What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video
-
Oh and he just pulled out the "competition" distraction.
Yup, this solidified it further, NN is absolutely needed and AP has no intention of protecting the US from companies. He's sold us out.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Oh and he just pulled out the "competition" distraction.
Yup, this solidified it further, NN is absolutely needed and AP has no intention of protecting the US from companies. He's sold us out.
I am going to start referring to this as the Open Internet Order, not NN. I support NN but do not believe the OIO was comprehensive enough to impact the actual issues everyone is worried about.
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1_Rcd.pdf
And in case anyone has had a hard time find it, see the link above. So anyone who wants to tell me what you THINK the Open Internet Order did for you I would like to check out what the actual law says.
The prominent issue everyone is talking about is throttling of services, which could be applied to the user but is generally applied at interconnect to limit a network or services speed.
Regarding throttling and despite HBO John Oliver's claims, the law DOES NOT prohibit throttling at the interconnection level. So does not eliminate your theoretical fear of Comcast screwing Netflix in an anticompetitive measure to promote its own content.
Straight from Page 10¶ 30
30. But this Order does not apply the open Internet rules to interconnection. Three factors
are critical in informing this approach to interconnection. First, the nature of Internet traffic, driven by
massive consumption of video, has challenged traditional arrangements—placing more emphasis on the
use of CDNs or even direct connections between content providers (like Netflix or Google) and last-mile
broadband providers. Second, it is clear that consumers have been subject to degradation resulting from commercial disagreements,28 perhaps most notably in a series of disputes between Netflix and large last mile broadband providers. But, third, the causes of past disruption and—just as importantly—the
potential for future degradation through interconnection disputes—are reflected in very different
narratives in the record.EDIT:
Also... The Open Internet Order does not prevent Comcast from requiring payment to send traffic to their networks; it only puts ISPs under the general rules of Title II where they FCC would decide on a case by case basis what to do. So basically, it depends on how well the lobbyists work over politicians.
-
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Oh and he just pulled out the "competition" distraction.
Yup, this solidified it further, NN is absolutely needed and AP has no intention of protecting the US from companies. He's sold us out.
I am going to start referring to this as the Open Internet Order, not NN. I support NN but do not believe the OIO was comprehensive enough to impact the actual issues everyone is worried about.
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1_Rcd.pdf
And in case anyone has had a hard time find it, see the link above. So anyone who wants to tell me what you THINK the Open Internet Order did for you I would like to check out what the actual law says.
The prominent issue everyone is talking about is throttling of services, which could be applied to the user but is generally applied at interconnect to limit a network or services speed.
Regarding throttling and despite HBO John Oliver's claims, the law DOES NOT prohibit throttling at the interconnection level. So does not eliminate your theoretical fear of Comcast screwing Netflix in an anticompetitive measure to promote its own content.
Straight from Page 10¶ 30
30. But this Order does not apply the open Internet rules to interconnection. Three factors
are critical in informing this approach to interconnection. First, the nature of Internet traffic, driven by
massive consumption of video, has challenged traditional arrangements—placing more emphasis on the
use of CDNs or even direct connections between content providers (like Netflix or Google) and last-mile
broadband providers. Second, it is clear that consumers have been subject to degradation resulting from commercial disagreements,28 perhaps most notably in a series of disputes between Netflix and large last mile broadband providers. But, third, the causes of past disruption and—just as importantly—the
potential for future degradation through interconnection disputes—are reflected in very different
narratives in the record.EDIT:
Also... The Open Internet Order does not prevent Comcast from requiring payment to send traffic to their networks; it only puts ISPs under the general rules of Title II where they FCC would decide on a case by case basis what to did. So basically, it depends on how well the lobbyists work over politicians.
So if the assessment is that existing NN does not go far enough, great, I'm on board 100%. I think that true neutrality needs to be codified in law, be way more clear and broad than it is today, and that the government needs to oversee it proactively, and that the laws need give the gov't agencies real "teeth" to go after violatoes and heavy incentive to do so very aggressively - I fully believe this should be a criminal, not civil, offense as it involves using government granted utility monopolies to influence our democratic system so violators should see jail time, not fines.
But, given all that, how does moving away from that, help?
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Oh and he just pulled out the "competition" distraction.
Yup, this solidified it further, NN is absolutely needed and AP has no intention of protecting the US from companies. He's sold us out.
I am going to start referring to this as the Open Internet Order, not NN. I support NN but do not believe the OIO was comprehensive enough to impact the actual issues everyone is worried about.
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1_Rcd.pdf
And in case anyone has had a hard time find it, see the link above. So anyone who wants to tell me what you THINK the Open Internet Order did for you I would like to check out what the actual law says.
The prominent issue everyone is talking about is throttling of services, which could be applied to the user but is generally applied at interconnect to limit a network or services speed.
Regarding throttling and despite HBO John Oliver's claims, the law DOES NOT prohibit throttling at the interconnection level. So does not eliminate your theoretical fear of Comcast screwing Netflix in an anticompetitive measure to promote its own content.
Straight from Page 10¶ 30
30. But this Order does not apply the open Internet rules to interconnection. Three factors
are critical in informing this approach to interconnection. First, the nature of Internet traffic, driven by
massive consumption of video, has challenged traditional arrangements—placing more emphasis on the
use of CDNs or even direct connections between content providers (like Netflix or Google) and last-mile
broadband providers. Second, it is clear that consumers have been subject to degradation resulting from commercial disagreements,28 perhaps most notably in a series of disputes between Netflix and large last mile broadband providers. But, third, the causes of past disruption and—just as importantly—the
potential for future degradation through interconnection disputes—are reflected in very different
narratives in the record.EDIT:
Also... The Open Internet Order does not prevent Comcast from requiring payment to send traffic to their networks; it only puts ISPs under the general rules of Title II where they FCC would decide on a case by case basis what to did. So basically, it depends on how well the lobbyists work over politicians.
So if the assessment is that existing NN does not go far enough, great, I'm on board 100%. I think that true neutrality needs to be codified in law, be way more clear and broad than it is today, and that the government needs to oversee it proactively, and that the laws need give the gov't agencies real "teeth" to go after violatoes and heavy incentive to do so very aggressively - I fully believe this should be a criminal, not civil, offense as it involves using government granted utility monopolies to influence our democratic system so violators should see jail time, not fines.
But, given all that, how does moving away from that, help?
My interest is seeing more specific legislation and action that would foster ISP growth. That is why when I saw all this happen I rolled my eyes a few years ago. All the grandstanding around protecting our internet... Choice is the only thing that is truly going to protect users from these abuses.
If you have 5+ ISP's in every metro and 2 or 3 in every small town in America there isn't going to be an issue with throttling and the like. People are easily outraged when their internet is messed with and they would switch in a hard beat so what ISP is going to risk that?
We can unpack the bill and look for more positives. I just think it would benefit us all more if we were headed in the opposite direction of deregulation. Pai is the first FCC guy I have ever seen running around to startup Fiber companies and rural ISP's asking about what is holding them up. He looks like a guy that is ready and excited to try new things to get competition and investment growing.
We can all claim this guy or that guy is a liar, but the former FCC chair may as well been invisible before Obama circled around to make sure he fulfilled his 2008 campaign promises during and after his re-election.
-
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Oh and he just pulled out the "competition" distraction.
Yup, this solidified it further, NN is absolutely needed and AP has no intention of protecting the US from companies. He's sold us out.
I am going to start referring to this as the Open Internet Order, not NN. I support NN but do not believe the OIO was comprehensive enough to impact the actual issues everyone is worried about.
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1_Rcd.pdf
And in case anyone has had a hard time find it, see the link above. So anyone who wants to tell me what you THINK the Open Internet Order did for you I would like to check out what the actual law says.
The prominent issue everyone is talking about is throttling of services, which could be applied to the user but is generally applied at interconnect to limit a network or services speed.
Regarding throttling and despite HBO John Oliver's claims, the law DOES NOT prohibit throttling at the interconnection level. So does not eliminate your theoretical fear of Comcast screwing Netflix in an anticompetitive measure to promote its own content.
Straight from Page 10¶ 30
30. But this Order does not apply the open Internet rules to interconnection. Three factors
are critical in informing this approach to interconnection. First, the nature of Internet traffic, driven by
massive consumption of video, has challenged traditional arrangements—placing more emphasis on the
use of CDNs or even direct connections between content providers (like Netflix or Google) and last-mile
broadband providers. Second, it is clear that consumers have been subject to degradation resulting from commercial disagreements,28 perhaps most notably in a series of disputes between Netflix and large last mile broadband providers. But, third, the causes of past disruption and—just as importantly—the
potential for future degradation through interconnection disputes—are reflected in very different
narratives in the record.EDIT:
Also... The Open Internet Order does not prevent Comcast from requiring payment to send traffic to their networks; it only puts ISPs under the general rules of Title II where they FCC would decide on a case by case basis what to did. So basically, it depends on how well the lobbyists work over politicians.
So if the assessment is that existing NN does not go far enough, great, I'm on board 100%. I think that true neutrality needs to be codified in law, be way more clear and broad than it is today, and that the government needs to oversee it proactively, and that the laws need give the gov't agencies real "teeth" to go after violatoes and heavy incentive to do so very aggressively - I fully believe this should be a criminal, not civil, offense as it involves using government granted utility monopolies to influence our democratic system so violators should see jail time, not fines.
But, given all that, how does moving away from that, help?
My interest is seeing more specific legislation and action that would foster ISP growth.
This is key... your focus is on something I see and utterly irrelevant. It's your personal decision and that's fine, it's just important for you to understand that because of this, you are having a discussion with us that none of us are having with you. Your concern is that you want the ISPs to benefit at basically any cost - the exact opposite of what everyone else here, and anyone that I have known ever, wants. It's not that what you want is wrong, but you must understand that because f this, not one post you've ever made has made one lick of sense to any of the rest of us.
All of us are discussing freedom and citizen protections, and all of your posts have refuted that with information that, to us, totally supports our points. We don't care about ISP growth. Personally, I'm not even okay with their being ISPs period.
It makes sense why you don't want Net Neutrality, it is the opposite of what you want to see, it doesn't support your goals. So fundamentally the issue is that we all want true Net Neutrality that goes way beyond what NN had today. We see Ajit Pai is totally evil for not protecting Americans from the corporations, in fact he does the opposite and is protecting the ISPs from the citizens. You like Ajit Pai because he promotes what you want, which is the ISPs have power rather than citizens. So when we say Ajit Pai is evil, and you say he is great, it's because we have polar opposite desires from government, the FCC, etc.
So this all makes sense now - if we start from the assumption that you want the exact thing we all fear, then obviously you'd see the people as good that we see as evil. This is why, post after post, I've posted that you are responding with things that mean nothing, because you keep saying how NN is bad because it does X and we keep saying "so, we want X, that's the point."
Or to sum it up... we see Ajit Pai as a man going around drowning kittens and we are horrified. And to us you are responding with "thank goodness, I hate cats."
-
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
We can all claim this guy or that guy is a liar...
He's a liar, that's not in question. You showed the video, he lied. That discussion is over. Our issue is that he is abject evil - he is an enemy of the nation using his position of power to undermine the very nation he is paid and entrusted to protect. You can like what he does, but it doesn't change the fact that he's doing so against the will and benefit of the nation and is an enemy of our country, our government, and our national values.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
We don't care about ISP growth. Personally, I'm not even okay with their being ISPs period.
What is your model for internet access without ISP’s?
-
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
We don't care about ISP growth. Personally, I'm not even okay with their being ISPs period.
What is your model for internet access without ISP’s?
Same as with streets, water, sewer, and every other comparable utility - it only makes sense when it is supplied by the government. Or through an artificial arm of the government like the US did for the first 80 years of telephony. The same way that all the countries with the best Internet models today work. ISPs add no value, but create massive overhead and risk.
-
And before anyone says "but I don't trust the government", that simply makes no sense. The risks of government are the same with or without the gov't running the Internet. There is no downside, only upsides.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
We don't care about ISP growth. Personally, I'm not even okay with their being ISPs period.
What is your model for internet access without ISP’s?
Same as with streets, water, sewer, and every other comparable utility - it only makes sense when it is supplied by the government. Or through an artificial arm of the government like the US did for the first 80 years of telephony. The same way that all the countries with the best Internet models today work. ISPs add no value, but create massive overhead and risk.
I don’t even disagree though. If the government will do it go ahead and do it, that would be great. FTTH guaranteed to every door? I’m all in.
Why do you assume I want ISPs to make more money? More competition means profits are competed away. Less money for ISPs and at least more options for end users. Shitty ISPs fold and sell their assets to the better ISP.
Why do I hate cats and NN? I think OIO is bullshit. It’s not NN as I illustrated above.
I can only assume everyone thinks this is political for me or is reading too much into it. I’m about as unbiased as they come. Certainly not affiliated with any political party or agenda.
-
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Why do you assume I want ISPs to make more money? More competition means profits are competed away. Less money for ISPs and at least more options for end users. Shitty ISPs fold and sell their assets to the better ISP.
There's that competition word, very few areas of the country actually have competing ISPs. If you're lucky it's one that's faster and one that's painfully slow.
-
@travisdh1 said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Why do you assume I want ISPs to make more money? More competition means profits are competed away. Less money for ISPs and at least more options for end users. Shitty ISPs fold and sell their assets to the better ISP.
There's that competition word, very few areas of the country actually have competing ISPs. If you're lucky it's one that's faster and one that's painfully slow.
Lol I don’t know why @scottalanmiller doesn’t care about it. I have Spectrum. You can get Att but it’s just shitty DSL.
There’s no choice. From where we are at I can only see competition as making a difference.
-
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
We don't care about ISP growth. Personally, I'm not even okay with their being ISPs period.
What is your model for internet access without ISP’s?
Same as with streets, water, sewer, and every other comparable utility - it only makes sense when it is supplied by the government. Or through an artificial arm of the government like the US did for the first 80 years of telephony. The same way that all the countries with the best Internet models today work. ISPs add no value, but create massive overhead and risk.
I don’t even disagree though. If the government will do it go ahead and do it, that would be great. FTTH guaranteed to every door? I’m all in.
Why do you assume I want ISPs to make more money? More competition means profits are competed away. Less money for ISPs and at least more options for end users. Shitty ISPs fold and sell their assets to the better ISP.
Why do I hate cats and NN? I think OIO is bullshit. It’s not NN as I illustrated above.
I can only assume everyone thinks this is political for me or is reading too much into it. I’m about as unbiased as they come. Certainly not affiliated with any political party or agenda.
Not saying that you are aligned in one way or another, only that your priorities like in things like competition over packet neutrality.
-
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@travisdh1 said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Why do you assume I want ISPs to make more money? More competition means profits are competed away. Less money for ISPs and at least more options for end users. Shitty ISPs fold and sell their assets to the better ISP.
There's that competition word, very few areas of the country actually have competing ISPs. If you're lucky it's one that's faster and one that's painfully slow.
Lol I don’t know why @scottalanmiller doesn’t care about it. I have Spectrum. You can get Att but it’s just shitty DSL.
There’s no choice. From where we are at I can only see competition as making a difference.
I care about it, but I don't care in comparison to neutrality. One is shitty Internet, the other undermines our political system.
-
For me, there is more competition than for most of you, because I will literally move to make sure I get good Internet. Making a city somewhere else that has amazing Internet? I might move there just for that!
I'm not kidding.
I'm also in talks with a team where we have proposed working around this by building our own village to handle this. I kid you not, it's a long shot program, but we've been running numbers, looking at locations, etc.
-
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@travisdh1 said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Why do you assume I want ISPs to make more money? More competition means profits are competed away. Less money for ISPs and at least more options for end users. Shitty ISPs fold and sell their assets to the better ISP.
There's that competition word, very few areas of the country actually have competing ISPs. If you're lucky it's one that's faster and one that's painfully slow.
Lol I don’t know why @scottalanmiller doesn’t care about it. I have Spectrum. You can get Att but it’s just shitty DSL.
There’s no choice. From where we are at I can only see competition as making a difference.
You said it yourself, there is no choice today. I agree that competition would help the situation, but the reality is that no competition exists today, and probably never will when even Google can't break into the market.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@travisdh1 said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Why do you assume I want ISPs to make more money? More competition means profits are competed away. Less money for ISPs and at least more options for end users. Shitty ISPs fold and sell their assets to the better ISP.
There's that competition word, very few areas of the country actually have competing ISPs. If you're lucky it's one that's faster and one that's painfully slow.
Lol I don’t know why @scottalanmiller doesn’t care about it. I have Spectrum. You can get Att but it’s just shitty DSL.
There’s no choice. From where we are at I can only see competition as making a difference.
I care about it, but I don't care in comparison to neutrality. One is shitty Internet, the other undermines our political system.
Fair enough, but this law doesn’t show me anything that solves packet neutrality.
-
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@travisdh1 said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Why do you assume I want ISPs to make more money? More competition means profits are competed away. Less money for ISPs and at least more options for end users. Shitty ISPs fold and sell their assets to the better ISP.
There's that competition word, very few areas of the country actually have competing ISPs. If you're lucky it's one that's faster and one that's painfully slow.
Lol I don’t know why @scottalanmiller doesn’t care about it. I have Spectrum. You can get Att but it’s just shitty DSL.
There’s no choice. From where we are at I can only see competition as making a difference.
I care about it, but I don't care in comparison to neutrality. One is shitty Internet, the other undermines our political system.
Fair enough, but this law doesn’t show me anything that solves packet neutrality.
Which, I think we all agree, it doesn't go far enough. Not even close. But we need to put stronger things in place before repealing anything.
-
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@travisdh1 said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Why do you assume I want ISPs to make more money? More competition means profits are competed away. Less money for ISPs and at least more options for end users. Shitty ISPs fold and sell their assets to the better ISP.
There's that competition word, very few areas of the country actually have competing ISPs. If you're lucky it's one that's faster and one that's painfully slow.
Lol I don’t know why @scottalanmiller doesn’t care about it. I have Spectrum. You can get Att but it’s just shitty DSL.
There’s no choice. From where we are at I can only see competition as making a difference.
right, so what's stopping competition today?
-
@travisdh1 said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@travisdh1 said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Why do you assume I want ISPs to make more money? More competition means profits are competed away. Less money for ISPs and at least more options for end users. Shitty ISPs fold and sell their assets to the better ISP.
There's that competition word, very few areas of the country actually have competing ISPs. If you're lucky it's one that's faster and one that's painfully slow.
Lol I don’t know why @scottalanmiller doesn’t care about it. I have Spectrum. You can get Att but it’s just shitty DSL.
There’s no choice. From where we are at I can only see competition as making a difference.
You said it yourself, there is no choice today. I agree that competition would help the situation, but the reality is that no competition exists today, and probably never will when even Google can't break into the market.
It's more than that - competition itself can not bring about neutrality. You could have 30 ISPs and it's possible that none of them would offer neutrality. You only get that by regulation.
