TG: Net neutrality advocates to protest against 'hybrid' FCC solution in dozens of cities

[tshile]

No thanks

[Larry]

I want free,fast,unthrottled wireless porn for me.

Sorry. Had to.

[Gamebreaker]

My dad was in Iraq during the first Gulf War when Saddam implemented his human shield program. I got a briefing from the company  (which had big DoD ties) on what was actually happening in advance of anything being on the news, as well as ongoing status and guidance on what not to say so as to avoid attention from the media. 

 

There are similar reports for network security...don't ask me how I know this.

[twa]

Sorry. Had to.

 

you say potatoe I say potato 

[88Comrade2000]

I think the vote for this is supposed to happen tomorrow.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/23/house-chairman-urges-fcc-transparency/23882079/

[Popeman38]

Well, the FCC voted 3-2 to regulate the Internet like a public utility.

[PCS]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/26/389259382/net-neutrality-up-for-vote-today-by-fcc-board

 

 

 

 

FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules For 'Open Internet'

The Federal Communications Commission approved the policy known as net neutrality by a 3-2 vote at its Thursday meeting, with FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler saying the policy will ensure "that no one — whether government or corporate — should control free open access to the Internet."

The policy helps to decide an essential question about how the Internet works, requiring service providers to be a neutral gateway instead of handling different types of Internet traffic in different ways — and at different costs.

"Today is a red-letter day," Wheeler said later.

The dissenting votes came from Michael O'Rielly and Ajut Pai, Republicans who warned that the FCC was overstepping its authority and interfering in commerce to solve a problem that doesn't exist. They also complained that the measure's 300-plus pages weren't publicly released or openly debated.

 

 

*Click Link For More*

[tshile]

Well, the FCC voted 3-2 to regulate the Internet like a public utility.

 

Not the internet.

 

ISPs.

 

Queue a bunch of politicians with no understanding of how any of this works, telling the rest of us what to think about it.

[Popeman38]

Not the internet.

 

ISPs.

 

Queue a bunch of politicians with no understanding of how any of this works, telling the rest of us what to think about it.

I disagree. The Internet is no no different than copper. It is a public utility. Get ready for govt fees and surcharges, just like on your home phone. The govt just created a new revenue stream. And now they can force ISPs to offer broadband access at set costs. 

[tshile]

I disagree. The Internet is no no different than copper. It is a public utility. Get ready for govt fees and surcharges, just like on your home phone. The govt just created a new revenue stream. And now they can force ISPs to offer broadband access at set costs. 

 

Except you're just making all of that up, and this has nothing to do with any of that.

ISP's control your access to the internet, the FCC is going to regulate what they can and cannot do to you.

 

It has nothing to do with government control of the internet.

 

The best part of it all, is that the people ****ing about the FCC doing this are the same people ****ing that ICAAN was released from US control to world control (as was always planned.) It's great because in both situations these people do not have one clue as to what they're talking about, and their stances are actually contradictory from a philosophical standpoint. If they understood their own arguments they might actually figure that out...

 

ICAAN:

You can't release this! You can't let go of control of the internet! What if someone else takes it!

 

Net Neutrality:

You can't do this, this is Government takeover of the internet!

[Springfield]

Sweet, republican ruin of our country's greatest asset has been denied.

[tshile]

The ISP's were using bully tactics to fight off start ups and smaller businesses that offered competing services, especially in the realm of media content access/distribution (IE: things like netflix)

 

The republicans, a party of politicians that seldom let a speech go by without mentioning their support for small business owners and their vital importance to the economy and (LOL) free market (LOL), are backing the tactics of big corporations bulling small start up/business/entrepreneur to run them out of business.

 

It's quite humorous to watch. It would require some pretty gnarly mental gymnastics to work your way through it all which would make it even better to watch, but the ignorance on the issue allows for them to avoid all that hard work.

[tshile]

 

do you think it's good that Verizon and AT&T blocked Google Wallet 3 years ago because they were coming out with a competing product themselves? 3 years later and google wallet is still blocked, the whole technology has been essentially run into the ground, and where is AT&T and Verizon's competing products? No where to be found.

 

Quick update because I was apparently out of the loop when I wrote that...

 

Google bought the competing services from AT&T and Verizon in part of an agreement to unblock Google Wallet.

 

So Google had to pay their way out of the block. Google Wallet is back to being alive and well.

 

It just took a company with deep pockets to shell out cash to make it happen.  Which is what this entire issue is about - These companies bullying others around so that they can prioritize their services. They want to be able to win with bully tactics, not by providing a superior service.

 

If Google Wallet - a pretty good product - was instead RandomJoe's Wallet, where RandomJoe was trying to start up a company to provide a new, innovative technology, it wouldn't have been successful as RandomJoe wouldn't have the cash to pay off AT&T and Verizon. The product would be dead, we'd still have nothing from AT&T and Verizon, and RandomJoe would not only lose his business but probably go ass backwards into debt from starting up a business/product that could never be launched plus whatever cash was spent trying to fight AT&T and Verizon.

[KuNiT21]

Did they emphasize that if you like your internet service, you can keep your internet service?  

[tshile]

You guys should look up internet service speeds and cost around the world.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/internet-speeds-in-the-us-and-around-the-world-2014-5

 

 

 

Everyone has dealt with frustratingly slow internet speeds, but you may be surprised to learn just how far behind the U.S. is in terms of of internet access when compared to the rest of the world.

With an average download rate of 20 megabits per second (Mbps), the United States ranked in last place when compared alongside Russia, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Japan Switzerland, South Korea, Romania, Singapore, and Hong Kong, according to charts published by The Daily Dot.

....

Although the U.S. is lagging behind when it comes to average internet speeds, it still charges high rates for internet access compared to areas with faster network speeds. The average cost per megabit in the U.S. is between $3 and $4, while South Korea and Japan charge around $1.

....

[HOF44]

Did they emphasize that if you like your internet service, you can keep your internet service?  

Lol, I'm sure Death Panels are going to somehow be worked into the possible outcome of this decision when Fox discusses it tonight too.

[tshile]

A while back, before the FCC went the Utility route, there was a fun issue with Level3, Verizon, and Netflix.

Netflix, who pays Verizon additional money to provide higher bandwidth already, complained that Verizon was throttling their services even though they finally agreed to pay to not be throttled (something the FCC is now going to be able to stop.)

 

Verizon then posted a blog saying it's Level3's fault.

 

So level3 posted network tests/diagrams in a fun blog post:

http://blog.level3.com/open-internet/verizons-accidental-mea-culpa/

The best part:

...

in fact, we could fix this congestion in about five minutes simply by connecting up more 10Gbps ports on those routers. Simple. Something we’ve been asking Verizon to do for many, many months, and something other providers regularly do in similar circumstances. But Verizon has refused. So Verizon, not Level 3 or Netflix, causes the congestion. Why is that? Maybe they can’t afford a new port card because they’ve run out – even though these cards are very cheap, just a few thousand dollars for each 10 Gbps card which could support 5,000 streams or more. If that’s the case, we’ll buy one for them. Maybe they can’t afford the small piece of cable between our two ports. If that’s the case, we’ll provide it. Heck, we’ll even install it.

Level3 offered to pay for the card, they offered to pay for the network cable (lol), and they offered to handle the labor.

Verizon refused. Why? Because they wanted to extort more money out of Netflix.

This is what the GOP is supporting.

[Popeman38]

You guys should look up internet service speeds and cost around the world.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/internet-speeds-in-the-us-and-around-the-world-2014-5

 

 

 

Only one problem: the average download rate for the US is 33.3Mbps, ahead of Germany and the UK based on daily speed tests (http://www.netindex.com/). So using the same data, either we improved by 13.3Gbps in the last 9 months, or the data was "filtered" to make a point.

 

Serious question: has the govt ever regulated a utility and improved the quality and price in an industry that isn't a natural monopoly?

[Springfield]

Serious question: has the govt ever regulated a utility and improved the quality and price in an industry that isn't a natural monopoly?

So that MUST mean that THIS and every future instance of government regulation will result in deceased quality.

I've expereinced Verizon's throttling. A truly insidious company that puts me on the verge of switching to a slower cable company while also paying more for slower service.

I wish the government would regulate Verizon to not give their customers ****ty equipment that they nearly force their subscribers to use as well.

[Popeman38]

Level3 offered to pay for the card, they offered to pay for the network cable (lol), and they offered to handle the labor.

Verizon refused. Why? Because they wanted to extort more money out of Netflix.

This is what the GOP is supporting.

Settlement free peering:

 

http://www.telecomreviewna.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=353:settlement-free-peering-&catid=46:march-april-2013&Itemid=92

 

A Settlement-Free peering agreement require parties to assure that, at all times during the term of the agreement, the “bit miles” for Internet traffic exchanged over the interconnection points and carried by one party will not be materially greater than the bit miles carried over the interconnection point for the other party.

 

“Bit miles” would mean the product of (a.) the number of air miles a party’s Internet network carries Internet traffic from the source or destination to the interconnection point where that traffic is handed to the other party (expressed as a traffic-weighted average, and including international miles), and (b.) the number of gigabits carried by the party in the applicable Internet traffic. For example, if a party’s network carried 10 gigabits of content 1,500 air miles over the course of a day, the party’s bit miles for that day would be 15,000 gigabit-miles. The settlement-free peering agreement would include provisions requiring a party to remedy material discrepancies in bit mileage by using changes to routing, changes to interconnection locations, or purchase of services from the other party or from third parties.

In order to allow the other party to achieve approximate bit mileage equality, both parties must allow the other party to alter the location of interconnection points in a manner that will permit the other party to remedy material discrepancies in bit mileage.

Level 3 and XO

Level 3 and XO recently announced they have entered into a long-term settlement-free Internet traffic exchange agreement that is based on the bit-mile balance approach. The peering agreement ensures that customers on each of the two Internet service providers’ networks can continue to exchange data with customers on the other service provider’s network efficiently and cost-effectively. It is based on the bit-mile peering approach which measures both the volume of traffic exchanged and the distance over which that traffic is carried by each network. In order to keep the relationship equitable and settlement-free, both networks carry approximately the same bit-miles of data, a model that promotes efficient, high-quality service for customers, while ensuring a balanced cost burden across each network.

(emphasis mine)

 

So, L3 acknowledges that it isn't just the "bit miles" covered, but the volume of traffic exchanged that allows settlement free peering to work. Yet L3 was being payed millions by NetFlix to carry their traffic across settlement free peering arrangements with Verizon. Only problem was, the data was thousands of times greater going from L3 to Verizon. You log into NetFlix and select a movie to watch. A handful of packets goes from Verizon to L3 (for free). L3 transports those packets to NetFlix (for a fee). NetFlix responds by sending millions of packets back to L3 (for a fee). L3 uses the same connections to send those millions of packets back to Verizon (for free).

 

L3 can pretend that Verizon is wrong, but their own settlement free peering arrangements with other ISPs betrays their point. No matter how much you want to swallow their wonderful blogpost. 

 

http://www.cnet.com/news/netflix-youtube-gobble-up-half-of-internet-traffic/

NetFlix is literally the largest bandwidth hog in the history of the Internet. They account for 31% of the traffic and Youtube is 19%. 50% of the traffic on the internet is streaming audio and video. And the very vast majority of that is unidirectional -- from NetFlix to L3 to Verizon to subscriber.

 

Verizon did not refuse to carry NetFlix traffic. They refused to turn up new settlement free peering links with paid NetFlix delivery companies. Why? Because NetFlix (and their paid carriers) were abusing the settlement free peering agreements. And that is not debatable, as L3 has admitted in their own agreements.

So that MUST mean that THIS and every future instance of government regulation will result in deceased quality.

I've expereinced Verizon's throttling. A truly insidious company that puts me on the verge of switching to a slower cable company while also paying more for slower service.

I wish the government would regulate Verizon to not give their customers ****ty equipment that they nearly force their subscribers to use as well.

So your argument is the govt will change this time and an anecdotal, non-specific story?

 

Cool. Read my post above yours. I actually offered crazy things called facts.

[btfoom]

Those might be first, but when companies like Microsoft figure out they can pay Comcast to throttle Google, the floodgates will open (or I guess close in the case of internet traffic)

 

Exactly what I was thinking.  This is a VERY bad idea.

[Springfield]

It is not Netflix fault that Netflix is a bandwidth hog.

If it wasn't Netflix, then Verizon would be extorting some other company because Verizon's own users chose to use that site more than others.

So charge the users who are using Netflix, congesting Verizon's precious bandwidth. Oh right, they already charge exorbitant fees to their customers... can't bilk them any more.

[Popeman38]

It is not Netflix fault that Netflix is a bandwidth hog.

If it wasn't Netflix, then Verizon would be extorting some other company because Verizon's own users chose to use that site more than others.

So charge the users who are using Netflix, congesting Verizon's precious bandwidth. Oh right, they already charge exorbitant fees to their customers... can't bilk them any more.

So you still won't acknowledge long standing, industry standard settlement free peering is actually a thing? And that NetFlix, by purchasing wholesale Internet service from L3 and other wholesalers, was intentionally bypassing these agreements? See, if NetFlix wanted to peer directly with Verizon, they would have to pay because they know their relationship would be almost entirely one-sided. Hence buying from wholesalers to use the wholesalers settlement free peering with ISPs. ISPs called them on it, and NetFlix payed. If they really had a case against Verizon and Comcast and Time Warner, don't you think they would have gone the distance? 

[Larry]

Serious question: has the govt ever regulated a utility and improved the quality and price in an industry that isn't a natural monopoly?

Well, there's electricity, and telephones. Neither of which existed in rural areas, until the government artificially mandated them.

In fact, I'll point out that it was the FCC that ended the Bell monopolies. Which I'm pretty sure also vastly improved costs. (Although I think it could be argued that service got worse. At least in some ways, for a while.)

[Popeman38]

Well, there's electricity, and telephones. Neither of which existed in rural areas, until the government artificially mandated them.

In fact, I'll point out that it was the FCC that ended the Bell monopolies. Which I'm pretty sure also vastly improved costs. (Although I think it could be argued that service got worse. At least in some ways, for a while.)

Hence why I asked for an industry that isn't/wasn't a natural monopoly. I don't think anyone will argue there is only 1 internet provider (I had the option of Verizon, Comcast, HughesNet). Electricity I had the option of Dominion or candles.