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

[tshile]

http://www.extremetech.com/internet/178465-woe-is-isp-30-of-americans-cant-choose-their-service-provider

28% of the country has one ISP to choose from

another 35% of the country only has two. prior to only having one, we had two, it was cable or slow ass DSL for the people that lived within town and just outside of it. the 25$/month dsl was so nice

2% have no choice for wired internet.

65% of the country has little to no choice in ISPs.

they claim LTE is going to fix it. we'll see. it has potential.

[Popeman38]

Except Verizon's network was 50+% underutilized and your 33% number is meaningless.

If Verizon's network was at capacity and netflix was 33% of it and verizon made the call to throttle/cap/whatever netflix users then I could understand that. Offering to uncap if netflix pays I could even get behind because they could justify it as paying to boost the infrastructure netflix wants to use.

But 33% of less than 50% of used network... their customers are getting dicked around so Verizon can get a large piece on the other side of the deal.

No one is calling Verizon a big bad evil ISP company. They're just greedy and after trying every other way to get them to stop, and being absent real choice in many markets, we're left with the FCC treating them like a utility.

You want to blame someone for the impending government takeover of the internet? Blame the ISPs. They created this ENTIRE mess.

Netflix is 33% of ALL internet traffic. Not just Verizon. ALL INTERNET TRAFFIC.

So you get to decide what is and isn't good business? The entire issue with NetFlix all because Netflix is a one sided relationship. If it was a true peering (traffic both ways is equitable) there would have been more interconnects. You can't look at the "unused" capacity on Verizon's network and claim they could have easily handled the traffic. That is irrelevan. What you want is for Verizon to eat the cost. What you want is Verizon to turn up as many 10g connections as necessary to handle whatever Verizon customers want to do. You want to ignore the fact that L3 violated an agreement. They signed an agreement with Verizon, and willfully violated it because they signed a contract with Netflix. No matter how much you want to ignore it, and claim there is plenty of capacity, you have to accept that L3 (and Cogent) violated their agreements. I explained the packet disparity. You ignored it. I explained how the peering arrangements. You explained it away with a "yeah but". You say no onE is calling Verizon a big bad ISP. Then in the next sentence blame them for the whole thing (hint - when you blame someone for the problem you are making them the bad guy).

And I'll let you in on a little secret. Verizon isn't making a "large piece of the other side" in their Netflix agreement, likely in the $12M/year neighborhood. In the grand scheme, that's nothing.

[tshile]

So you get to decide what is and isn't good business?

No, I don't actually get to make this decision as I'm not in charge of the FCC. But in terms of discussing the topic on an internet forum - yes, I get to make my own opinions about things.

Do you?

 

I explained the packet disparity. You ignored it.

I didn't ignore it. I liked your post with detailed information (which you know because it alerts you to that...) and even said - you obviously know what you're talking about when it comes to the agreement between the two. How is that ignoring it?

You keep going down a hole I have no desire to continue down, while ignoring every other point I've made.

 

Verizon has the capacity to serve the requests their customers are making, customers that are paying top dollar not just here but compared to the rest of the world as well. They're not serving those requests, and they're choosing not to, because they know that they have an agreement in place with L3 and they're not legally obligated to do it so they're holding out for even more money. What part of "They're not bad, they're just greedy" didn't you get? I'm not saying they're legally liable - I'm saying as a paying customer it's screwed up that this is how Verizon is operating, especially considering they used tax payer dollars to build their network and they're charging a premium to access their service. They're greedy. There's nothing illegal about being greedy.

 

 

If Verizon and other ISP's didn't behave this way, the FCC wouldn't be doing what its doing. And this is just  small part of it. So that's the best part about this - you can go to bat for Verizon for whatever reason all day long, but their ability to use their bully tactics is going away thanks to the FCC.

 

Now that we've beat this horse to death, would you like to explain your surcharges and fees post? Or are you going to continue to dodge my simple question?

[Springfield]

So the owner of my business who is a staunch republican came into work this morning spouting off bull**** about how the government took over the Internet.

This is what we are dealing with. People who know zero.

[tshile]

Do you by chance remember his stance on ICAAN?

 

[Larry]

So the owner of my business who is a staunch republican came into work this morning spouting off bull**** about how the government took over the Internet.

This is what we are dealing with. People who know zero.

There are 10 kinds of people in the world. . . . . .

[Popeman38]

Now that we've beat this horse to death, would you like to explain your surcharges and fees post? Or are you going to continue to dodge my simple question?

I missed your original question on taxes and fees, so my bad. I wasn't trying to dodge the question (and then work got in the way this morning). 

 

Govt regulation accounts for an average of 16.26% tax on wireless.

Landline has a 3% Federal excise tax, E911 service (fee varies by locality), a $1.20 Public Safety Communication Surcharge, FCC SCL (1Q15 is 16.8% http://www.fcc.gov/document/omd-announces-first-quarter-2015-usf-contribution-factor-168),and then state taxes (varies by state).

 

For a breakdown of fees for both wireless and wireline access, see http://www.fcc.gov/guides/understanding-your-telephone-bill

 

When the govt steps into regulating an industry, they make money. There will be taxes and fees added to your Internet providers bills eventually. I can't identify them today (as you know, since the FCC hasn't published the details yet).

[Larry]

I missed your original question on taxes and fees, so my bad. I wasn't trying to dodge the question (and then work got in the way this morning). 

 

Govt regulation accounts for an average of 16.26% tax on wireless.

Landline has a 3% Federal excise tax, E911 service (fee varies by locality), a $1.20 Public Safety Communication Surcharge, FCC SCL (1Q15 is 16.8% http://www.fcc.gov/document/omd-announces-first-quarter-2015-usf-contribution-factor-168),and then state taxes (varies by state).

 

For a breakdown of fees for both wireless and wireline access, see http://www.fcc.gov/guides/understanding-your-telephone-bill

 

When the govt steps into regulating an industry, they make money. There will be taxes and fees added to your Internet providers bills eventually. I can't identify them today (as you know, since the FCC hasn't published the details yet).

 

Well, there you have it. 

 

The government should allow corporations to compete by intentionally screwing their customers, because the government collects taxes (and is therefore evil.) 

[Bliz]

I missed your original question on taxes and fees, so my bad. I wasn't trying to dodge the question (and then work got in the way this morning). 

 

Govt regulation accounts for an average of 16.26% tax on wireless.

Landline has a 3% Federal excise tax, E911 service (fee varies by locality), a $1.20 Public Safety Communication Surcharge, FCC SCL (1Q15 is 16.8% http://www.fcc.gov/document/omd-announces-first-quarter-2015-usf-contribution-factor-168),and then state taxes (varies by state).

 

For a breakdown of fees for both wireless and wireline access, see http://www.fcc.gov/guides/understanding-your-telephone-bill

 

When the govt steps into regulating an industry, they make money. There will be taxes and fees added to your Internet providers bills eventually. I can't identify them today (as you know, since the FCC hasn't published the details yet).

 

But on the other side, the services that people use like Netflix, when forced to pay ransom money to every provider in order to have their products delivered at the promised speed, must turn around and pass those costs on to consumers.

 

Will govt taxes/fees/surcharges exceed the increased costs from content providers that we will get without net neutrality?

[Popeman38]

But on the other side, the services that people use like Netflix, when forced to pay ransom money to every provider in order to have their products delivered at the promised speed, must turn around and pass those costs on to consumers.

 

Will govt taxes/fees/surcharges exceed the increased costs from content providers that we will get without net neutrality?

Netflix will continue to pay ISPs for paid settlement with Net Neutrality.

Well, there you have it. 

 

The government should allow corporations to compete by intentionally screwing their customers, because the government collects taxes (and is therefore evil.) 

OK.

[tshile]

I missed your original question on taxes and fees, so my bad. I wasn't trying to dodge the question (and then work got in the way this morning).

Fair enough - sorry for the crappy tone on my part

 

Govt regulation accounts for an average of 16.26% tax on wireless.

Landline has a 3% Federal excise tax, E911 service (fee varies by locality), a $1.20 Public Safety Communication Surcharge, FCC SCL (1Q15 is 16.8% http://www.fcc.gov/document/omd-announces-first-quarter-2015-usf-contribution-factor-168),and then state taxes (varies by state).

 

For a breakdown of fees for both wireless and wireline access, see http://www.fcc.gov/guides/understanding-your-telephone-bill

 

When the govt steps into regulating an industry, they make money. There will be taxes and fees added to your Internet providers bills eventually. I can't identify them today (as you know, since the FCC hasn't published the details yet).

Well doesn't wireless stem from regulation over big tele companies?

I very much have reservations that the FCC will go way beyond the initial intent here. Our government has a long history of doing that.

 

I'm hoping they stay with what the intent is/was. Sure, there's an element of naivete there, but it's also an accurate way of looking at the picture. The FCC is not jumping into this to provide a new revenue stream... this has been a long battle and ISP's have pushed it to this point.

 

We'll see how it shakes out, I cannot blame you for expecting that to happen. At the same time it's not what this is supposed to be about, and so the cries about impending taxes/fees/etc ring hallow with me because a certain group of our society screams that about anything and everything the government tries to do; as if there is no role for the government to fulfill, or something...

[Popeman38]

Fair enough - sorry for the crappy tone on my part

 

Well doesn't wireless stem from regulation over big tele companies?

I very much have reservations that the FCC will go way beyond the initial intent here. Our government has a long history of doing that.

 

I'm hoping they stay with what the intent is/was. Sure, there's an element of naivete there, but it's also an accurate way of looking at the picture. The FCC is not jumping into this to provide a new revenue stream... this has been a long battle and ISP's have pushed it to this point.

No worries. 

 

We had jumped up to 33Mbps avg speed for broadband over the last 5 years. Without govt "regulation" to bog down the process. 95% (or more) of federally elected officials that will be in charge of writing and approving this regulation can't understand the Internet, much less look forward for improvements. The govt ****s up pretty much everything they touch (yes, I just said that ES masses - flame away).

We'll see how it shakes out, I cannot blame you for expecting that to happen. At the same time it's not what this is supposed to be about, and so the cries about impending taxes/fees/etc ring hallow with me because a certain group of our society screams that about anything and everything the government tries to do; as if there is no role for the government to fulfill, or something...

There is a very worthwhile role for govt. I just don't think they are needed here. And to tie wireless into this as well? IMO moronic.

[tshile]

The govt ****s up pretty much everything they touch (yes, I just said that ES masses - flame away).

It's a damn shame that this is true. They really do mess up quite a bit.

The one thing we have a superior edge in is the military, and look at how much we have to spend to get those results...

 

I'd say NASA but people are bored with space or something and don't think NASA is important anymore. It doesn't matter how much nasa inspired/funded/invented technology they use in their daily lives, they still don't see the value.

[Springfield]

It makes me sad that this whole thing has been turned into a political issue.

[tshile]

this probably means that we'll have an internet "kill switch" in the next 2-3 years. they've been trying to get that passed for a while now. this probably makes that easier...

[Popeman38]

this probably means that we'll have an internet "kill switch" in the next 2-3 years. they've been trying to get that passed for a while now. this probably makes that easier...

I'm not sure that's possible. In smaller countries with a tiny number of hubs, yes. But the number of hubs in the US is too great. No chance it could be turned off.

[tshile]

i don't think that'll stop them.

wonder what we'll be left with.

[Popeman38]

i don't think that'll stop them.

wonder what we'll be left with.

They can try. Too many hubs, too much wireless (carrier) access, and too much resisted center from the companies.

[Springfield]

As long as the Internet is held by private companies I doubt we will see any sort of kill switch.

[mjah]

Kind of incredulous here, watching people worry about Internet being artificially restricted because corporations themselves weren't allowed to capriciously do whatever the hell they want with the infrastructure.

 

I worry about the government ordering all highways, including privately operated roads, to be simultaneously barricaded; all radio stations to submit to Federal directive to go silent; all TV stations to witness their broadcast towers toppled at the same time; all power generating plants to obey the central command to shut down and black out the nation.

 

Actually, I don't.  Not nearly as much as I worry about a small number of colluding, profit-obsessed megainterests hacking escalating sums out of the American paycheck in return for nothing more than maintaining an already sad status quo of service.  To those who say that sounds an awful lot like government, I tend to point out that I can get a surprisingly friendly and useful IRS customer service rep (!!!) on the phone in less than half the time it takes to actually talk to a useful human at Comcast.  That's how bad it is.

 

Why do we see all this regulation and power placed in the hands of such ostensibly crappy and incapable government agencies?

 

Because before, we didn't do that.  And that scheme was -- or was poised to become, according to the very same corporate interests who "policed themselves" at the time -- even worse.

 

People seem pretty tolerant of corporate greed overall.  But tone-deaf corporate greed is the kind of corporate greed that forces the public interest.  ...Or, for the "let's blame someone else" crowd, gives mustachioed evil government the foothold to take over and callously ash its cigar over all of our heads while wiggling its eyebrows and lightly tapping a '60s Batman style red industrial kill switch with the end of a $7 million pencil.

 

Don't be worse than that, and broad, sweeping reform is far less likely to darken your doorstep.

[PeterMP]

I find it funny that people are talking about the government messing up the internet and how the government messed up everything it touches when there wouldn't be an internet without government funding and support.

 

The government does such a bad job of messing everything up that it had the sense to fund and support the thing very early on that people are worrying about it hurting?

 

The government has issues, but does anybody actually claim to have an accurate measure of how much it has messed up as compared to private industry to say that private industry is actually better?

 

If so, I'd like to see that measure.

[Springfield]

For some folks private industry is ALWAYS better.

[Gamebreaker]

this probably means that we'll have an internet "kill switch" in the next 2-3 years. they've been trying to get that passed for a while now. this probably makes that easier...

We will see encryptions with no govt backdoors banned before this happens.