FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues
-
This is what piques my curiosity about the whole issue. From my perspective as a consumer my access has been unchanged / unaffected for the last 10 years, let alone the last two. I understand the concept of Title II classification and the theoretical effects of today decision, but I'm curious what the "real" effects were when the regulation happened and what the "real" effects will be with the regulation being lifted.
-
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
This is what piques my curiosity about the whole issue. From my perspective as a consumer my access has been unchanged / unaffected for the last 10 years, let alone the last two. I understand the concept of Title II classification and the theoretical effects of today decision, but I'm curious what the "real" effects were when the regulation happened and what the "real" effects will be with the regulation being lifted.
Simply put, imagine wanting to go to Youtube, but ComCast has a service called NaziStream. In order for you to access YouTube's server, you have to go through ComCasts' network.
What ComCast can do is either charge YouTube or your ISP an additional fee to not throttle your internet service to YouTube.
Or they could just throttle your internet service (at the end of your ISPs network and throughout their network) and make recommendations to NaziStream (their competing service to YouTube) to you. Which then hurts YouTube and you and everyone else involved, because NaziStream and ComCast.
Thus passing a cost on to you, if YouTube or your ISP opts to pay the fee (which of course would be passed on to the consumer.)
-
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
This is what piques my curiosity about the whole issue. From my perspective as a consumer my access has been unchanged / unaffected for the last 10 years, let alone the last two.
How can you tell? As a consumer, the ISP controls your view of the world. If they want to make one site a little slower so that you stop using it, you don't perceive that as not getting access, it's just a normal part of selecting what site to go to. Or Google shifts it in the listings.
This is actually about freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It's one of the biggest deals that there can be. At this point, while they have to be subtle, the ISPs control the access to all communications and information of any importance.
-
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
This is what piques my curiosity about the whole issue. From my perspective as a consumer my access has been unchanged / unaffected for the last 10 years, let alone the last two. I understand the concept of Title II classification and the theoretical effects of today decision, but I'm curious what the "real" effects were when the regulation happened and what the "real" effects will be with the regulation being lifted.
Your statement that you are unaffected is untrue.
You may not have noticed, but you were. Comcast throttling netflix is the most obvious example.Here is a couple of questions that solves the issue for all
Is your electric company and water utility allowed to tell you what sorts of electronic devices or cups you can use? Do they restrict you to only using Sony or Denon a/v receivers?
Does your water company only give you water if you have a kohler faucet?The answer is obviously no. Why should your isp be able to do things like this? Even ifyou are right and they havent(but they have), they will now.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Yes, i agree , and further think this is a part of the War on Knowledge that the federal government has been waging against people for a few decades now. It is the reason they want weak encryption, the reason they allow these huge media consolidation deals that are obviously anti consumer.
-
We'll all know when the throttling begins because ML will start to run slower and slower and SW will run faster and faster. . .
-
Hell any ISP could now make a blanket statement, we're going to throttle every website we don't own and operate by X percentage.
If those websites want full unfettered performance they can pay use $x per month.
Imagine how websites and services will die off.
-
FreePress.net is going to sue the FCC and work to get congress to reinstate Net Neutrality rules.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
This is what piques my curiosity about the whole issue. From my perspective as a consumer my access has been unchanged / unaffected for the last 10 years, let alone the last two.
How can you tell? As a consumer, the ISP controls your view of the world. If they want to make one site a little slower so that you stop using it, you don't perceive that as not getting access, it's just a normal part of selecting what site to go to. Or Google shifts it in the listings.
This is actually about freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It's one of the biggest deals that there can be. At this point, while they have to be subtle, the ISPs control the access to all communications and information of any importance.
How can I tell? I can't with any degree of certainty. All I have is my perception of the services I consume.
The freedom of speech and freedom of the press issue is curious, and I'll have to think on it a bit. Regulations can easily create a path to erode a freedom. I supposed I'd have to weigh which represents a greater threat. Governmental control via Title II or ISP control outside of Title II.
-
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
How can I tell? I can't with any degree of certainty. All I have is my perception of the services I consume.
The freedom of speech and freedom of the press issue is curious, and I'll have to think on it a bit. Regulations can easily create a path to erode a freedom. I supposed I'd have to weigh which represents a greater threat. Governmental control via Title II or ISP control outside of Title II.
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.
-
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
This is what piques my curiosity about the whole issue. From my perspective as a consumer my access has been unchanged / unaffected for the last 10 years, let alone the last two.
How can you tell? As a consumer, the ISP controls your view of the world. If they want to make one site a little slower so that you stop using it, you don't perceive that as not getting access, it's just a normal part of selecting what site to go to. Or Google shifts it in the listings.
This is actually about freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It's one of the biggest deals that there can be. At this point, while they have to be subtle, the ISPs control the access to all communications and information of any importance.
How can I tell? I can't with any degree of certainty. All I have is my perception of the services I consume.
But those are defined by what Google lists, what sites become popular, and so forth.
-
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
This is what piques my curiosity about the whole issue. From my perspective as a consumer my access has been unchanged / unaffected for the last 10 years, let alone the last two. I understand the concept of Title II classification and the theoretical effects of today decision, but I'm curious what the "real" effects were when the regulation happened and what the "real" effects will be with the regulation being lifted.
This has been posted here previously but it bears re-posting.
https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history
-
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
The freedom of speech and freedom of the press issue is curious, and I'll have to think on it a bit. Regulations can easily create a path to erode a freedom. I supposed I'd have to weigh which represents a greater threat. Governmental control via Title II or ISP control outside of Title II.
No erosion here, it's just gone. The ISPs now have the ability to prioritize news and information as they see fit. They can block it to some degree, but more importantly they control what gets seen and what gets buried and can orchestrate the flow of information as they see fit.
You already, right now, can no longer trust what you see on the Internet to not have been manipulated by the ISPs. It'll take time to really be effective, but it starts skewing now. Anything that they want you to see as being important, they can make seem important. Anything that they want to make go away, they will just make go away. You won't perceive a thing yourself. It affects everyone universally.
It's the frog in the boiling water effect.
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
How can I tell? I can't with any degree of certainty. All I have is my perception of the services I consume.
The freedom of speech and freedom of the press issue is curious, and I'll have to think on it a bit. Regulations can easily create a path to erode a freedom. I supposed I'd have to weigh which represents a greater threat. Governmental control via Title II or ISP control outside of Title II.
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.
I see, so the leap of faith must be made that such throttling or water or Internet access wouldn't be made by [insert regulator here].
On my original question, when the Title II rules went into effect, was there a documented reduction in access price or increase in the ability to gain access? Said question isn't being flippant, I'm truly curious.
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Hell any ISP could now make a blanket statement, we're going to throttle every website we don't own and operate by X percentage.
If those websites want full unfettered performance they can pay use $x per month.
Imagine how websites and services will die off.
And with the way the US is divided up between ISPs there is literally nothing a consumer can do about it.
-
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
How can I tell? I can't with any degree of certainty. All I have is my perception of the services I consume.
The freedom of speech and freedom of the press issue is curious, and I'll have to think on it a bit. Regulations can easily create a path to erode a freedom. I supposed I'd have to weigh which represents a greater threat. Governmental control via Title II or ISP control outside of Title II.
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.
I see, so the leap of faith must be made that such throttling or water or Internet access wouldn't be made by [insert regulator here].
On my original question, when the Title II rules went into effect, was there a documented reduction in access price or increase in the ability to gain access? Said question isn't being flippant, I'm truly curious.
The title II classification and net neutrality rules actually improved service. @coliver posted a link of violations of NN (before or after the rules were created) were service providers (Verizon for example) completely blocked access to competing applications on their network. Like Apple Pay.
-
Imagine not being able to use any service that comes on your device (Apple iPhone or your home internet), you wouldn't even have a choice to buy into it.
It's use what the ISP (service provider) offers you or pound sand. You'd literally have no choice at all.
-
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
How can I tell? I can't with any degree of certainty. All I have is my perception of the services I consume.
The freedom of speech and freedom of the press issue is curious, and I'll have to think on it a bit. Regulations can easily create a path to erode a freedom. I supposed I'd have to weigh which represents a greater threat. Governmental control via Title II or ISP control outside of Title II.
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.
I see, so the leap of faith must be made that such throttling or water or Internet access wouldn't be made by [insert regulator here].
On my original question, when the Title II rules went into effect, was there a documented reduction in access price or increase in the ability to gain access? Said question isn't being flippant, I'm truly curious.
That's not what Net Neutrality is about. It's not about quantity or quality of access. It's not about government control, it's specifically and uniquely about how a packet is treated on a network, or how all packets should be treated the same.
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
How can I tell? I can't with any degree of certainty. All I have is my perception of the services I consume.
The freedom of speech and freedom of the press issue is curious, and I'll have to think on it a bit. Regulations can easily create a path to erode a freedom. I supposed I'd have to weigh which represents a greater threat. Governmental control via Title II or ISP control outside of Title II.
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.
Oddly, I'm not sure this is the best example. The California power authority is notorious for rolling blackouts. Nevada and New Mexico's water suppliers also do water rationing in the summer months. Unless I'm not understanding the argument.
-
Now we're completely at the mercy of the ISPs. Not only can they control the flow how they see fit to make the most money, but they can also sell everything about our usage to 3rd parties.
If some company wants to know who's going to Monster.com, they can buy that info.
