Net Neutrality 2017

[dfitzo53]

I fear there are some grave misunderstandings in this thread that need to be cleared up.

 

For my money, nobody explains it better than Senator Ted Stevens.

 

 

 

[tshile]

1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

I have 3, Comcast and Xfinity, plus a company I've never heard of, Windstream.  I'm in NoVa, we have all the good ****.  

 

But I see your point.  

He covered it but it's actually incredibly complicated. And the people "against net neutrality" are not completely without merit.

 

The internet is structured in tiers. With isp's laying segments of it that connect to bigger trunks that connect to backbones. Border gateways, etc. Content providers connect in using isp's you've likely never heard of. You may have comcast but if you're accessing a major content provider your stuff likely travels over level3, for example. Which I think is a time Warner property now... more on that in a second.

 

In addition your bill might say... $isp-company-1, but the physical coper (or fiber now) might belong to $isp-company-2 and company 1 is just renting use of it (much like cell phone tower, kind of)

 

Anyways, all these companies invested a ton of money laying and managing the infrastructure, hiring engineers to design it, and paying big money to manage it (everything from outages to cyber threats/spam, etc)

 

Then you have someone like Netflix come along, tie in to one provider, but steam tons of data across everyone's networks because there's huge consumer demand for streaming movies/tv.

 

Now all these providers have to figure out how to make their network perform to keep their customers happy, while someone not paying them a cent sucks up their bandwidth and bogs it down.

 

So they throttle Netflix until Netflix agrees to pay them a fee, so that they can offset the cost of managing netflix's service over their systems.

 

That's at least part of their argument and they aren't completely wrong.

 

Where it all goes to **** for them is that we *know* they are using that as a cover to degrade competitor services while trying to push their own. Comcast owns NBC, they now own a ton of content. Comcast has a business (ie money) incentive to convince you to use their services (like Hulu) over Netflix. So they tell Netflix they're throttling them until they pay money to maintain their network, but what they're really hoping is consumers will switch to one of comcast's services because it's "better"

 

They do the same **** will cell phones. ATT and Verizon were blocking android pay on their carrier-locked devices for *years* solely because they were developing a competing product and didn't want consumers to adopt google's system before they could go to market.

 

Now replace Netflix with any non-isp-owned service; Pandora, Spotify, siriusxm, whatever. If it's a competitor and you control access, there's an incentive to degrade the quality (and quality is mainly measured in bandwidth -  usability counts but if you can't buffer the content fast enough at high quality then you fundamentally have a flawed product)

 

Add into it that isp's can now sell your Internet usage habits, making an already out of control privacy issue essentially completely dead. An Internet kill switch that the US Government wants (how much you want to bet letting isp's sell data is going to proceed an Internet kill switch)

 

And, much like what we saw with the telecos when the phone took off, they're all buying each other. They're all gobling each other up - phone, TV, Internet, doesn't matter. The more access you have the more control you have.

 

And then on top of that, when you get outside of densely populated areas the cost of running infrastructure compared to the number of consumers is so high they won't do it without an exclusivity contract from the locality. Now you don't even have a choice in providors in many areas of the country.

 

And I'm probably only covering half of it, and in very basic detail (and probably have a few points incorrect in that regard).

 

It's complicated. But the people with the money have won, and there isn't anyone with money on the side of the consumer. And this **** started back when Xbox and ps3 became huge content boxes using the Internet, Netflix launched, and cell phones became little portable always connected media devices.

 

So...

 

For the life of me I do not understand how the courts haven't stepped in and declared this the same monopoly the bell companies once where. Most of these are bell spin offs from the last time they were broken up.

 

It's a joke.

Edited July 13, 2017 by tshile

[tshile]

20 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

Umm... isn't Xfinity just a rebranded Comcast?

Yup.

They don't even try to hide it anymore. It's "xfinity by comcast"

 

 They're competing in the home security sector now too.

 

Because if I have learned anything in the last 10 years, it's that you can trust comcast's **** to work in an emergency.

 

 

Add to the general conversation:

 

BTW the bigger isp's running backbones have use agreements where if traffic between them doesn't balance than whoever pushed more pays the one the pushed less to make it even.

 

So there is a cost to one pushing Netflix all over another's network.

 

Like I said, it gets real complicated and the people "against net neutrality" are not completely evil people with no valid arguments.

 

They're just mostly evil people who use valid arguments to mask their evil crap

Edited July 13, 2017 by tshile

[Springfield]

That's quality **** tshile 

[tshile]

where it gets really crappy is when you start looking into the future.

 

The biggest content providers that we think of are outside the telecos (except for Comcast now that they own nbc).

 

Facebook, Twitter (which is/was a laughingstock for having so many daily users, so much public mentioning, and not being able to make money), Pandora, Amazon, Netflix, Spotify, the list goes on.

 

They all had a small start and before anyone could think of a competing service they blew up.

 

With no net neutrality little companies (which these all started as, hell Google started that way) can be snuffed out as soon as they get started simply by isp's requiring a few to push their content at the rate required for adoption to take hold to the point where they're the trend setter (which once you get is hard to compete against). That company can't afford those fees, and the isp's hope by the time they get investors the isp has a competing service.

 

It goes counter to exactly what made the internet so awesome.

 

Also - our network speeds are much better now but about 4 or 5 years ago we ranked among the worst in developed nations for speed of Internet compared to price. In South Korea you could get 150mbps for about 30 us dollars a month. You can't get half that for twice as much even today in most places.

[NoCalMike]

11 hours ago, tshile said:

 

 

Also - our network speeds are much better now but about 4 or 5 years ago we ranked among the worst in developed nations for speed of Internet compared to price. In South Korea you could get 150mbps for about 30 us dollars a month. You can't get half that for twice as much even today in most places.

 

I've been saying for about a decade now that all the data cap language written into contracts was future-thinking by ISPs.   The ISPs at the time would say "oh that is only 2% of our users who use that much data"  but that was before broadband was as easily accessible as it is today.

 

Right now I get unlimited data via Uverse because I bundle my internet with Direct TV/ATT.  If I didn't bundle, the data cap is 250gb.  I checked on my bill, and our household used about 450gb last billing cycle.  Now, could I make efforts to lower it? Sure....but get it down to 250? I seriously doubt it.  

 

Someone posted a pic of what a post-net neutrality internet options menu could look like for new customers. Basically had different tiers where certain websites and services were only available on more expensive plans. I really hope that isn't where we are heading.

[Popeman38]

1 hour ago, NoCalMike said:

Right now I get unlimited data via Uverse because I bundle my internet with Direct TV/ATT.  If I didn't bundle, the data cap is 250gb.  I checked on my bill, and our household used about 450gb last billing cycle.  Now, could I make efforts to lower it? Sure....but get it down to 250? I seriously doubt it.  

 

Someone posted a pic of what a post-net neutrality internet options menu could look like for new customers. Basically had different tiers where certain websites and services were only available on more expensive plans. I really hope that isn't where we are heading.

Are you talking cell data or wifi/broadband from your home router data?

[Bang]

I don't see how anyone can claim to be pro-small business, pro-job provider, pro-entrepreneurship, pro-American dream that you'd allow something like this which will potentially kill SO much growth and potential,... to benefit the few.

 

 

~Bang

Edited July 13, 2017 by Bang

[NoCalMike]

22 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Are you talking cell data or wifi/broadband from your home router data?

 

Wifi broadband. 

[Warhead36]

1 hour ago, Bang said:

I don't see how anyone can claim to be pro-small business, pro-job provider, pro-entrepreneurship, pro-American dream that you'd allow something like this which will potentially kill SO much growth and potential,... to benefit the few.

 

 

~Bang

Nothing about it makes sense, which is why it'll happen.

[HOF44]

Damn we need Tshile running the Net part of the FCC!!

[Springfield]

December it is...

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-15/killing-net-neutrality-rules-is-said-readied-for-december-vote

 

Quote

The U.S. Federal Communications Commissionnext month is planning a vote to kill Obama-era rules demanding fair treatment of web traffic and may decide to vacate the regulations altogether, according to people familiar with the plans.

 

The move would reignite a years-long debate that has seen Republicans and broadband providers seeking to eliminate the rules, while Democrats and technology companies support them. The regulations passed in 2015 bar broadband providers such as AT&T Inc. and Comcast Corp.from interfering with web traffic sent by Google, Facebook Inc. and others.

 

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, chosen by President Donald Trump, in April proposed gutting the rules and asked for public reaction. The agency has taken in more than 22 million comments on the matter.

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

I admit that this subject is over my head but knowing the position of the WH, I think that tells me what side I should be on.....

[spjunkies]

This is going to be an utter disaster. Guess this is what happens when you get a "business man" to run things.

[Larry]

7 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I admit that this subject is over my head but knowing the position of the WH, I think that tells me what side I should be on.....

 

Do you want your phone company to have permission to intentionally degrade your phone, if you're communicating with somebody who isn't giving them money?  

 

 

---

 

2 minutes ago, spjunkies said:

This is going to be an utter disaster. Guess this is what happens when you get a "business man" to run things.

 

Pointing out that in this case, there's big companies on both sides of the argument.  

Edited November 16, 2017 by Larry

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 minute ago, Larry said:

 

Do you want your phone company to have permission to intentionally degrade your phone, if you're communicating with somebody who isn't giving them money?  

No offense but I'm sure there are benefits to both sides.  I've done a little reading on this but I'm not very smart when it comes to technological terms.  That is where I get lost.

[nonniey]

10 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

No offense but I'm sure there are benefits to both sides.  I've done a little reading on this but I'm not very smart when it comes to technological terms.  That is where I get lost.

Think of it like an Airline.  The Broadband companies want to offer 1st Class business, and coach tickets. The Tech Companies want only coach available (It is cheaper for them if they don't have to compete with each other for the better bandwidth).  Effects on the average customer is that price of from bandwidth providers will go down while price of online services would go up (Ie your cable internet access goes down while paid services -ie netflix, hulu, gaming etc. goes up).

Edited November 16, 2017 by nonniey

[sportjunkie07]

I thought the Internet was already throttled based on marketing and who can provide service providers with kick backs.. (e.g. google searches will lead you primarily to companies that Google suggests).

 

And shouldn't you have to pay more if you are having greater access to the internet? I thought this was already done though when you purchase your Internet package. 

 

So what is the difference between the aforementioned and what these new net neutrality laws entail?

 

 

[spjunkies]

The devil company AKA concast is trying to make the FCC come up with rules to prevent states from coming up with their own regulations.

 

https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/fcc-comcast-preempt-state-net-neutrality-laws/

[Springfield]

1 hour ago, sportjunkie07 said:

I thought the Internet was already throttled based on marketing and who can provide service providers with kick backs.. (e.g. google searches will lead you primarily to companies that Google suggests).

 

And shouldn't you have to pay more if you are having greater access to the internet? I thought this was already done though when you purchase your Internet package. 

 

So what is the difference between the aforementioned and what these new net neutrality laws entail?

 

 

 

Well it doesn’t exactly work like that.

 

However, what you would see is similar to what you get with cable TV now.  You’d pay for different tiers of services.  A social media bundle, a streaming bundle, a news bundle, a gaming bundle.  If you don’t pay for the tier of website that you wish to visit then you’re throttled or charged more or denied.  Plus, like you get with cell service now, there would be data caps.  Go over 20 gb?  Extra charge on your bill.

 

Nobody who uses the internet benefits from the end of net neutrality.

 

 

Something similar to this:

Edited November 16, 2017 by Springfield

[Springfield]

 

 

 

[Hersh]

Ending net neutrality is terrible for startups, small businesses and creating jobs.

[Springfield]

3 minutes ago, Hersh said:

Ending net neutrality is terrible for startups, small businesses and creating jobs.

 

Everyone.  Literally everyone.

[Hersh]

4 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

Everyone.  Literally everyone.

 

I really want to tell the FCC guy what a POS he is for pushing this nonsense. Of course I imagine there are a few millions others at least that would like to do the same thing.

[PokerPacker]

2 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

I really want to tell the FCC guy what a POS he is for pushing this nonsense. Of course I imagine there are a few millions others at least that would like to do the same thing.

He already knows.