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).
-
@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.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@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.
The point is you might never get to see Donald Trump tweet at all if you are in a "republican area of the country"
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
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.
We may have to agree to disagree about government control. Any regulation of any kind is some form of control--not a positive or negative thing, it simply "is."
I understand that it's about how a packet is treated as it travels over various networks. My point of view is that there is the potential for manipulation (to use Scott's word from an earlier comment) is going to be there, either from ISPs or from [insert regulator here]. Also, I'm not arguing that the Title II classification needs to go away. I'm just not convinced the world is about to end as most of my news sources are leading me to believe.
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@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.
The point is you might never get to see Donald Trump tweet at all if you are in a "republican area of the country"
Sure, but that's an all or nothing situation... much more difficult to hide that.
-
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
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.
We may have to agree to disagree about government control. Any regulation of any kind is some form of control--not a positive or negative thing, it simply "is."
I understand that it's about how a packet is treated as it travels over various networks. My point of view is that there is the potential for manipulation (to use Scott's word from an earlier comment) is going to be there, either from ISPs or from [insert regulator here]. Also, I'm not arguing that the Title II classification needs to go away. I'm just not convinced the world is about to end as most of my news sources are leading me to believe.
say what? you think Title II needs to go away? why do you think that?
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Also, I'm not arguing that the Title II classification needs to go away.say what? you think Title II needs to go away? why do you think that?
When did I say Title II needs to go away?
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
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.
We may have to agree to disagree about government control. Any regulation of any kind is some form of control--not a positive or negative thing, it simply "is."
I understand that it's about how a packet is treated as it travels over various networks. My point of view is that there is the potential for manipulation (to use Scott's word from an earlier comment) is going to be there, either from ISPs or from [insert regulator here]. Also, I'm not arguing that the Title II classification needs to go away. I'm just not convinced the world is about to end as most of my news sources are leading me to believe.
say what? you think Title II needs to go away? why do you think that?
He's not arguing that. I had to read it twice as well.
-
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Any regulation of any kind is some form of control--not a positive or negative thing, it simply "is."
Net Neutrality isn't a regulation. Title II is. Net Neutrality isn't about control at all. It's an idea that packets will be treated equally.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
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.
We may have to agree to disagree about government control. Any regulation of any kind is some form of control--not a positive or negative thing, it simply "is."
I understand that it's about how a packet is treated as it travels over various networks. My point of view is that there is the potential for manipulation (to use Scott's word from an earlier comment) is going to be there, either from ISPs or from [insert regulator here]. Also, I'm not arguing that the Title II classification needs to go away. I'm just not convinced the world is about to end as most of my news sources are leading me to believe.
say what? you think Title II needs to go away? why do you think that?
He's not arguing that. I had to read it twice as well.
odd phrasing. I guess he's just 'not arguing'
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Any regulation of any kind is some form of control--not a positive or negative thing, it simply "is."
Net Neutrality isn't a regulation. Title II is. Net Neutrality isn't about control at all. It's an idea that packets will be treated equally.
I agree with that. But isn't the issue of today the vote that the FCC is making about a regulation?
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
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.
We may have to agree to disagree about government control. Any regulation of any kind is some form of control--not a positive or negative thing, it simply "is."
I understand that it's about how a packet is treated as it travels over various networks. My point of view is that there is the potential for manipulation (to use Scott's word from an earlier comment) is going to be there, either from ISPs or from [insert regulator here]. Also, I'm not arguing that the Title II classification needs to go away. I'm just not convinced the world is about to end as most of my news sources are leading me to believe.
say what? you think Title II needs to go away? why do you think that?
He's not arguing that. I had to read it twice as well.
odd phrasing. I guess he's just 'not arguing'
You're right, I'm not.
That's why I waited forever to put anything into this thread, because I knew it would be interpreted as an argument. [insert the samples that others will list that support the case for Eddie making an argument] -
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
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.
We may have to agree to disagree about government control. Any regulation of any kind is some form of control--not a positive or negative thing, it simply "is."
I understand that it's about how a packet is treated as it travels over various networks. My point of view is that there is the potential for manipulation (to use Scott's word from an earlier comment) is going to be there, either from ISPs or from [insert regulator here]. Also, I'm not arguing that the Title II classification needs to go away. I'm just not convinced the world is about to end as most of my news sources are leading me to believe.
say what? you think Title II needs to go away? why do you think that?
He's not arguing that. I had to read it twice as well.
odd phrasing. I guess he's just 'not arguing'
You're right, I'm not.
That's why I waited forever to put anything into this thread, because I knew it would be interpreted as an argument. [insert the samples that others will list that support the case for Eddie making an argument] -
God damn it. Clicked the wrong thing. /sigh
-
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Any regulation of any kind is some form of control--not a positive or negative thing, it simply "is."
Net Neutrality isn't a regulation. Title II is. Net Neutrality isn't about control at all. It's an idea that packets will be treated equally.
I agree with that. But isn't the issue of today the vote that the FCC is making about a regulation?
It's about the regulation of the providers of service. Who can now choose to do whatever they want with the service you are buying from them.
IE they can reduce your ability to get access to NetFlix (imagine having to wait for over 3 hours to load a movie). You'd just stop using netflix and maybe even start using a service that they offer that competes with Netflix.
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Any regulation of any kind is some form of control--not a positive or negative thing, it simply "is."
Net Neutrality isn't a regulation. Title II is. Net Neutrality isn't about control at all. It's an idea that packets will be treated equally.
I agree with that. But isn't the issue of today the vote that the FCC is making about a regulation?
It's about the regulation of the providers of service. Who can now choose to do whatever they want with the service you are buying from them.
IE they can reduce your ability to get access to NetFlix (imagine having to wait for over 3 hours to load a movie). You'd just stop using netflix and maybe even start using a service that they offer that competes with Netflix.
At twice the price
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Any regulation of any kind is some form of control--not a positive or negative thing, it simply "is."
Net Neutrality isn't a regulation. Title II is. Net Neutrality isn't about control at all. It's an idea that packets will be treated equally.
I agree with that. But isn't the issue of today the vote that the FCC is making about a regulation?
It's about the regulation of the providers of service. Who can now choose to do whatever they want with the service you are buying from them.
IE they can reduce your ability to get access to NetFlix (imagine having to wait for over 3 hours to load a movie). You'd just stop using netflix and maybe even start using a service that they offer that competes with Netflix.
The potential, obviously potential, threat this has on US innovation is astronomical.
-
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I'm just not convinced the world is about to end as most of my news sources are leading me to believe.
That's just it - it won't happen overnight. It will take months or even years.
Before NN went into affect, comcast throttled users that were downloading torrents - why? because they were torrents, that's all.
As I said - in a true free market situation, where anyone could provide internet access to anyone, this wouldn't be a problem, there would be enough of a desire to have unthrottled internet access that a new company could come and fill the need. But we simply don't have this option. As much because of exclusive contracts as for gov't subsidies.
