wireless from towers that broadcast broadband fast enough and reliable enough, even in severe blizzards, to stream and do work from home. I expect google to harness wireless to set up new networks along all the routes of their self-driving cars. Amazon will do the same. Facebook. Our choices may become so many that paying what we do today for service will be laughable. After reading this thread, I favor this speculation of more delivery competition. If it sucks, we know something will fix it. Nothing is in stone. Antifa may nuke the power grid and return us to chain letters from Firefly.
The WSJ editorial board supports the end of NN and that reporting of controls by ISPs is still required. Web search: “The Internet Is Free Again” to get behind the WSJ paywall. The direct link is here for those with paid subscriptions: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-internet-is-free-again-1513297405.
From article:
Bans on throttling content may poll well, but the regulations have created uncertainty about what the FCC would or wouldn’t allow. This has throttled investment. Price discrimination and paid prioritization are used by many businesses. Netflix charges higher prices to subscribers who stream content on multiple devices. Has this made the internet less free?
Mr. Pai’s rules would require that broadband providers disclose discriminatory practices. Thus cable companies would have to be transparent if they throttle content when users reach a data cap or if they speed up live sports programming. Consumers can choose broadband providers and plans accordingly. The Federal Trade Commission will have authority to police predatory and monopolistic practices, as it had prior to Mr. Wheeler’s power grab.
Dang, did Obama try to regulate those too? Cause that’s our context. ;)
Who is 'our?' And, well, yeah, no chocolate milk in school lunches. So you guys need to be buying lots of ovaltine.
Well, yeah, no chocolate milk in school lunches.
It's kind of doofus for your sole criteria for approval or disapproval of something to be whether someone else liked it. Use some degree of analytical thought process. That is my context.
Yes, that would be doofus. But in the context of most GD discussions, a golden thread runs that if Obama and his globalists backers are for something, it’s worth noting. The NN issue falls in line with that since Google and other globalists, including Leftist media, advocated for it so heavily and give it misleading language to smuggle in regulation (we heard plenty about the misleading language when this was enacted in 2015). Free speech isn’t their motivation either, as seen in practice, no matter how much we value it here. The Left does not want neutrality. They want certain powers to have the leverage. Trojan horses and all that.
That’s how I read 7N6 and found your comment missing his point by attributing a simplistic criteria he doesn’t appear to have in practice. Yet I could be giving him too much charity in the reading, or you too little.
Consumers can choose broadband providers and plans accordingly.
There is that lie again. Most people don't have a choice.
These guys don't seem to think the sky is falling.... In fact they are saying no NN will drive new tech and wider availability when people refocus on the bigger issues.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfbQL9dwgnM
Pretty sure Obama was also for eating and breathing. Go ahead and apply that litmus test to those. :rolleyes:
actually only if you are certain age certain health
also breathing is bad for green house gases with his man made global warming cook friends etc..
his wife eating and our schools pretty much mangled that up and again beef is bad since cows are part of man made gases and need to be dealt with
was way more than chocolate milk and many schools budgets could not hanlde the cost that was of course forced onto them ? and the waste went through the roof for many schools cause the food was garbage
they also started the whole idiot city food deserts or whatever they called it
so yeah even he was not so much for the freedom of eating and breathing for others below him !
If you like your Net DMZ, you can keep your Net DMZ
platoonDaddy
12-17-17, 08:13
The FCC, through its rules, delayed cell service. Here is an FCC action from 1947:
"AT&T wanted to start developing cellular in 1947, the FCC rejected the idea, believing that spectrum could be best used by other services that were not "in the nature of convenience or luxury." "
Should rules over-rule common sense?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.