FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
And all they have to do is update their ToS saying that they will throttle any competitive services on their network that they do not own and operate.
Unless an additional fee is paid to have that 1GBe service (which you're already paying for).
I realize this is the FUD that is driving this. From the ISP side this never happened before and while I believe some kind of specific law was eventually going to come about we didn't need to turn the internet into a government controlled utility to accomplish it.
As I said in my last post, I would rather not have either political directly managing my internet. And that is truly what the law accomplished. The internet is not water or minutes, its all kinds of different data and media from different political viewpoints.
Throttling and eliminating competitive services on individual ISP networks as absolutely happened.
Here is an article from 2011 were Verizon literally blocked people from using Google Pay, and forced them to only use their own solution.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/technology/verizon_blocks_google_wallet/index.htm
This is a great example, but do you see that was 2011. Verizon did not block this all the way until NN took affect. The market fixed it.
At the cost of billions of dollars. Imagine this was your VOIP service that you offer. Verizon just decides to block all connections from devices on their network to your servers so people have to use V-Chat instead.
You'd be out of business before market correction could ever occur because YOU AREN'T BIG ENOUGH TO SURVIVE THAT KIND OF ABUSE.
Right, and Time Warner actually did this. And if they did it again Title ii and NN gave me no more power than I had then because I can not afford to sue them, and I dont have a hotline to call to get immediate action. So NN offers me nothing as well.
Since we were also an ISP in Kentucky where this was happening with Time Warner, Time Warner lost the customers voice and then also lost their data business because we provided them with an internet connection to resolve the overall issue.
NN and Title II made it impossible for the ISPs to do this entirely. Now nothing at all stops them from putting you out of business.
I agree, but creating a utility out of something that is not a utility never sat well with me. There was better legislation put forth and I will look up and post it, from 2012 on. I feel like a better starting place would be to make throttling illegal, not allowing the FCC to take over the internet.
@bigbear you must be forgetting that the FCC attempted to setup NN without the use of Title II, and was crushed in a court of law by Verizon. The judge recommended that the FCC try and classify ISP's as utilities and thus Title II was required to setup NN.
Therefor your argument here of having the ability to protect service providers like yourself up to Netflix and Google is impossible in the court of law without Title II.
I definitely don't forget.
As I posted in the beginning I am always open to having my mind change. But as a small ISP this is something we watched very closely back to 2005.
My first hand experience as a small ISP was that we suddenly had the added expense of new lawyers and filings to prove we were keeping up with NN. The cost bump was over $10k/month. Thats the cost of a couple new employees to a company that didnt even have 20 employees. So I was definitely more interested in the other ways throttling could be solved.
And data doesn't run like water back to providers. The idea of us paying for a "Fast lane" to Netflix was actually appealing to us. Netflix is an unbelievable amount of our total traffic.
So it just isnt as simple as "if you want NN then you need to support this iteration of NN".
-
If anyone is concerned with seeing more ISP competition and supporting the small ISP, this is a good read...
https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/13/15949920/net-neutrality-killing-small-isps
It explains both sides of the argument pretty well from the small ISP perspective.
@NerdyDad for example might be interested in their cost estimates to startup ISPs. When this hit we were a lot bigger than a startup WISP. They estimate $40k/year in legal/filing costs to be compliant with NN. At $120/year we were just getting ramped up.
-
Ahh so @bigbear that is where the rub is. You as a business owner saw a bump in cost to be in business. Thus thought it was unfair.
The issue here though is you may never be able to get into business now because an ISP can force you to pay them 10 times as much as what you had to pay lawyers back then to just get access to cross their networks.
And there is literally nothing you can do to stop it.
All the big ISPs have to do is make a statement saying they are doing this, and you're done for.
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Ahh so @bigbear that is where the rub is. You as a business owner saw a bump in cost to be in business. Thus thought it was unfair.
The issue here though is you may never be able to get into business now because an ISP can force you to pay them 10 times as much as what you had to pay lawyers back then to just get access to cross their networks.
And there is literally nothing you can do to stop it.
All the big ISPs have to do is make a statement saying they are doing this, and you're done for.
LOL no, as I stated in my original post getting competitively priced Tier 1 access has never been an issue and never will be. I dont know where everyone gets that idea from. The Tier 1 providers we buy internet routes from do not sell direct internet to consumers. We don't buy from Comcast, etc. And as an autonomous network with its own IP range we have BGP and multiple routes to the internet. Throttling would not be effective upstream from us. BGP would switch lanes in about 5ms.
-
@bigbear that is just one example of what could happen. Tier 1 ISP's may have to pay more to cross into a competitors network to service their very own customers. Which then gets passed on to you.
How this is difficult to grasps I don't understand. The only businesses that benefit from this are the Tier 1's of the US.
Everyone else, including you, is screwed.
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear that is just one example of what could happen. Tier 1 ISP's may have to pay more to cross into a competitors network to service their very own customers. Which then gets passed on to you.
How this is difficult to grasps I don't understand. The only businesses that benefit from this are the Tier 1's of the US.
Everyone else, including you, is screwed.
This really isnt how an ISP works at all. Data centers and cloud services, streaming services, websites, they exist on routes outside of consumer networks. Competitors have no direct influence over your metering or routes.
I can access services through about 7 different routes with BGP on my last network. Even if comcast wanted to, for example, they could not nothing to impact my subscribers. I think there is a disconnect here, probably because most people have never seen the operational side of an ISP network.
-
@bigbear you're hopeless.
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear you are thinking about this in a way that doesn't make sense. I explained it like this yesterday, which helps to explain the issue.
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.
You literally would have no options to have better water pressure (internet speed), you would have no recourse to get your performance back, and you would only have one option to get what you need (and you may not even get what you actually need). Which would be paying more for your internet or services.
I think we are getting to the heart of it, because you STILL have no options here. You, the end user, are not protected. The FCC is not setup to handle this.Comcast has throttled Netflix before, during, and will continue to after. There is nothing the consumer can do. The content provider would have to take action. Netflix was already fighting Comcast before NN.
There is no Netflix 2 out there or poor small service that ISP's are worried about throttling. And watch Netflix over the years, as the grow into a monopoly. Amazon used to bitch and moan about paying sales tax, fought it tooth and nail early on. Now that it achieved monopoly status they are all for it. There just used it to compete aginst brick and mortar stores.
The point here though is that now NetFlix has no recourse at all. Netflix can't go to the FCC or congress or anyone to have a legal recourse to being able to service their customers.
There is nowhere to turn too, to resolve any throttling or abusive behavior by the ISPs.
So let's take your business, you sell hardware and offer VOIP phone services, but you probably use comcast or level 3 or someone like that.
If your ISP starts their own VOIP service, they can literally throttle your bandwidth (even if you are paying for 1Gbe up and down) until you either go out of business, or pay an additional fee. Just because you are competition to a service they offer.
The problem here is corruption - if the FCC isn't dealing with complaints while NN is in place, then they are being corrupt. NN gave them the authority to do so via title II. Just because they didn't slap comcast when they were throttling Netflix, doesn't mean they weren't supposed to.
-
@bigbear I have the link that talks about how small ISPs are getting screwed by NN, I look forward to reading it.
also, if you have the actual NN laws/rules some place I would like to read those as well. Otherwise google to the rescue.
-
@bigbear the complaints from everyone in that article is about having to report performance metrics and responding to customer complaints.
The performance reporting requirement was removed for ISPs with less than 250,000 customers (even though temporarily).
The responding to customers complaints is a part of the job. So I don't see how this is at all something to be pissy about.
The example provided in the article about a wireless provider who was servicing a customer, had trees grow in the path to the customer and he literally couldn't provide service.
Drop the customer at that point.
Problem solved. . .
-
Here is the summation of the article.
The FCC estimates that it should only take internet providers 15 minutes to respond to a complaint that gets passed along to them. And not all complaints actually make it through — some just end up with a pat response from the FCC.
Gigi Sohn, who was an advisor to former FCC chairman Tom Wheeler when the net neutrality rules were drafted and passed, said in an email that it seems to her that some wireless internet providers are “spinning themselves up and dreaming up worst case scenarios that will never come to pass.”
“It isn’t going to happen, and if it did, the FCC would dismiss the complaint out of hand,” she writes. “The FCC doesn’t act on every complaint — just those that make a prima facie case that the rules have been broken. So it really isn’t a reasonable concern.”
IE: It's not worth it for little ISP's to be concerned about the FCC coming in and beating them up.
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear the complaints from everyone in that article is about having to report performance metrics and responding to customer complaints.
The performance reporting requirement was removed for ISPs with less than 250,000 customers (even though temporarily).
The responding to customers complaints is a part of the job. So I don't see how this is at all something to be pissy about.
The example provided in the article about a wireless provider who was servicing a customer, had trees grow in the path to the customer and he literally couldn't provide service.
Drop the customer at that point.
Problem solved. . .
To be compliant we hired a law firm that popped up to specialize in this for our size group. We were in Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky, and we were already a CLEC for many years before. These new $600/hour lawyers and their filings racked up well over $120k in my final year there.
I used the Verge article in an effort to provide some unbiased reporting on what I am talking about. It makes an argument from both sides that I think is fair.
We never had a SINGLE complaint. The complaint system could easily be in place without all the reporting (data that is going where, who knows).
I would prefer a more light touch approach that reacts to abuses, not a slow moving utility bureaucracy that costs a fortune to maintain and gives the president the power to take down websites. The fact that no one is up in arms about the latter is kind of ironic.
So again, always have liked to idea of Net Neutrality. Feel like its being over simplified when its a very complex issue.
I watch this 30 min video and pretty much agree with every word Pai says.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I would prefer a more light touch approach that reacts to abuses, not a slow moving utility bureaucracy that costs a fortune to maintain and gives the president the power to take down websites. The fact that no one is up in arms about the latter is kind of ironic.
How does the president have the ability to take a website down through NN? A website, not an ISP.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I would prefer a more light touch approach that reacts to abuses, not a slow moving utility bureaucracy that costs a fortune to maintain and gives the president the power to take down websites. The fact that no one is up in arms about the latter is kind of ironic.
How does the president have the ability to take a website down through NN? A website, not an ISP.
Pg 1446. The President uses the "whole-of-government" to suppress information. Thanks to Net Neutrality's Title II, they can order all ISPs to take down hostile information and any websites that distribute it. If the ISP refuses, their Title II Broadcasting License is legally revoked, they can no longer do business, they go bankrupt, and the government buys out their infrastructure. The government can integrate into the ISPs to censor anything, anywhere, at anytime. The ISPs are forced to obey.
Also checkout this read...https://techliberation.com/2017/07/12/heres-why-the-obama-fcc-internet-regulations-dont-protect-net-neutrality/
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I would prefer a more light touch approach that reacts to abuses, not a slow moving utility bureaucracy that costs a fortune to maintain and gives the president the power to take down websites. The fact that no one is up in arms about the latter is kind of ironic.
How does the president have the ability to take a website down through NN? A website, not an ISP.
Pg 1446. The President uses the "whole-of-government" to suppress information. Thanks to Net Neutrality's Title II, they can order all ISPs to take down hostile information and any websites that distribute it. If the ISP refuses, their Title II Broadcasting License is legally revoked, they can no longer do business, they go bankrupt, and the government buys out their infrastructure. The government can integrate into the ISPs to censor anything, anywhere, at anytime. The ISPs are forced to obey.
Also checkout this read...https://techliberation.com/2017/07/12/heres-why-the-obama-fcc-internet-regulations-dont-protect-net-neutrality/
That's not a NN thing - that's a Title II thing, and possible a broken thing at that. But clearly we don't see that happening much if at all - becuase look at all the anti-trump stuff out there, and it's still online.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I would prefer a more light touch approach that reacts to abuses, not a slow moving utility bureaucracy that costs a fortune to maintain and gives the president the power to take down websites. The fact that no one is up in arms about the latter is kind of ironic.
How does the president have the ability to take a website down through NN? A website, not an ISP.
Pg 1446. The President uses the "whole-of-government" to suppress information. Thanks to Net Neutrality's Title II, they can order all ISPs to take down hostile information and any websites that distribute it. If the ISP refuses, their Title II Broadcasting License is legally revoked, they can no longer do business, they go bankrupt, and the government buys out their infrastructure. The government can integrate into the ISPs to censor anything, anywhere, at anytime. The ISPs are forced to obey.
Also checkout this read...https://techliberation.com/2017/07/12/heres-why-the-obama-fcc-internet-regulations-dont-protect-net-neutrality/
That's not a NN thing - that's a Title II thing, and possible a broken thing at that. But clearly we don't see that happening much if at all - becuase look at all the anti-trump stuff out there, and it's still online.
I hate that this law is called Net Neutrality, those who oppose its current form are made to look like they oppose NN.
So here you do not mind the president having unfettered power to shut down websites. The NN law made this possible by declaring the Internet a Title ii utility. You are relying on public outcry?
Well ironically I agree. And the proposed benefits of Net Neutrality are not real and current issues, and are ones that would be prevented by the same public outcry.
There is no service to the internets end users to call up the PUC and say "hey my p2p is getting blocked". Its current form was just a big power grab. https://techliberation.com/2017/07/12/heres-why-the-obama-fcc-internet-regulations-dont-protect-net-neutrality/
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I hate that this law is called Net Neutrality, those who oppose its current form are made to look like they oppose NN.
This is no different than the Patriot Act - one of the most unpatriotic things ever passed.
-
-
These comments explain it all to well.
-
I can't follow this many posts.
Could you break it down into four easy categories?
- Pros / Cons of having NN.
- Pros / Cons of no NN.
I like many others just hear about the big stuff (aka the outcries of media/public) and don't know much what it's all REALLY about.
I know it may be a lot to ask of you, but I think it would really help me an many others.
