FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
On a side note, everyone hates E3 for their new "mortgage pricing model".
Now everyone can hate their ISP's just as much. . .
What is that?
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Lots of good views have been expressed here today. I would have to say even the argument with @scottalanmiller miller last night was unmerited as this "Binge On" appears to be nothing more on a technical level than automatically enabling 480p streaming. As scott suggested reviews of the codec I found online appear to show it offers no added optimization. So the whole argument may have been mute.
Yeah, from what I can tell, it's just some serious weirdness. I can't figure out what it actually does.
What it does is force video down to 480.
Modern phones can display HD or better, so the streams were asking for that. This is using a ton of data on cellular.... moving back to 480 seriously reduces use.
And I’m not say this is right.
Now what they SHOULD have done, is offer a service that sits on their edge and does this for anything that you want (you optionally enable it) and still charge for the data same as always. Then there would have been no questionable behavious, and the incentives would have still been there for everyone as they should have been. Then it is a feature, that is equal for everyone and doesn't prioritize one thing over another, it's just you turning down your quality setting via a "forced" remote setting. No different than manually selecting 480p every time.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Lots of good views have been expressed here today. I would have to say even the argument with @scottalanmiller miller last night was unmerited as this "Binge On" appears to be nothing more on a technical level than automatically enabling 480p streaming. As scott suggested reviews of the codec I found online appear to show it offers no added optimization. So the whole argument may have been mute.
Yeah, from what I can tell, it's just some serious weirdness. I can't figure out what it actually does.
What it does is force video down to 480.
Modern phones can display HD or better, so the streams were asking for that. This is using a ton of data on cellular.... moving back to 480 seriously reduces use.
And I’m not say this is right.
I know even an iPhone 7+ on whatever At&t stream saver I can not really see a difference. I stream constantly while driving down the highway and eating my lunch.
-
Germany has stated that the EU is committed to net neutrality even without the US and they will continue to protect their citizens. But they are fearful about how blocking in the US will impact them nevertheless.
-
Probably the best thing that Ajit Pai has done here is force the world to recognize America as a technological backwater and push them to invest in more fiber cables to bypass, rather than connect to, the US. It would be nice to see, for example, larger backhaul investment increase between Europe and LATAM, LATAM and Pac Rim Asia, etc. Instead of getting their Internet from the US, for example, it would be nice if Mexico and Central America were backhauling through the Sao Paulo link.
-
-
@mlnews said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Really isnt a partisan issue, have no idea who is behind the internet uprising that turned this political Basically we are returning to Democract/Clinton era "light touch" governance.
Whether a Republican or Democrat Congressman has any particular thought on it would not impress me. Some republicans solicit their own aides to bare the children for many.
Really not interested in the politics of this. And the fact the either political side seems to be reversed on this is odd.
I agree with @scottalanmiller and the premise of Net Neutrality. As I have posted here the repealed Open Internet law is not the Net Neutrality. I have seen at least on the Verge where the have made a good post showing each side.
https://mangolassi.it/post/364141 Check out my post here with a link to the law that was repealed and excerpts that explicitly take away the teeth of the bill.
-
Title says it will preserve the open internet. Does literally the opposite of that...
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Title says it will preserve the open internet. Does literally the opposite of that...
Because of issues like this I might just leave America.
I know it's drastic to say it, but this is just completely unbelievable. And we have at least 3 more years of this insanity from all arms of the government.
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Title says it will preserve the open internet. Does literally the opposite of that...
Because of issues like this I might just leave America.
I know it's drastic to say it, but this is just completely unbelievable. And we have at least 3 more years of this insanity from all arms of the government.
I was reading today how the repeal of NN was supported by small businesses because it will help them compete... like Netflix
Small business? Bigger now than all Cable TV providers combined.
-
FYI I'm neither Demo nor Republican, I simply am finding it unbearable to see this much insanity take place all at the same time.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Title says it will preserve the open internet. Does literally the opposite of that...
Because of issues like this I might just leave America.
I know it's drastic to say it, but this is just completely unbelievable. And we have at least 3 more years of this insanity from all arms of the government.
I was reading today how the repeal of NN was supported by small businesses because it will help them compete... like Netflix
Small business? Bigger now than all Cable TV providers combined.
Netflix didn't support the Net Neutrality repeal. They've been one of the many providers who have spoken in favor of Net Neutrality in the past.
https://twitter.com/netflix/status/933042368156123136
https://twitter.com/netflix/status/933073846839554048
It's the Cable TV providers and ISPs who have been publicly against Net Neutrality.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Title says it will preserve the open internet. Does literally the opposite of that...
Because of issues like this I might just leave America.
I know it's drastic to say it, but this is just completely unbelievable. And we have at least 3 more years of this insanity from all arms of the government.
I was reading today how the repeal of NN was supported by small businesses because it will help them compete... like Netflix
Small business? Bigger now than all Cable TV providers combined.
Netflix didn't support the Net Neutrality repeal. They've been one of the many providers who have spoken in favor of Net Neutrality in the past.
https://twitter.com/netflix/status/933042368156123136
https://twitter.com/netflix/status/933073846839554048
It's the Cable TV providers and ISPs who have been publicly against Net Neutrality.
Exactly, the repeal allows the cable providers to hurt companies like Netflix.
After talking to BigBear, I now understand why small ISPs wanted to be rid of Net Neutrality - let's see if I get this right.
Small ISPs started when internet usage was low, peering costs were also low, so the small ISP could charge a moderate rate - basically over charging the lowests users and undercharging the highest users through the use of flat rate billing. As the use of things like Netflix happened, the cost of peering points increased as traffic increased, but the ISPs weren't raising their costs to the end user.
This seems easily solvable - bill by usage. If you need a min amount of money, bill for a minimum amount of data used, say 1 TB, then charge for overages (many ISPs do that today, long before the NN rules were repealed).
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
This seems easily solvable - bill by usage. If you need a min amount of money, bill for a minimum amount of data used, say 1 TB, then charge for overages (many ISPs do that today, long before the NN rules were repealed).
I would be fine with charging for usage. That treat any packet differently then the other and would be fine under the Net Neutrality rules that were in place. I would like to see it handled like a utility though (or just allow municipalities to handle the last mile).
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
This seems easily solvable - bill by usage. If you need a min amount of money, bill for a minimum amount of data used, say 1 TB, then charge for overages (many ISPs do that today, long before the NN rules were repealed).
I would be fine with charging for usage. That treat any packet differently then the other and would be fine under the Net Neutrality rules that were in place. I would like to see it handled like a utility though (or just allow municipalities to handle the last mile).
Charging based on usage would treat it just like your electric or water bill.
You used 2000 gallons of water this past quarter, that'll be $52 dollars.
The issue that I see people having with it is that they also will have to pay for a minimum amount of usable data from the ISP at whatever the cost is. Say $30 dollars per month gets you 1TB of data at 12/6.
And then you have "usage charges" on top of that which likely are going to be way more than the $30 per month as all usage charges are designed to be punitive to user. Sometimes charging as much as much as $25 for 100MB of data (which just continually adds on to the bill).
-
Just think of your cell service provider and their Internet usage charging setup. I know Verizon does this and it's robbery in every way.
100MB of overage data cost $25 (while roaming, not sure what the domestic rate it but it's up there). That's a handful of emails with attachments.
Which doesn't give you a lot of room to operate your life like you need.
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
This seems easily solvable - bill by usage. If you need a min amount of money, bill for a minimum amount of data used, say 1 TB, then charge for overages (many ISPs do that today, long before the NN rules were repealed).
I would be fine with charging for usage. That treat any packet differently then the other and would be fine under the Net Neutrality rules that were in place. I would like to see it handled like a utility though (or just allow municipalities to handle the last mile).
Charging based on usage would treat it just like your electric or water bill.
You used 2000 gallons of water this past quarter, that'll be $52 dollars.
The issue that I see people having with it is that they also will have to pay for a minimum amount of usable data from the ISP at whatever the cost is. Say $30 dollars per month gets you 1TB of data at 12/6.
And then you have "usage charges" on top of that which likely are going to be way more than the $30 per month as all usage charges are designed to be punitive to user. Sometimes charging as much as much as $25 for 100MB of data (which just continually adds on to the bill).
Except if you treat them like a utility they won't be able to charge that amounts of money for a small amount of data. Or unbundle the last mile and have municipalities manage it. Then allow an open market for ISPs to compete.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
This seems easily solvable - bill by usage. If you need a min amount of money, bill for a minimum amount of data used, say 1 TB, then charge for overages (many ISPs do that today, long before the NN rules were repealed).
I would be fine with charging for usage. That treat any packet differently then the other and would be fine under the Net Neutrality rules that were in place. I would like to see it handled like a utility though (or just allow municipalities to handle the last mile).
Charging based on usage would treat it just like your electric or water bill.
You used 2000 gallons of water this past quarter, that'll be $52 dollars.
The issue that I see people having with it is that they also will have to pay for a minimum amount of usable data from the ISP at whatever the cost is. Say $30 dollars per month gets you 1TB of data at 12/6.
And then you have "usage charges" on top of that which likely are going to be way more than the $30 per month as all usage charges are designed to be punitive to user. Sometimes charging as much as much as $25 for 100MB of data (which just continually adds on to the bill).
Except if you treat them like a utility they won't be able to charge that amounts of money for a small amount of data. Or unbundle the last mile and have municipalities manage it. Then allow an open market for ISPs to compete.
But we know that this will never happen. The large ISPs have way to much money and far to many lawyers to allow unbundling or let municipalities manage it.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
This seems easily solvable - bill by usage. If you need a min amount of money, bill for a minimum amount of data used, say 1 TB, then charge for overages (many ISPs do that today, long before the NN rules were repealed).
I would be fine with charging for usage. That treat any packet differently then the other and would be fine under the Net Neutrality rules that were in place. I would like to see it handled like a utility though (or just allow municipalities to handle the last mile).
Charging based on usage would treat it just like your electric or water bill.
You used 2000 gallons of water this past quarter, that'll be $52 dollars.
The issue that I see people having with it is that they also will have to pay for a minimum amount of usable data from the ISP at whatever the cost is. Say $30 dollars per month gets you 1TB of data at 12/6.
And then you have "usage charges" on top of that which likely are going to be way more than the $30 per month as all usage charges are designed to be punitive to user. Sometimes charging as much as much as $25 for 100MB of data (which just continually adds on to the bill).
Except if you treat them like a utility they won't be able to charge that amounts of money for a small amount of data. Or unbundle the last mile and have municipalities manage it. Then allow an open market for ISPs to compete.
Also price will be different based on time of day, which many don’t realize is true of their electric.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
This seems easily solvable - bill by usage. If you need a min amount of money, bill for a minimum amount of data used, say 1 TB, then charge for overages (many ISPs do that today, long before the NN rules were repealed).
I would be fine with charging for usage. That treat any packet differently then the other and would be fine under the Net Neutrality rules that were in place. I would like to see it handled like a utility though (or just allow municipalities to handle the last mile).
Charging based on usage would treat it just like your electric or water bill.
You used 2000 gallons of water this past quarter, that'll be $52 dollars.
The issue that I see people having with it is that they also will have to pay for a minimum amount of usable data from the ISP at whatever the cost is. Say $30 dollars per month gets you 1TB of data at 12/6.
And then you have "usage charges" on top of that which likely are going to be way more than the $30 per month as all usage charges are designed to be punitive to user. Sometimes charging as much as much as $25 for 100MB of data (which just continually adds on to the bill).
Except if you treat them like a utility they won't be able to charge that amounts of money for a small amount of data. Or unbundle the last mile and have municipalities manage it. Then allow an open market for ISPs to compete.
You don't actually want competition on a utility. It doesn't matter how you treat them, your Internet access IS a utility. Best to treat it like it really is.
