FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues
-
@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.
-
@coliver 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.
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.
But not to manipulate people for profits.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver 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.
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.
But not to manipulate people for profits.
Oh I see. Yes you're right. People can't really pay to have their power left on during those rolling blackouts. Or they can't pay (outside of fines) to use their water during the rationing events.
-
I don't think the ruling will stand up, but it will be a very long battle in court.
There are just to many "how the hell did you disregard this information" events that are major sticking points that any rational and sane judge would see are totally valid and good reasons for net neutrality to be needed.
-
@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.
A rub here is - many people think - this is a company - so competition can solve this. And under good situations, that's totally true, but we are far from under good conditions.
In my tiny part of the world (Omaha, NE) we have two options - Cox (which offers cable up to 300/30 and fiber up to 1 Gb - depending on where you live) and Century Link (DSL max speed somewhere around 60 Mb or fiber up to 1 Gb [super limited]).
My office in pretty much in the heart of the city, and Centurylink is only able to provide
https://i.imgur.com/wbA0qfZ.pngSo I ask you - is this real competition? I don't think so! What's worse, many cities have sold access to it's citizens via an exclusive contract preventing other companies from coming in and laying down now copper/fiber, and I'm pretty sure that cable isn't required to resell access like phone companies are.
So I see the last mile as the main issue here. If the last mile of cable TV/internet/home phone was provided by the municipality, then the providers of those services could tap into the city... much like USP taps into the city's streets to deliver packages to you.
-
-
@dashrender Local-loop un-bundling is the solution in the US.
-
@eddiejennings said
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].You seem to fundamentally misunderstand Title II and what it meant You seem to think a person would go around knocking off isps. government wouldnt be allowed to throttle connections, isps wouldnt be allowed to throttle connections.
There would be no Harrison Bergeron of the Internet. There would simply be no throttling of traffic allowed. -
@Dashrender kind hits the nail on the head, but this is also way outside of the last mile.
This might be 2000 miles away where the throttling occurs. So you may still have your 10MBps, until you hit that remote network to access your healthcare provider. Or Hulu or Netflix server or whatever it might be.
Then your service might drop to 2/.5 MBps or whatever speed is designated as "competitive".
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
rational and sane judge
Hahaha.
Well come on. . .
Courts are about legality and rationality. . .
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
rational and sane judge
Hahaha.
Well come on. . .
Courts are about legality and rationality. . .
Man... you're killing me here. Too good.
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@Dashrender kind hits the nail on the head, but this is also way outside of the last mile.
This might be 2000 miles away where the throttling occurs. So you may still have your 10MBps, until you hit that remote network to access your healthcare provider. Or Hulu or Netflix server or whatever it might be.
Then your service might drop to 2/.5 MBps or whatever speed is designated as "competitive".
Sure, but you could have real competition.. so it becomes less advantageous to throttle, because people might leave you.
-
Now there is no incentive for ISPs to be competitive. They control both the wire and the content on the wire. They have an entirely "new" means of monetization that resembles cable packages (that the internet has all but killed).
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@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.
I'm not sure I agree or understand this. Sure, the ISPs can block content - that's a given. They can also slow content. But, as long as they aren't stopping the content, you can be pretty assured of content you are receiving from TLS basd pages - just one more reason to have all pages use TLS. The ISPs can't inject their own crap or selectively block things inside a TLS stream.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@Dashrender kind hits the nail on the head, but this is also way outside of the last mile.
This might be 2000 miles away where the throttling occurs. So you may still have your 10MBps, until you hit that remote network to access your healthcare provider. Or Hulu or Netflix server or whatever it might be.
Then your service might drop to 2/.5 MBps or whatever speed is designated as "competitive".
Sure, but you could have real competition.. so it becomes less advantageous to throttle, because people might leave you.
You can only have real competition if there weren't existing contracts and non-compete clauses in every municipality.
If "Joe's Internet" wanted to run fiber either on the poll or underground and was able to get the permits etc, why should Spectrum (Time Warner) or ComCast or any other ISP be able to stop them?
How is that at all competitive?
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Now there is no incentive for ISPs to be competitive. They control both the wire and the content on the wire. They have an entirely "new" means of monetization that resembles cable packages (that the internet has all but killed).
Well - until now - now we could easily see netflix die or at minimum become as expensive as cable.
