Well net neutrality is dead

Tracy Perry

Well-known member
#21
You do realize that ComCast was one of the big participants in throttling back in 2008'ish, right? (P2P)

And as recently as 2014 they and Verizon were playing around in the cookie jar apparently.
https://www.theverge.com/2014/6/13/5807200/fcc-scrutinizing-netflix-comcast-verizon-speed-issues

But by the same token, Netflix is not innocent in the party
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech...-net-neutrality-life-support-column/82388890/

As said in earlier posts... these are businesses, and their only concern is how much income they can earn for themselves and their shareholders.
 
#23
You all have to calm down. Net neutrality was only signed into law in February 2015. Have you really noticed a difference since then? A Big NO. You all have to stop watching just CNN and MSBBC and reading ignorant and uninformed posts on Facebook and Twitter which are made by uniformed people and "inhaled" by other uniformed people. I doubt most of you could even debate net neutrality on Facts. Bet most of you don't understand things like AT&T's DirectTV Now, except to complain you have Verizon, Sprint or some other inferior carrier, and you don't think it's "fair". It's called Capitalism. Capitalism is what built this country. Capitalism is about Bulls and Bears, not Snowflakes and Freeloaders. Pull your own weight.
 
#24
Stop it. It's not Fox News. They are really not that powerful. It's people who research on their own and evaluate. What do you REALLY know about net neutrality except the talking points you've heard on the "news", or read on Facebook, Twitter or some other social network...or here for that matter? Have you really studied this? Really? It sickens me how so many people form opinions from biased news reports and/or what others say or post rather than really researching it for themselves. THAT'S WHY THIS COUNTRY IS GOING DOWN THE TUBES. So many people have no critical thinking skills anymore. They are lemmings following the other lemmings going over the cliff. Enjoy the jump.
 
Last edited:

Straydog

Active member
#25
You didn’t read my post at all, did you?

I can’t see how anyone could possibly find this good unless they are a Trump supporter and would support literally anything he does just to stick it to “the libruls”.

Please explain your position to me, as it is baffling.


Fillip
I’m sure your “dig” showing your political views was needed as is often the case with your self declared affiliation. Start a political thread elsewhere.

Time will tell if this is good or bad for the net. We as consumers are seldom given all the facts and mainstream media is a joke in my opinion as are most of the social media “discussions”. Competition is good if there are actual competitors. Congress can allegedly weigh in on this but if you follow the money I expect they won’t and even if they do whose to say things won’t be more screwed up after that.

We as consumers will have to decide with our wallets eventually. Netflix, Hulu, FB, and others are not a matter of life or death. If those companies make money from their offerings they should expect to be burdened with higher costs which obviously will be passed onto consumers. Just my thoughts and it might be completely different from my views on it.
 

[xFv]

Previously Cylent1
#26
Im happy about it being rolled back for only 1 reason.... FREE SPEECH!
Soon, here in America, the big social giants will have to start paying fines for discriminating and being bias.
Social Media has been weaponized since Obama created Net Neutrality. Its time for some house cleaning! :D:D:D
 

Liam W

Well-known member
#30
the only "high speed" internet offered locally was DSL
You mean DSL isn't considered broadband in the US? In the UK, pretty much the only internet access is through ADSL, unless you go for Fibre, which is run by either BT or Virgin Media (both of which aren't the best).

Granted, we do have a lot of choice when it comes to the ADSL broadband market (although that 'choice' is a bit flawed, considering almost all the providers have to use BT's network).

Liam
 

Xon

Well-known member
#31
You mean DSL isn't considered broadband in the US? In the UK, pretty much the only internet access is through ADSL, unless you go for Fibre, which is run by either BT or Virgin Media (both of which aren't the best).

Granted, we do have a lot of choice when it comes to the ADSL broadband market (although that 'choice' is a bit flawed, considering almost all the providers have to use BT's network).

Liam
The UK has a wholesale network who owns most of the last mile which then sells out access to customer ISPs.

However, American politics are violently allergic to compulsory last-mile reselling. With the courts and FCC operating under the delusion that "competing technologies" is enough to being competition to a market where the major players simply don't complete by limiting their market footprint.

This was a catastrophe for the principles of the internet as we know it, and will literally change the world for the worse.
Network Neutrality only applied from 2015-2017, with the FCC trying (and failing) a previous approach in 2010-2014.

The actual critical parts of the FCC's network neutrality are around forbidding ISPs blocking competitor traffic and some dodgy billing practices.

Also while the EU practices Network Neutrality, it is no where near as strict as the FCC's version. Working consumer protection laws help a lot

Apart from the top few % who will no longer have to worry about plebs taking up their valuable bandwidth.
The entire thing is Netflix trying to skimp on their internet bill, then other mega-corps like Amazon/Google/Apple/Microsoft/etc jumped onto the pile to reduce/eliminate their costs on delivering content to customers.

The entire "double dipping" thing, is hilarious. Customers need to pay for internet, and so do providers. If someone like Netflix wants to connect to an ISP rather than paying someone else who connects to that ISP, it is considered normal everywhere to pay for that privilege.

And if the connection occurs in a 'carrier hotel' (a place where various networks meet, owned by a 3rd party), those connections are bloody expensive even without paying the connecting parties.
 

Tracy Perry

Well-known member
#32

rainmotorsports

Well-known member
#33
By the way, this is what Portugal's internet looks like:

View attachment 164226

Please look at that image and tell me this looks like it's good for the consumer. If you can tell me you have never utilised at least one site from each of those categories, thus forcing you to buy them all, then I am going to call you a liar.

There is not a single thing potentially good for consumers in this. Not one.


Fillip
That is NOT what Portugal's internet looks like. That is a cell phone carrier. Those are zero rating packages. Meaning IF you pay extra, they don't count against your 10 GB of data. If you don't pay extra you still have your 10 GB data plan. So basically it's like having a limited data plan in the US and anything beyond that is your choice to get involved in.

As a consumer. Zero rating does not bother me. As a developer, I see the potential issue. I am a consumer to which you are hard pressed to sell anything to. Im not switching apps just because a different app is zero rated. But many people may.
 

rainmotorsports

Well-known member
#34
The entire thing is Netflix trying to skimp on their internet bill, then other mega-corps like Amazon/Google/Apple/Microsoft/etc jumped onto the pile to reduce/eliminate their costs on delivering content to customers.

The entire "double dipping" thing, is hilarious. Customers need to pay for internet, and so do providers. If someone like Netflix wants to connect to an ISP rather than paying someone else who connects to that ISP, it is considered normal everywhere to pay for that privilege.

And if the connection occurs in a 'carrier hotel' (a place where various networks meet, owned by a 3rd party), those connections are bloody expensive even without paying the connecting parties.
I actually disagree that ANY company is skimping on their bandwidth bill. That bill was paid on BOTH ends from the get go. If you can actually prove to me it hasn't been. You are sitting on proof that EVERY company involved in handling internet traffic has been screwing up since day 1. A consumer pays for a certain amount of data with connections ranging up to a certain speed. Consumer internet doesn't get the guarantee's we get in the business or hosting world. Netflix also pays to transfer data out of their servers. Whether this connection some how manages to go through a single tier 1 provider or its peered a dozen times over. Each of those connections has a toll that is paid by the providers on both ends. This money comes out of the payments the consumer made and those Netflix made. Netflix pays their providers out of a small percentage of the fee the consumer pays.

Everyone in this has made money. Except the consumer which of course is paying for a minimum of 2 services to get the content out of the deal. A regional ISP should not be charging anyone but the consumer (which is actually scarier than them charging Netflix and indirectly passing it on). The only reason a consumer is paying the ISP is that advertised connection (however much it may legally & technically vary).

If you are advertising 150 Mbps and are too congested to handle 10-30 Mbps (1+ streams) then your solution is to stop selling what you can't. The entire reason I pay more for 150 Mbps is because part of that money should be going into upgrading and maintaining your network. Otherwise I would drop to 30 Mbps and deal with the fact I can't have multiple users clogging me up. I personally buy at a minimum of 10 Mbps per person but prefer at least 25 Mbps per person since obviously that performance isn't a guarantee.

Despite regional ISP's actual congestion issues the real issue is they aren't charging because of network usage. If you aren't buying their VOIP service, their Video Service, their whatever it is their parent company buys into next. They still want you to pay them for that service. They can either try to charge you for it. Or they can try and charge the provider for it.
 

Xon

Well-known member
#35
I actually disagree that ANY company is skimping on their bandwidth bill. That bill was paid on BOTH ends from the get go. If you can actually prove to me it hasn't been. You are sitting on proof that EVERY company involved in handling internet traffic has been screwing up since day 1
Akamai's CDN is hosted for free in ISP's data centers and gets 'X' amount of bandwidth for free. ISPs that participate with this do so because Akamai runs a massive CDN used by some of the largest sites and it offers significant internet bandwidth savings.

Netflix actually has a CDN called "Open Connect" which participates in this sort of relationship, but Comcast wasn't willing host all that equipment for free.
 

rainmotorsports

Well-known member
#36
Netflix actually has a CDN called "Open Connect" which participates in this sort of relationship, but Comcast wasn't willing host all that equipment for free.
Well that I can understand. At first glance I don't see how a regional ISP gains much benefit. But I suppose as I think about it a congested backbone connection is never a good thing. Several years ago half of Comcasts traffic was crap due to I believe it was Cogent's network being overloaded.

If Comcast wants to charge them for racking equipment good on them. But I still look to Comcast to invest the money customers are paying into their network and their deals. So that I may use a small percentage of the speed I am paying them for.
 

Jaxel

Well-known member
#37
I actually disagree that ANY company is skimping on their bandwidth bill. That bill was paid on BOTH ends from the get go.
That's actually wrong. Actually lies. I mean seriously. The Netflix vs Comcast debate was staged to the public as Comcast being evil; but it was actually no such thing. Nor is it an argument in favor of net-neutrality at all.

Comcast was not slowing down Netflix traffic. What had happened is that Netflix traffic was being served through their data centers with Cogent. But because of the amount of data that Netflix pushes, Cogent was unable to handle all the bandwidth requirements.

Netflix then went to Comcast asking to house their own servers and content at Comcast's data centers (something that Netflix has done with other ISPs). Basically, Netflix wanted special treatment, and direct access to Comcast's customers (which is not net-neutral at all) for free. Comcast refused, because doing such a thing for free is just straight up bad business. If Netflix wanted space in Comcast's data centers, they would have to pay for it.

Netflix refused, then started a public campaign claiming Comcast was discriminating against them. It eventually ended with Netflix agreeing to pay the data center costs... just as every other edge-provider in the country has to pay their data center costs.

The repeal of Net Neutrality is a good thing for the internet.
 

Jaxel

Well-known member
#38
Net Neutrality, while staged as a civil rights issue, is actually an issue of government overreach. Think of it as the next form of SOPA. SOPA was a very anti-democratic form of censorship and control of the internet. When that failed to pass, they re-branded it as PIPA. When PIPA failed to pass, they tried to pass of some of the same ideals with Net Neutrality (also the Trans Pacific Partnership). Net Neutrality is as neutral as the Affordable Care Act is affordable, or the Patriot Act was written for patriots... or the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is democratic, a republic, or belonging to the people. It's hogwash and buzz words.

Net neutrality was a power grab by the government in an attempt to deplatform the views they disliked. And they do that through the FCC and provisions of fighting against foreign propaganda. They can accuse news media they don't like of being Russian agents, and use the regulatory powers of the FCC to censor the content they deem as a threat to their power. They would do this without oversight by establishing an independent agency called the "Global Engagement Center". Then actions would be taken against such content through the FCC. Since all these organizations are set up as independent from government, they don't answer to congress. Not to mention they would do this without due process since no charges would ever have to be filed; just threaten the ISPs with the risk of losing their licenses. It's McCarthyism to a T.

And all this could only happen by turning ISPs from independent businesses, into government sanctioned and licensed common carriers. Which is what we know as "net neutrality", or "title 2 of the federal communications act". Remember, they use the easily provable lie about "Russia Russia Russia" to censor ideas they disagree with.

Here is the NDAA 2017, signed by Obama... Flip to page 1438. http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20161128/CRPT-114HRPT-S2943.pdf

The idea that Net Neutrality is for protecting against packet shaping is patently ridiculous. Firstly, because packet-shaping and zero-rating has not been stopped since 2015; ISPs still do it. So what was the point of Net Neutrality? Secondly, because ANYONE can get around packet-shaping by installing readily available and FREE VPNs on their computers and/or routers. Thirdly, the fear that ISPs will hold edge-providers for ransom with fast lanes and slow lanes would fall apart pretty quickly. There are hundreds of ISPs in the US... and no edge-provider would pay up such ransom to an ISP, because then they would end up having to pay the ransom to hundreds of ISPs.

Every instance of edge-providers being held for ransom has been stopped by EXISTING laws, protected by the Federal Trade Commission (not the FCC), which oversees anti-competitive and monopolistic practices. Specifically article 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Net Neutrality was sold to the public as an effort to stop anti-monopolistic practices of the ISPs... by moving regulation of the internet from the FTC (the organization that handles anti-monopolistic practices) to the FCC (an organization that does NOT handle anti-monopolistic practices)? It doesn't make any sense on a logical level. The truth of the matter is the FCC does not stop monopolies, it actually enforces them; through the practice of licensing (common carriers)... think about how the FCC has created government sanctioned monopolies in the cable industry.

Ajit Pai's move to destroy Net Neutrality, actually returns regulatory power of the internet to the FTC. The truth of the matter is Net Neutrality was passed in 2015, but had not actually yet been implemented. This vote was a last minute attempt to repeal Net Neutrality before it officially began enforcement at the end of THIS year. So the FCC voted to keep the internet as it is now, and not change it based on a power grab from the Obama administration.
 
Last edited:

rainmotorsports

Well-known member
#39
Comcast was not slowing down Netflix traffic. What had happened is that Netflix traffic was being served through their data centers with Cogent. But because of the amount of data that Netflix pushes, Cogent was unable to handle all the bandwidth requirements.
That's what I am learning here. I can't say I looked super deep into some things. But back when Cogent was going to hell I never once had the word Netflix come across my screen. It also wasn't the focus of my problems as we were looking at voice and game server issues. But that also splits the discussion. The concept of (not any actual law) neutral treatment of data only applies to the traditional model. Where Cogent was involved. Netflix wanting to work CDN deals with ISP's isn't really an NN issue and I don't think it's anyones issue but those sitting at the table.

Net Neutrality, while staged as a civil rights issue, is actually an issue of government overreach. Think of it as the next form of SOPA. SOPA was a very anti-democratic form of censorship and control of the internet. When that failed to pass, they re-branded it as PIPA. When PIPA failed to pass, they tried to pass of some of the same ideals with Net Neutrality (also the Trans Pacific Partnership). Net Neutrality as as neutral as the Affordable Care Act is affordable, or the Patriot Act was written for patriots... or the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is democratic, a republic, or belonging to the people. It's hogwash and buzz words.
That's the fun thing about law isn't it. When I discuss NN i speak of the concept not this particular law. But thats how they get us isn't it?

I first read about "Net Neutrality" in 1997. The internet as a tier of services was discussed in a Magazine outside of any political agenda. I was a kid in middle school and back then blocking a site was a realistic fear, we couldn't even imagine throttling at the time. My father warned me about 2 unrelated things around that time as well. Software as a service (Adobe CC) and internet connected dumb terminals (Chromebooks almost fit). Companies have long known the direction they want to go. So much so those paying attention 20+ years ago knew what to expect. In 20 years we haven't seen a major deployment of tiered internet. But everything else came true so I am still on the look out.

The entire point of paying an ISP is for a connection to these national backbones. Unmolested. A lot of the issues people cite are from mobile carriers. Such as the Skype incident on AT&T. Not residential. But that is where my fears are. As both a consumer and a developer. If a single person can't access something due to their ISP that could mean a deal with an entire company isn't going to happen.

The idea that Net Neutrality is for protecting against packet shaping is patently ridiculous. Firstly, because packet-shaping and zero-rating has not been stopped since 2015; ISPs still do it. So what was the point of Net Neutrality? Secondly, because ANYONE can get around packet-shaping by installing readily available and FREE VPNs on their computers and/or routers.
The truth of the matter is Net Neutrality was passed in 2015, but had not actually yet been implemented.
You can't simultaneously say a law was not yet in effect and then criticize its effectiveness of enforcement. I don't take a huge issue with zero rating. As a developer I understand the harm to innovation. As a consumer who consumes what I choose, not what someone else wants to sell me it has no effect on my choices (yet?...). The thing about VPN's or VPN traffic is, it can be throttled. Which if an ISP wants to do that to a home users VPN... okay I guess but if it effects business users we have a huge issue.

Every instance of edge-providers being held for ransom has been stopped by EXISTING laws, protected by the Federal Trade Commission (not the FCC), which oversees anti-competitive and monopolistic practices. Specifically article 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Net Neutrality was sold to the public as an effort to stop anti-monopolistic practices of the ISPs... by moving regulation of the internet from the FTC (the organization that handles anti-monopolistic practices) to the FCC (an organization that does NOT handle anti-monopolistic practices)? It doesn't make any sense on a logical level. The truth of the matter is the FCC does not stop monopolies, it actually enforces them; through the practice of licensing (common carriers)... think about how the FCC has created government sanctioned monopolies in the cable industry.

Ajit Pai's move to destroy Net Neutrality, actually returns regulatory power of the internet to the FTC. The truth of the matter is Net Neutrality was passed in 2015, but had not actually yet been implemented. This vote was a last minute attempt to repeal Net Neutrality before it officially began enforcement at the end of THIS year. So the FCC voted to keep the internet as it is now, and not change it based on a power grab from the Obama administration.
Back when Comcast was first portrayed as the villain in all of this its funny that it was a Republican lead FCC that decided they wanted to handle it instead of the FTC. Funny how that changed. My father a life long Democrat and a career communications analyst has always disliked the FCC.

Perhaps it's because most of the issues are at the state level. But the FTC nor the Republican party seems interested in dealing with other regulations that make ISP's anti competitive. It's one thing if I can take a few billion dollars and start up a local ISP anywhere I damn well please. It's another thing when a corporation like Google can't get a 6 month deployment done in 10 years because of regulations.
 

Yugensoft

Active member
#40
Net Neutrality, while staged as a civil rights issue, is actually an issue of government overreach. Think of it as the next form of SOPA. SOPA was a very anti-democratic form of censorship and control of the internet. When that failed to pass, they re-branded it as PIPA. When PIPA failed to pass, they tried to pass of some of the same ideals with Net Neutrality (also the Trans Pacific Partnership). Net Neutrality as as neutral as the Affordable Care Act is affordable, or the Patriot Act was written for patriots... or the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is democratic, a republic, or belonging to the people. It's hogwash and buzz words.

Net neutrality was a power grab by the government in an attempt to deplatform the views they disliked. And they do that through the FCC and provisions of fighting against foreign propaganda. They can accuse news media they don't like of being Russian agents, and use the regulatory powers of the FCC to censor the content they deem as a threat to their power. They would do this without oversight by establishing an independent agency called the "Global Engagement Center". Then actions would be taken against such content through the FCC. Since all these organizations are set up as independent from government, they don't answer to congress. Not to mention they would do this without due process since no charges would ever have to be filed; just threaten the ISPs with the risk of losing their licenses. It's McCarthyism to a T.

And all this could only happen by turning ISPs from independent businesses, into government sanctioned and licensed common carriers. Which is what we know as "net neutrality", or "title 2 of the federal communications act". Remember, they use the easily provable lie about "Russia Russia Russia" to censor ideas they disagree with.

Here is the NDAA 2017, signed by Obama... Flip to page 1438. http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20161128/CRPT-114HRPT-S2943.pdf

The idea that Net Neutrality is for protecting against packet shaping is patently ridiculous. Firstly, because packet-shaping and zero-rating has not been stopped since 2015; ISPs still do it. So what was the point of Net Neutrality? Secondly, because ANYONE can get around packet-shaping by installing readily available and FREE VPNs on their computers and/or routers. Thirdly, the fear that ISPs will hold edge-providers for ransom with fast lanes and slow lanes would fall apart pretty quickly. There are hundreds of ISPs in the US... and no edge-provider would pay up such ransom to an ISP, because then they would end up having to pay the ransom to hundreds of ISPs.

Every instance of edge-providers being held for ransom has been stopped by EXISTING laws, protected by the Federal Trade Commission (not the FCC), which oversees anti-competitive and monopolistic practices. Specifically article 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Net Neutrality was sold to the public as an effort to stop anti-monopolistic practices of the ISPs... by moving regulation of the internet from the FTC (the organization that handles anti-monopolistic practices) to the FCC (an organization that does NOT handle anti-monopolistic practices)? It doesn't make any sense on a logical level. The truth of the matter is the FCC does not stop monopolies, it actually enforces them; through the practice of licensing (common carriers)... think about how the FCC has created government sanctioned monopolies in the cable industry.

Ajit Pai's move to destroy Net Neutrality, actually returns regulatory power of the internet to the FTC. The truth of the matter is Net Neutrality was passed in 2015, but had not actually yet been implemented. This vote was a last minute attempt to repeal Net Neutrality before it officially began enforcement at the end of THIS year. So the FCC voted to keep the internet as it is now, and not change it based on a power grab from the Obama administration.
Interesting post. It really is a battle to keep the public from taking words at face value. Just because your government claims that a bill is "Net Neutrality", i.e. some kind of pro "open internet" act, you do actually have to read the content of the act to know if that's true, and it's not something else. They're not going to call the "Patriot Act" the "violation of 4th amendment act", after all.

People seem to have so rapidly put their trust in the government on this one, and so soon after Snowden showed who the real villain was on the internet. How quickly people want to pretend once again that the government isn't / wasn't up to no good in this area, and that the corporations as a group are the real bad guys.

Well it hasn't been since the East India Company that an individual corporation has the power of a state. So it seems a bit more healthy suspicion is indicated, especially after learning the fact that the state is still monitoring and has access to every communication you make online (especially British people, for instance, who have no 4th amendment, and as Snowden put it "where we could run queries [on domestic citizens] all day [without warrants]").
 
Top