Net Neutrality 2017

[PleaseBlitz]

28 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

I'm sure they are.  Because I doubt they live in California.

 

Also because the neckbeards live in Montana, which also imposed tough net neutrality laws, but Montana isn't being sued as far as I know.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/22/technology/montana-net-neutrality.html

 

Quote

WASHINGTON — Most efforts underway to restore so-called net neutrality face big obstacles and would take many months, if not years, to succeed.

But in Montana, the governor has used the stroke of a pen to bring the rules to broad parts of his state.

 

Through an executive order, Gov. Steve Bullock declared on Monday that any internet service provider with a state government contract cannot block or charge more for faster delivery of websites, two core aspects of net neutrality, to any customer in the state.

 

[Popeman38]

On 8/23/2018 at 8:49 AM, LD0506 said:

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/22/640815074/verizon-throttled-firefighters-data-as-mendocino-wildfire-raged-fire-chief-says?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180822

Hack journalism from NPR, which is surprising. Net neutrality deals with the internet, and this article is written about cellular service. Cell contracts, for the most part, all have limits where they start throttling data speeds - even when net neutrality was the law of the land.  Verizon admitted they screwed up by not lifting the cap due to an emergency.  But even the mistake has nothing to do with net neutrality.

[GhostofSparta]

So the government gets rid of net neutrality, various STATES then execute their RIGHTS to bring it back to their people, and the Republican controlled government is suing to make them stop and all follow federal law?

No sir, can't see any hypocrisy there.

[PleaseBlitz]

40 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Hack journalism from NPR, which is surprising. Net neutrality deals with the internet, and this article is written about cellular service. Cell contracts, for the most part, all have limits where they start throttling data speeds - even when net neutrality was the law of the land.  Verizon admitted they screwed up by not lifting the cap due to an emergency.  But even the mistake has nothing to do with net neutrality.

 

NPR appears to be reporting on what the fire chief said and did.  

 

Quote

Santa Clara County Fire Chief Anthony Bowden included the emails in his declaration supporting a petition challenging the Federal Communications Commission's decision to repeal Obama-era regulations known as net neutrality — which barred service providers from blocking or slowing Internet access or from speeding it up for a higher charge.

 

NPR also correctly cited what Verizon said, that this has nothing to do with NN.  

 

Quote

Verizon acknowledged having made a "mistake," but a company spokesperson told NPR that "the situation has nothing to do with net neutrality or the current proceeding in court."

 

The issue, Verizon explained, was that the department had chosen a plan that, while offering unlimited data, slowed speeds considerably once the customer had exceeded a certain amount before the end of the billing cycle.

 

 

30 minutes ago, GhostofSparta said:

So the government gets rid of net neutrality, various STATES then execute their RIGHTS to bring it back to their people, and the Republican controlled government is suing to make them stop and all follow federal law?

No sir, can't see any hypocrisy there.

 

Entirely consistent with the Republican position on campaign finance, which is that the largest companies in America should be able to give them gobs of money in exchange for advancing the company's interests. 

[Popeman38]

Just now, PleaseBlitz said:

 

NPR appears to be reporting on what the fire chief said and did.  

 

 

NPR also correctly cited what Verizon said, that this has nothing to do with NN.  

 

 

 

Yes, and NPR did nothing to inform the reader that the Chief was incorrect and that data rates have nothing to do with Net Neutrality.  And the article goes further:

Quote

But Bowden, along with more than two dozen states and local government entities, laid out his case for why the repeal actually represents a threat to public safety. In his addendum to a brief filed Monday, noted first by Ars Technica, Bowden said Verizon reduced its data rates to just one two-hundredths of what was usual — and did so at a critical time for the emergency response.

 

"Dated or stale information regarding the availability or need for resources can slow response times and render them far less effective. Resources could be deployed to the wrong fire, the wrong part of a fire, or fail to be deployed at all," Bowden said. "Even small delays in response translate into devastating effects, including loss of property, and, in some cases, loss of life."

 

The slow data speeds that befell Santa Clara firefighters late last month were eventually rectified — but only after paying a price, Bowden added.

 

"While Verizon ultimately did lift the throttling, it was only after County Fire subscribed to a new, more expensive plan," he said in his declaration.

So saying that NPR was "only reporting on what the fire chief said and did" is not entirely accurate. This article spent more space talking about net neutrality than it did the mistake made by Verizon, and never once mentioned that the mistake had nothing to do with net neutrality.

[PleaseBlitz]

34 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Yes, and NPR did nothing to inform the reader that the Chief was incorrect and that data rates have nothing to do with Net Neutrality.  And the article goes further:

So saying that NPR was "only reporting on what the fire chief said and did" is not entirely accurate. This article spent more space talking about net neutrality than it did the mistake made by Verizon, and never once mentioned that the mistake had nothing to do with net neutrality.

 

It's not clear that the mistake had nothing to do with net neutrality, or at least "net neutrality" as that term is used as shorthand.  This is what the first paragraph you quoted above is about.  It refers to a case brought in federal court by 22 state attorneys general (which makes it a very big deal) that argues that what people refer to as "the repeal of net neutrality" actually did have a huge impact on this situation.  More specifically, what people refer to as "the repeal of net neutrality" is really shorthand for "the general deregulation of the ISP industry by Ajit Pai's FCC" and includes removing not only the net neutrality provisions, but also removing a laundry list of other regulations.  The repeal of one of those regs makes it much easier and less risky for an ISP to engage in "unjust or unreasonable behaviors."  It's probably not a stretch to say that throttling the fire department's data usage while they are actively trying to fight a gigantic wildfire is an unreasonable behavior by Verizon. 

 

Here is the legal brief:  https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/fire-department-net-neutrality.pdf

 

So Verizon is saying this has nothing to do with net neutrality, which is certainly true in a sense.  But the other side is also correct when they say (direct quote) "Verizon's throttling has everything to do with net neutrality," to the extent they are referring to the recent deregulatory efforts commonly referred to as the repeal of net neutrality.  

 

I rate NPR's story as poorly written, but mostly true.

 

 

Edited October 1, 2018 by PleaseBlitz

[tshile]

15 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

is really shorthand for "the general deregulation of the ISP industry by Ajit Pai's FCC"

 

But throttling of cell service was around before this guy got control of fcc

 

Way before 

 

Also your logic seems to be circular:

its ok to incorrectly use terms because we’re  incorrectly using terms 

 

Edited October 1, 2018 by tshile

[PleaseBlitz]

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

But throttling of cell service was around before this guy got control of fcc

 

Way before 

 

The legal case argues that this specific practice of throttling would not have been allowed prior to the deregulation (because it is an unreasonable practice).  Again, not passing judgement on the merits of the case, just noting that NPR accurately reported both sides' argument.  

 

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Also your logic seems to be circular:

its ok to incorrectly use terms because we’re  incorrectly using terms 

 

 

My logic is I'm fine with a chief of firefighters using shorthand, and I understand what he meant.  

[Popeman38]

4 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

It's not clear that the mistake had nothing to do with net neutrality, or at least "net neutrality" as that term is used as shorthand.  This is what the first paragraph you quoted above is about.  It refers to a case brought in federal court by 22 state attorneys general (which makes it a very big deal) that argues that what people refer to as "the repeal of net neutrality" actually did have a huge impact on this situation.  More specifically, what people refer to as "the repeal of net neutrality" is really shorthand for "the general deregulation of the ISP industry by Ajit Pai's FCC" and includes removing not only the net neutrality provisions, but also removing a laundry list of other regulations.  The repeal of one of those regs makes it much easier and less risky for an ISP to engage in "unjust or unreasonable behaviors."  It's probably not a stretch to say that throttling the fire department's data usage while they are actively trying to fight a gigantic wildfire is an unreasonable behavior by Verizon. 

 

Here is the legal brief:  https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/fire-department-net-neutrality.pdf

 

So Verizon is saying this has nothing to do with net neutrality, which is certainly true in a sense.  But the other side is also correct when they say (direct quote) "Verizon's throttling has everything to do with net neutrality,"

 

I rate NPR's story as poorly written, but mostly true.

 

 

Yes, and there is a HUGE technicality that is being missed in the article and the lawsuit - Verizon was not serving as an ISP in this event, they were serving as a cellular service provider.  Now, this difference is one that should be minimized - if we had people in charge that weren't all 85 years old that still proudly have rotary phones on their desk.  Net Neutrality never did, never will, and does not play any part in throttling data on cell plans.  Verizon ****ed up.  They admitted they ****ed up.  The people filing the lawsuit have no way of knowing if the throttling would have been allowed with Net Neutrality. It's an accusation using a sensitive situation to provide maximum leverage and PR. And as a lawyer, you would know that...

[PleaseBlitz]

22 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Yes, and there is a HUGE technicality that is being missed in the article and the lawsuit - Verizon was not serving as an ISP in this event, they were serving as a cellular service provider.  Now, this difference is one that should be minimized - if we had people in charge that weren't all 85 years old that still proudly have rotary phones on their desk.  Net Neutrality never did, never will, and does not play any part in throttling data on cell plans.  Verizon ****ed up.  They admitted they ****ed up.  The people filing the lawsuit have no way of knowing if the throttling would have been allowed with Net Neutrality. It's an accusation using a sensitive situation to provide maximum leverage and PR. And as a lawyer, you would know that...

 

If they are using a sim card in a laptop, does that make it an ISP or a cellular service provider?  I honestly don't know the answer, but the legal brief and accompanying email evidence makes clear that this was about a device with a sim card.  And the people filing the lawsuit are literally 22 state attorneys general, I'd bet that they have a pretty good idea of which laws impacted the situation.  

 

As a lawyer, I would absolutely love to have this set of facts when arguing this case.  Just because "it's an accusation using a sensitive situation to provide maximum leverage and PR" doesn't mean it is in any way untrue.  There is literally a chain of long emails from the "Fire Captain" and then the Deputy Chief pleading ("Please work with us") with some random Verizon customer service rep who is obviously just copying and pasting standard language like it's some cranky teen calling to complain, not a ****ing firefighter in the middle of one of the largest fires in US history.  For 4 hours, they argue about it and the customer service rep offers them a few times to call back later in the week.  It's great that Verizon admitted that they ****ed up, because they obviously did.  Apologies aren't a legal defense. 

 

 

Edited October 1, 2018 by PleaseBlitz

[Corcaigh]

Wasn't the fire services asking for preferential treatment because of who they are? i.e. they are not in favor of net neutrality? ?

[tshile]

59 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

If they are using a sim card in a laptop, does that make it an ISP or a cellular service provider?  I honestly don't know the answer, but the legal brief and accompanying email evidence makes clear that this was about a device with a sim card.

 

SIM cards are used to access cellular towers to use cellular services. 

 

As as far as I know that is their only use. 

Edited October 1, 2018 by tshile

[PleaseBlitz]

9 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

SIM cards are used to access cellular towers to use cellular services. 

 

As as far as I know that is their only use. 

 

@Popeman38 said it's a "HUGE technicality" but, to me, it's the key to the whole thing.  Either the law applies to them or it doesn't.  I suspect that's what Popeman meant in the first place.  

 

If SIM cards access cell towers and that's it, then I suspect the resolution will depend on how broadly ISP is defined in the relevant law.  Meaning, if Verizon is an ISP and a cell carrier, but was only acting in its capacity as a cell carrier in this instance, then it will depend on whether the law (1) applies to ISPs all of the time for all of their actions or (2) only applies to entities when they are acting as an ISP.  

 

Could be either one.  I don't particularly want to do nonbillable legal research this afternoon, so I guess we'll find out in a few months or years (or never).

 

 

 

 

Edited October 1, 2018 by PleaseBlitz

[tshile]

The technicality is that they are providing both services but found an interesting way to only be governed under one set of rules for this. 

 

I believe that is what’s he’s referring to. 

 

They don’t just provide internet services. They provide the over cellular services. 

 

If you’re going to argue that the internet service provided trumps the technical issues of cellular service I think you’re going to wind up in a mess. 

 

The cap cap is on the cellular service. 

 

At at least I think. 

 

By by the way - **** Verizon.

 

i believe the real point is that this has nothing to do with the recent net neutrality changes. And I say that as someone who hates the recent changes. 

Edited October 1, 2018 by tshile

[Springfield]

You guys probably know better but cellular isn’t classified as broadband so it’s not subject to NN.

[Corcaigh]

The rollout of 5G will change the conversation as there will be more choices of ISP for most of the US, and make favoring of one product over another not impactful.

 

But one thing that is not spoken about related to net neutrality is the huge competitive advantage an ISP can grant to certain products or services simply by not counting streaming that product/service against data caps.

[Popeman38]

23 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

@Popeman38 said it's a "HUGE technicality" but, to me, it's the key to the whole thing.  Either the law applies to them or it doesn't.  I suspect that's what Popeman meant in the first place.  

 

If SIM cards access cell towers and that's it, then I suspect the resolution will depend on how broadly ISP is defined in the relevant law.  Meaning, if Verizon is an ISP and a cell carrier, but was only acting in its capacity as a cell carrier in this instance, then it will depend on whether the law (1) applies to ISPs all of the time for all of their actions or (2) only applies to entities when they are acting as an ISP.  

 

Could be either one.  I don't particularly want to do nonbillable legal research this afternoon, so I guess we'll find out in a few months or years (or never).

Even if Verizon was the ISP and the cell carrier, the Internet speed was not throttled, the cellular data was throttled.  The data would be s l o w l y uploaded, SPEED to its destination, the destination would respond FAST, and the data would be downloaded s l o w l y.  

 

You don't have to do any nonbillable research, the net neutrality rules NEVER applied to cellular data throttling/caps. 

[Larry]

2 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Even if Verizon was the ISP and the cell carrier, the Internet speed was not throttled, the cellular data was throttled. 

 

You might want to look at the word I've bolded in your post, there.  

 

Cellular data is Internet data.  (Unless you want to claim you're talking about something like SMS messages, or some such.)  Your argument consists if "Your ISP didn't throttle your data between the ISP and the Internet, it only throttled your data between you and the ISP, and that doesn't count (because I've said so, and capitalized a word)".  

 

[Springfield]

Yeah, but cellular data isn’t subject to neutrality

[PleaseBlitz]

Again, the fire chief that used the term "net neutrality" used it as shorthand for the general deregulation of the telecom industry over the past 2 years, of which the repeal of net neutrality is a huge part, but not the whole story.  He isn't a lawyer or an IT guy. 

[Popeman38]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

You might want to look at the word I've bolded in your post, there.  

 

Cellular data is Internet data.  (Unless you want to claim you're talking about something like SMS messages, or some such.)  Your argument consists if "Your ISP didn't throttle your data between the ISP and the Internet, it only throttled your data between you and the ISP, and that doesn't count (because I've said so, and capitalized a word)".  

Incorrect. Cellular data is a 3G or 4G cellular connection to a cell tower, via cellular frequencies, that are then transmitted to the internet.  Internet data would be wi-fi data, transmitted to a router that is connected directly to the Internet (via your LAN).  The FCC wanted to classify cellular data as broadband (and tried to), but couldn't do it successfully because they are old people that don't understand the technology fully so there were loopholes created that exempted data throttling as part of cellular service plans. 

[Larry]

1 hour ago, Popeman38 said:

Incorrect. Cellular data is a 3G or 4G cellular connection to a cell tower, via cellular frequencies, that are then transmitted to the internet.

 

Wow.  

 

I must have missed the definition of "Internet" that states that it must be a wired connection.  

 

Here I thought, when I was studying it, that the physical media could be any physical method for delivering data packets from place to place, whether wired, radio, dialup, optical, or punched paper cards.  

 

1 hour ago, Popeman38 said:

so there were loopholes created that exempted data throttling as part of cellular service plans.

 

Now, if you want to say that the net neutrality laws contained exceptions for cellular data throttling, then I would have absolutely no trouble believing you.  

[tshile]

On 10/1/2018 at 5:55 PM, Springfield said:

You guys probably know better but cellular isn’t classified as broadband so it’s not subject to NN.

 

2 hours ago, Springfield said:

Yeah, but cellular data isn’t subject to neutrality

 

We've been trying to explain this to them but they will not listen 

 

Neither one of them has any background in any of this but they will not listen to those that do. What can you do?

[Larry]

Tell you what, I'll make it easy for you.  

 

True or false:  Right now, Chrome on my iPhone is sending IP packets back and forth to the ES web server.  

 

12 minutes ago, tshile said:

Neither one of them has any background in any of this but they will not listen to those that do. What can you do?

 

You know absolutely nothing about my background in any of this.  (Which does not in any way prevent you from making personal attacks.)  

 

Edited October 2, 2018 by Larry

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

10 minutes ago, Larry said:

Tell you what, I'll make it easy for you.  

 

True or false:  Right now, Chrome on my iPhone is sending IP packets back and forth to the ES web server.  

 

 

True.  Question for you:  How are those IP packets being transmitted to the internet from your iPhone?