FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues
-
@bigbear you're hopeless.
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear you are thinking about this in a way that doesn't make sense. I explained it like this yesterday, which helps to explain the issue.
The better way to look at this would be Title II and Net Neutrality protected your access (the internet service speed you pay for) from being throttled by a service provider.
To go off of @momurda example, you pay for water at your residence. Unfettered, as much pressure as you can get out of the tap and shower heads. The water authority didn't have any way to get you to pay more for water, but has been trying to for decades, but they weren't allowed to throttle your water pressure.
Now they are allowed to throttle your water pressure, and for a fee you can have your full water pressure back.
Imagine it like that, except that you will never be able to afford what the water company wants to charge for you to have full water pressure back.
You literally would have no options to have better water pressure (internet speed), you would have no recourse to get your performance back, and you would only have one option to get what you need (and you may not even get what you actually need). Which would be paying more for your internet or services.
I think we are getting to the heart of it, because you STILL have no options here. You, the end user, are not protected. The FCC is not setup to handle this.Comcast has throttled Netflix before, during, and will continue to after. There is nothing the consumer can do. The content provider would have to take action. Netflix was already fighting Comcast before NN.
There is no Netflix 2 out there or poor small service that ISP's are worried about throttling. And watch Netflix over the years, as the grow into a monopoly. Amazon used to bitch and moan about paying sales tax, fought it tooth and nail early on. Now that it achieved monopoly status they are all for it. There just used it to compete aginst brick and mortar stores.
The point here though is that now NetFlix has no recourse at all. Netflix can't go to the FCC or congress or anyone to have a legal recourse to being able to service their customers.
There is nowhere to turn too, to resolve any throttling or abusive behavior by the ISPs.
So let's take your business, you sell hardware and offer VOIP phone services, but you probably use comcast or level 3 or someone like that.
If your ISP starts their own VOIP service, they can literally throttle your bandwidth (even if you are paying for 1Gbe up and down) until you either go out of business, or pay an additional fee. Just because you are competition to a service they offer.
The problem here is corruption - if the FCC isn't dealing with complaints while NN is in place, then they are being corrupt. NN gave them the authority to do so via title II. Just because they didn't slap comcast when they were throttling Netflix, doesn't mean they weren't supposed to.
-
@bigbear I have the link that talks about how small ISPs are getting screwed by NN, I look forward to reading it.
also, if you have the actual NN laws/rules some place I would like to read those as well. Otherwise google to the rescue.
-
@bigbear the complaints from everyone in that article is about having to report performance metrics and responding to customer complaints.
The performance reporting requirement was removed for ISPs with less than 250,000 customers (even though temporarily).
The responding to customers complaints is a part of the job. So I don't see how this is at all something to be pissy about.
The example provided in the article about a wireless provider who was servicing a customer, had trees grow in the path to the customer and he literally couldn't provide service.
Drop the customer at that point.
Problem solved. . .
-
Here is the summation of the article.
The FCC estimates that it should only take internet providers 15 minutes to respond to a complaint that gets passed along to them. And not all complaints actually make it through — some just end up with a pat response from the FCC.
Gigi Sohn, who was an advisor to former FCC chairman Tom Wheeler when the net neutrality rules were drafted and passed, said in an email that it seems to her that some wireless internet providers are “spinning themselves up and dreaming up worst case scenarios that will never come to pass.”
“It isn’t going to happen, and if it did, the FCC would dismiss the complaint out of hand,” she writes. “The FCC doesn’t act on every complaint — just those that make a prima facie case that the rules have been broken. So it really isn’t a reasonable concern.”
IE: It's not worth it for little ISP's to be concerned about the FCC coming in and beating them up.
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear the complaints from everyone in that article is about having to report performance metrics and responding to customer complaints.
The performance reporting requirement was removed for ISPs with less than 250,000 customers (even though temporarily).
The responding to customers complaints is a part of the job. So I don't see how this is at all something to be pissy about.
The example provided in the article about a wireless provider who was servicing a customer, had trees grow in the path to the customer and he literally couldn't provide service.
Drop the customer at that point.
Problem solved. . .
To be compliant we hired a law firm that popped up to specialize in this for our size group. We were in Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky, and we were already a CLEC for many years before. These new $600/hour lawyers and their filings racked up well over $120k in my final year there.
I used the Verge article in an effort to provide some unbiased reporting on what I am talking about. It makes an argument from both sides that I think is fair.
We never had a SINGLE complaint. The complaint system could easily be in place without all the reporting (data that is going where, who knows).
I would prefer a more light touch approach that reacts to abuses, not a slow moving utility bureaucracy that costs a fortune to maintain and gives the president the power to take down websites. The fact that no one is up in arms about the latter is kind of ironic.
So again, always have liked to idea of Net Neutrality. Feel like its being over simplified when its a very complex issue.
I watch this 30 min video and pretty much agree with every word Pai says.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I would prefer a more light touch approach that reacts to abuses, not a slow moving utility bureaucracy that costs a fortune to maintain and gives the president the power to take down websites. The fact that no one is up in arms about the latter is kind of ironic.
How does the president have the ability to take a website down through NN? A website, not an ISP.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I would prefer a more light touch approach that reacts to abuses, not a slow moving utility bureaucracy that costs a fortune to maintain and gives the president the power to take down websites. The fact that no one is up in arms about the latter is kind of ironic.
How does the president have the ability to take a website down through NN? A website, not an ISP.
Pg 1446. The President uses the "whole-of-government" to suppress information. Thanks to Net Neutrality's Title II, they can order all ISPs to take down hostile information and any websites that distribute it. If the ISP refuses, their Title II Broadcasting License is legally revoked, they can no longer do business, they go bankrupt, and the government buys out their infrastructure. The government can integrate into the ISPs to censor anything, anywhere, at anytime. The ISPs are forced to obey.
Also checkout this read...https://techliberation.com/2017/07/12/heres-why-the-obama-fcc-internet-regulations-dont-protect-net-neutrality/
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I would prefer a more light touch approach that reacts to abuses, not a slow moving utility bureaucracy that costs a fortune to maintain and gives the president the power to take down websites. The fact that no one is up in arms about the latter is kind of ironic.
How does the president have the ability to take a website down through NN? A website, not an ISP.
Pg 1446. The President uses the "whole-of-government" to suppress information. Thanks to Net Neutrality's Title II, they can order all ISPs to take down hostile information and any websites that distribute it. If the ISP refuses, their Title II Broadcasting License is legally revoked, they can no longer do business, they go bankrupt, and the government buys out their infrastructure. The government can integrate into the ISPs to censor anything, anywhere, at anytime. The ISPs are forced to obey.
Also checkout this read...https://techliberation.com/2017/07/12/heres-why-the-obama-fcc-internet-regulations-dont-protect-net-neutrality/
That's not a NN thing - that's a Title II thing, and possible a broken thing at that. But clearly we don't see that happening much if at all - becuase look at all the anti-trump stuff out there, and it's still online.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I would prefer a more light touch approach that reacts to abuses, not a slow moving utility bureaucracy that costs a fortune to maintain and gives the president the power to take down websites. The fact that no one is up in arms about the latter is kind of ironic.
How does the president have the ability to take a website down through NN? A website, not an ISP.
Pg 1446. The President uses the "whole-of-government" to suppress information. Thanks to Net Neutrality's Title II, they can order all ISPs to take down hostile information and any websites that distribute it. If the ISP refuses, their Title II Broadcasting License is legally revoked, they can no longer do business, they go bankrupt, and the government buys out their infrastructure. The government can integrate into the ISPs to censor anything, anywhere, at anytime. The ISPs are forced to obey.
Also checkout this read...https://techliberation.com/2017/07/12/heres-why-the-obama-fcc-internet-regulations-dont-protect-net-neutrality/
That's not a NN thing - that's a Title II thing, and possible a broken thing at that. But clearly we don't see that happening much if at all - becuase look at all the anti-trump stuff out there, and it's still online.
I hate that this law is called Net Neutrality, those who oppose its current form are made to look like they oppose NN.
So here you do not mind the president having unfettered power to shut down websites. The NN law made this possible by declaring the Internet a Title ii utility. You are relying on public outcry?
Well ironically I agree. And the proposed benefits of Net Neutrality are not real and current issues, and are ones that would be prevented by the same public outcry.
There is no service to the internets end users to call up the PUC and say "hey my p2p is getting blocked". Its current form was just a big power grab. https://techliberation.com/2017/07/12/heres-why-the-obama-fcc-internet-regulations-dont-protect-net-neutrality/
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I hate that this law is called Net Neutrality, those who oppose its current form are made to look like they oppose NN.
This is no different than the Patriot Act - one of the most unpatriotic things ever passed.
-
-
These comments explain it all to well.
-
I can't follow this many posts.
Could you break it down into four easy categories?
- Pros / Cons of having NN.
- Pros / Cons of no NN.
I like many others just hear about the big stuff (aka the outcries of media/public) and don't know much what it's all REALLY about.
I know it may be a lot to ask of you, but I think it would really help me an many others.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
So here you do not mind the president having unfettered power to shut down websites. The NN law made this possible by declaring the Internet a Title ii utility. You are relying on public outcry?
I never said that - what I said was
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
That's not a NN thing - that's a Title II thing, and possible a broken thing at that.
Meaning that it's likely that the ability of the government to shutdown what what it doesn't like through Title II powers is likely a bad thing/a broken thing.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
There is no service to the internets end users to call up the PUC and say "hey my p2p is getting blocked".
Wait a min - I thought it was stated that there were tons of complaints being lodged. So where their complaints or weren't there? If there were - what's the issue? Now, assuming there were complaints, if the FCC wasn't doing anything about them as was required - well that's corruption again.. and we can't talk about that, it's its own thing. And just because the government isn't following the laws they enacted, doesn't mean we don't need the laws - it means we the people need to hold them more accountable.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
just because the government isn't following the laws they enacted, doesn't mean we don't need the laws
It's fuzzy. What is the point of something that serves no purpose other than just existing?
Only in response to your post, not NN in general.
-
@wirestyle22 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
just because the government isn't following the laws they enacted, doesn't mean we don't need the laws
It's fuzzy. What is the point of something that serves no purpose other than just existing?
You've missed my point - it's not that it exists only to exist - there is corruption. We (the people) need to demand and fix the corruption.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@wirestyle22 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
just because the government isn't following the laws they enacted, doesn't mean we don't need the laws
It's fuzzy. What is the point of something that serves no purpose other than just existing?
You've missed my point - it's not that it exists only to exist - there is corruption. We (the people) need to demand and fix the corruption.
This I agree exists on both sides of the argument. If someone's pockets wasnt getting lined no action would be taken on either side.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@wirestyle22 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
just because the government isn't following the laws they enacted, doesn't mean we don't need the laws
It's fuzzy. What is the point of something that serves no purpose other than just existing?
You've missed my point - it's not that it exists only to exist - there is corruption. We (the people) need to demand and fix the corruption.
What power do we even hold when they can overturn something 83% of the population wholeheartedly supports though. Seems insane.
