• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Well net neutrality is dead

Arty

Well-known member
#42
Here is the NDAA 2017, signed by Obama... Flip to page 1438. http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20161128/CRPT-114HRPT-S2943.pdf
Excellent post if it is true, however I don't get this part. What should I be looking for on that page? Also, which one is page 1438: one that has "1438" in title or one that PDF reader considers 1438?

In PFD reader page 1438 has title "1396", which is something about funds for Cuba.
Page with title "1438", which is actually page 1481 has something about trade agreements with Africa.

And why did you link defence document? What does it have to do with net neutrality act?
 

Rudy

Well-known member
#43
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.
This. Exactly this.

We never had such a concept in 1995. And yet we all still managed to get online, didn't we? Net neutrality was a political move from the day it was drafted, and just as political when it was removed. Nothing to see here. We seem to get these little blips every couple of years now, with the EFF being at the forefront of the panic. Yet I'm still here, we're all still here...life goes on.

I see this as more a social media issue than anything else, an excuse for the big corporation haters on social media to run around in a panic and scream that their Internet is being taken away, and it's all going to go dark, and censorship, and the big bad bullies are winning, and, and, and....yep, all sorts of nonsense. It's just the latest fad for social media to get behind; those of us who can actually read and understand what it all means are the ones who will come out ahead here.

Wake me up when something actually happens. ;)
 

rainmotorsports

Well-known member
#45
This. Exactly this.

We never had such a concept in 1995. And yet we all still managed to get online, didn't we?
Maybe not in 1995, as I said the first time I read about blocking sites and charging more for access was in 1997. I would love to find a copy of the article. It's actually hard for me to imagine what the example sites were. A few news sites were in there but what else? lmao.

Back then for some of us our ISP was our social network, aol or compuserve etc. If you had to have their service to use those chat rooms, etc. Now we are more used to having a public site as the place to connect.
 
#46
It's really simple. If Comcast, Verizon or whoever spends the money to lay the lines they should be able to control them. Why should Verizon be forced to to invest, so companies like Netflix can sell competing services.
 

rainmotorsports

Well-known member
#47
It's really simple. If Comcast, Verizon or whoever spends the money to lay the lines they should be able to control them. Why should Verizon be forced to to invest, so companies like Netflix can sell competing services.
It's not at all that simple in many places. There are companies that would love to invest billions in laying new networks. They legally can't. More accurately, they can. They only have to wait for the incumbent companies to respond to requests for pole access, equipment adjustments. Timely manner meaning month's or years. Per pole.

An ISP provides a connection to a nationwide backbone (that they usually don't run, AT&T has a lot of their own i believe). That connection traditionally is to connect to any service. Residential speeds don't have a guarantee. It's an up to a speed sort of deal. Some have data caps. Comcast was like 300 GB 10 years ago 1TB now.

If I am paying my ISP for 75, 150, 400 Mbps. Is wanting to run a 10 Mbps video stream too much to ask? As it was pointed out earlier the whole Netflix thing was bogus. Cogent was overloaded and when Netflix tried to work a "host for free" CDN deal Comcast wanted nothing to do with it. So they went on a smear campaign.

ISP's invest because customers are paying them for a service. Comcast can't charge me for higher than 400 Mbps but they will invest in their network until they can! I am paying Comcast for internet only. If they have an issue with which video services i use (I also use their part owned Hulu) then they can get 0 dollars from me instead.
 
#48
It's not at all that simple in many places. There are companies that would love to invest billions in laying new networks. They legally can't. More accurately, they can. They only have to wait for the incumbent companies to respond to requests for pole access, equipment adjustments. Timely manner meaning month's or years. Per pole.

An ISP provides a connection to a nationwide backbone (that they usually don't run, AT&T has a lot of their own i believe). That connection traditionally is to connect to any service. Residential speeds don't have a guarantee. It's an up to a speed sort of deal. Some have data caps. Comcast

If I am paying my ISP for 75, 150, 400 Mbps. Is wanting to run a 10 Mbps video stream too much to ask? As it was pointed out earlier the whole Netflix thing was bogus. Cogent was overloaded and when Netflix tried to work a "host for free" CDN deal Comcast wanted nothing to do with it. So they went on a smear campaign.

ISP's invest because customers are paying them for a service. Comcast can't charge me for higher than 400 Mbps but they will invest in their network until they can!
ISP like Comcast have worked with local governments to lay those lines. If you wanted to start your own ISP you could do the exact same thing. You would just need hire a PR arm to convince these local governments to let you dig up their land and place wires. The problem with your steam is 100 million other customers are also paying the same company to do the exact same thing, so said company has to invest so your data rates stay the same, all the while their investment is to allow a competitor better access to their customer. Bottom line is, I don't want the government to control my website and I think it's fair that ISP's get the same treatment. ISP's still have to compete for your business and with 5G wireless coming the competition is going to be more difficult.
 

rainmotorsports

Well-known member
#49
ISP like Comcast have worked with local governments to lay those lines. If you wanted to start your own ISP you could do the exact same thing. You would just need hire a PR arm to convince these local governments to let you dig up their land and place wires. .
Not so simple my friend. Look at Google's attempt to deploy in Nashville. Tennessee is under the FCC's jurisdiction when it comes to pole attachments. So no state, county, or city law can affect access to those poles. This was recently enforced by a federal judge. Even when the local government WANTS new competition, they can't do anything to help the ISP if there are laws protecting the incumbents like that.

20% of the poles are owned by AT&T the other 80% belong to a state owned utility. AT&T & Comcast have to move their equipment for Google to come in (or you too). They both deal with this by not responding to requests for months. So Nashville tried to pass a law that I would have fought against as well. But that's not the point. The law aimed to make it so one contractor would handle moving everyone's stuff on the poles.

AT&T & Comcast argue that the public utility who owns most of the poles has the sole authority over them (who I guess basically isn't in any hurry to help the city out?). If the local government wants to work with you to lay the lines and they can't even get a public utility to allow it... what hope do you have? The situation in other area's is vastly different. But same issues in the end.

Most ISP's just don't want to invest in their networks. It's not because they don't have the money or they wouldn't profit from it. A new ISP is a huge threat. Bringing 5-20 times the speed for the same price means you are playing catchup while losing customers. If they had invested the money already, a new ISP wouldn't be much of a threat. They didn't and now it would be.
 
#50
Not so simple my friend. Look at Google's attempt to deploy in Nashville. Tennessee is under the FCC's jurisdiction when it comes to pole attachments. So no state, county, or city law can affect access to those poles. This was recently enforced by a federal judge. Even when the local government WANTS new competition, they can't do anything to help the ISP if there are laws protecting the incumbents like that.

20% of the poles are owned by AT&T the other 80% belong to a state owned utility. AT&T & Comcast have to move their equipment for Google to come in (or you too). They both deal with this by not responding to requests for months. So Nashville tried to pass a law that I would have fought against as well. But that's not the point. The law aimed to make it so one contractor would handle moving everyone's stuff on the poles.

AT&T & Comcast argue that the public utility who owns most of the poles has the sole authority over them (who I guess basically isn't in any hurry to help the city out?). If the local government wants to work with you to lay the lines and they can't even get a public utility to allow it... what hope do you have? The situation in other area's is vastly different. But same issues in the end.

Most ISP's just don't want to invest in their networks. It's not because they don't have the money or they wouldn't profit from it. A new ISP is a huge threat. Bringing 5-20 times the speed for the same price means you are playing catchup while losing customers. If they had invested the money already, a new ISP wouldn't be much of a threat. They didn't and now it would be.
Why should anyone that owns a pole or any other property be forced to host their competition? Your local government in all likelihood owns the land right in front of your street. (right of way). This is what gives them permission to dig up a broken line without your permission. If Google wants to compete they need to convince those that own this land (local government) to allow them to run wires; however, this doesn't entitle them to use resources other companies have spent money on that occupies that same land.
 

rainmotorsports

Well-known member
#51
Your local government in all likelihood owns the land right in front of your street. (right of way). This is what gives them permission to dig up a broken line without your permission.
Where I lived growing up was a new neighborhood so all the telecom, power etc, where in places like this already. Adding to it... Where I lived the last 3 places there is no grass. The sidewalk has all the gas lines running under it. So the telecom and power are on poles. Which are planted into the sidewalk area.

Why should anyone that owns a pole or any other property be forced to host their competition? Your local government in all likelihood owns the land right in front of your street. (right of way). This is what gives them permission to dig up a broken line without your permission. If Google wants to compete they need to convince those that own this land (local government) to allow them to run wires; however, this doesn't entitle them to use resources other companies have spent money on that occupies that same land.
As I said I would have voted against the law with 0 of the arguments that were actually used. Nashville doesn't have any place else for Google to run residential lines. They want to assist them with this. But residential lines will have to be run in mostly preexisting locations. So You, Google, Elon Musk, whoever aren't making that particular deployment. They aren't laying backbone through the middle of no where, they are deploying into neighborhoods. Your argument 0 - Incumbent ISP's 1.

Then there is the whole municipal ISP issue. There are places in this country that commercial ISP's refuse to service, period. But they will fight in court to prevent a municipal ISP from doing it. They will do so with the support of citizens who are opposed to government run companies. You would think these are area's where it is easier to start your own ISP. I will use my family in NC for example who thank god have county internet. Part of your deployment has to be done on telephone poles. Who someone owns... back to square one or just lose money while waiting. You can't just dig right next to a pole or plant your own. You certainly don't want to put it in the ditch (common there).

There are places people have been fighting for decades (well 2... lol) to do this in. But it must be so easy.
 
Last edited:
#52
Google, Facebook and all the big internet companies who claim to support Net Neutrality do not themselves practice it. For example, Google search results are not neutral. The highest bidder gets their stuff posted above search results.

Facebook has been dialing down for quite some time how large of an audience sees your posts. Pay to boost it and it shows to more people.

Instagram favors certain types of content over others.

And so on.

So they want neutrality when it comes to their content going over other's data lines, but no neutrality when it comes to content within their own systems.
 

rainmotorsports

Well-known member
#53
Google, Facebook and all the big internet companies who claim to support Net Neutrality do not themselves practice it. For example, Google search results are not neutral. The highest bidder gets their stuff posted above search results.

Facebook has been dialing down for quite some time how large of an audience sees your posts. Pay to boost it and it shows to more people.

Instagram favors certain types of content over others.

And so on.

So they want neutrality when it comes to their content going over other's data lines, but no neutrality when it comes to content within their own systems.
That isn't in the scope of Net Neutrality the US law or the general concept of it. There are regulations concerning certain business practices and of course quite a few in advertising. The beauty of a neutral internet is the ability to choose an alternative service at a whim. The reality that a business relies on the peoples choice of search engine is the reason any regulation on that matter exists. Otherwise companies are free to control their content platforms as they wish.

I can't imagine someone telling Google they can't put ads at the top of a page and have the content of an ad be based on user input. Getting your content posted above a search result is called advertising. The average user might not know the difference between the end of the ads and the start of the search result. But most of us here do. Then again that is the ultimate goal of advertising. You shouldn't be able to tell what is an ad and what isn't. I really dislike advertising but it is a reality.

I also can't imagine someone telling Facebook that user created content has to take a priority over advertiser content. I wouldn't like my content being hidden but Facebook literally cant show everything to everyone. The platform is so huge they have to dial in relevant content. Done in the most neutral way possible you are still shown only a fraction of a percent of what you could see. But being a business they are going to prioritize paying customers obviously.

I like when people scream First Amendment or Net Neutrality when Facebook "censors" something. While we can all agree services that become this popular are unbelievably important. In any other situation complaining about a site or service not publishing your created content would earn a shut up Wesley.
 
Last edited:
#54
That isn't in the scope of Net Neutrality the US law or the general concept of it. There are regulations concerning certain business practices and of course quite a few in advertising.
I know this. I was making a point: the big companies which are behind net neutrality don't favor nuetral practices, they favor being able to push large amounts of their bandwidth through ISPs, having ISPs bear the costs rather than them.

The beauty of a neutral internet is the ability to choose an alternative service at a whim.
Choosing another service it the beauty of a free market, not a highly regulated market.

I can't imagine someone telling Google they can't put ads at the top of a page and have the content of an ad be based on user input. Getting your content posted above a search result is called advertising.
Again, not the point.

Google and Facebook (rightfully so) are allowed to filter, produce, prioritize and sell their services based on the free market. But apply free market to ISPs, and suddenly everyone is in an uproar. I shouldn't have to pay for my neighbor using 100x more bandwidth because he streams 24x7 and downloads countless gigabytes via torrents. Let's call Net Neutrality it what it really is: government regulation.
 

Arty

Well-known member
#55
Choosing another service it the beauty of a free market, not a highly regulated market.
No, that's more like choosing what company can screw you over. Choice is meaningless if its between bad services because there are no regulations to keep them in check. Today internet is not something optional you can choose not to use, its mandatory for most people.

Regulated market prevents companies from screwing with people, forcing them to be better and giving users better choices.
 

rainmotorsports

Well-known member
#57
I know this. I was making a point: the big companies which are behind net neutrality don't favor nuetral practices, they favor being able to push large amounts of their bandwidth through ISPs, having ISPs bear the costs rather than them.



Choosing another service it the beauty of a free market, not a highly regulated market.



Again, not the point.

Google and Facebook (rightfully so) are allowed to filter, produce, prioritize and sell their services based on the free market. But apply free market to ISPs, and suddenly everyone is in an uproar. I shouldn't have to pay for my neighbor using 100x more bandwidth because he streams 24x7 and downloads countless gigabytes via torrents. Let's call Net Neutrality it what it really is: government regulation.
In the traditional model companies aren't getting a free ride. If I go back to hosting phone firmware I'm paying terabytes per day in transfer. The user downloading that is also paying. The entire reason a user is paying for a connection is so that those companies can push all that data to them. If they can't then what the **** are we paying for? As Xon so kindly highlighted before companies like Netflix may be trying to get a free ride in the edge provider market by moving that data off national backbone providers and convincing ISPs its win win. That's really a matter for companies we have no part of. Unless of course you are a stock holder.

I remember when it was a big deal that regulations dictated phone companies couldn't be television providers. That went away somehow. That was a win for the free market. But when everyone stands here worrying about regulation, I don't see people really pushing to get rid of the anti competition regulations that kill off the concept of the free market.
 
Last edited: