FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in [FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues]
from here it looks like small ISPs want it repealed so they can punish their users, instead of raising prices like they should to cover costs.
Now following: How are ISP's able to punish their users with the repeal? And why would they want to?
Additionally, it might be considered overstating that they want to punish their customers, but they definitely don't want to do what's right - which is raising prices to cover the higher costs - instead lower quality to try to keep things at a status quo.
@bigbear mentioned that small ISPs can't raise their prices because of competition - is that true? Do you often see small ISPs overlapping with large ISPs where large ISPs lower rates to kill off the small guy?
Typically a small ISP starts where there is only dial-up, no broadband service at all. The only exception I have seen was the build out of Lexington's WISP provider (Qx) where Lexington is shaped like a bowl and Brighthouse delivered terrible service.
Ultimately, if you roll out a broadband service you are doing so simply to sell it to Time Warner (Comcast, etc) later. Which we have also done.
My view of the "Netflix issue" is to apply network management (throttling) the same way we content cache active sites.
But Verizon is the only one I know that has throttled to be anti-competitive and to tax Netflix. There is no way they are at a disadvantage at the interconnect level. Its not affecting their costs. They just wanted to do it.
-
@travisdh1 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Do you often see small ISPs overlapping with large ISPs where large ISPs lower rates to kill off the small guy?
That's just one way they go about it. A friend of mine used to run a small ISP, and what happened to him as a buyout. His partner was relying on the money he was supposed to get from the buyout to retire. Well, it just happened that the company that bought out a lot of these smaller ISPs was run by a former Comcast CEO. The entire point of the company was to buyout as many small ISPs as they could before declaring bankruptcy. I doubt you even need to guess who lost their money and who got another cushy job at Comcast.
Have experience something similar with a "structured buyout", which we forced as a limited asset purchase and retained the brand. Around 2008/2009. Then after a couple quarterly payments everything went dark.
As I said, I have never met an "evil ISP". I started riding my bike down to a dial up ISP in the 90's when I was 12. Eventually got a minimum wage job there. Got my ISDN 128k when I was 15, which I spent almost all my wages from Chicfila on.. lol
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@travisdh1 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Do you often see small ISPs overlapping with large ISPs where large ISPs lower rates to kill off the small guy?
That's just one way they go about it. A friend of mine used to run a small ISP, and what happened to him as a buyout. His partner was relying on the money he was supposed to get from the buyout to retire. Well, it just happened that the company that bought out a lot of these smaller ISPs was run by a former Comcast CEO. The entire point of the company was to buyout as many small ISPs as they could before declaring bankruptcy. I doubt you even need to guess who lost their money and who got another cushy job at Comcast.
Have experience something similar with a "structured buyout", which we forced as a limited asset purchase and retained the brand. Around 2008/2009. Then after a couple quarterly payments everything went dark.
As I said, I have never met an "evil ISP". I started riding my bike down to a dial up ISP in the 90's when I was 12. Eventually got a minimum wage job there. Got my ISDN 128k when I was 15, which I spent almost all my wages from Chicfila on.. lol
No actually I have to take that back about bad little ISP's, there was an ISP downtown Dayton Ohio in the early 2000's where the employees were intercepting all manor of clear text data from emails etc.
More a lack of oversight and bad egg employees then anything.
-
The idea the government offer protection to citizens and that the control and meter access, hopefully with initiatives to build out fiber and other services to areas that are underserved - I am not opposed to that at all as an alternative to "increasing competition".
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
The idea the government offer protection to citizens and that the control and meter access, hopefully with initiatives to build out fiber and other services to areas that are underserved - I am not opposed to that at all as an alternative to "increasing competition".
We really need one or the other for sure.
Have you seen the complaints about the current crop of usage meters?
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Ultimately, if you roll out a broadband service you are doing so simply to sell it to Time Warner (Comcast, etc) later. Which we have also done.
OMG - how horrible! They would be better stewards - of course they don't give a shit about being a good steward - by partnering with the municipality to the betterment of the area - ultimately turning it over to the municipality (buy-out I guess).
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
My view of the "Netflix issue" is to apply network management (throttling) the same way we content cache active sites.
What - what what?? I suppose it might be ok to cache non changing data, as long as the customer always has the option of forcing a refresh if desired.
But an ISP caching Netflix on their would seem nearly impossible, what are the chances you're going to get a ton of overlap on that data? - sure new shows will get plenty.And in this case, the ISP is still counting that data from the ISP to the customer against the customers GB allotment, so again, getting screwed - unless the customer has an unlimited account.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
But Verizon is the only one I know that has throttled to be anti-competitive and to tax Netflix. There is no way they are at a disadvantage at the interconnect level. Its not affecting their costs. They just wanted to do it.
You've been saying for days now that Comcast has been throttling Netflix the entire time of NN's reign... so it's not just Verizon. You can be assured it was throttled for anti-competitive reasons.
As for Verizon not being at a disadvantage at the interconnect level - really? Unless Netflix is directly connected to Verizon, how could they not be at a disadvantage? Something like 70% (made up number, but it's damned high) of the internet traffic is Netflix traffic. So assuming Verizon customers are using Netflix, Verizon will be at a noticeable unbalance on the peering point.
-
In a shot to the nuts move against the US, the UK is making broadband internet a legal right by 2020 across every part of the country. Just as telephones were made a legal right in the past.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
But Verizon is the only one I know that has throttled to be anti-competitive and to tax Netflix. There is no way they are at a disadvantage at the interconnect level. Its not affecting their costs. They just wanted to do it.
You've been saying for days now that Comcast has been throttling Netflix the entire time of NN's reign... so it's not just Verizon. You can be assured it was throttled for anti-competitive reasons.
As for Verizon not being at a disadvantage at the interconnect level - really? Unless Netflix is directly connected to Verizon, how could they not be at a disadvantage? Something like 70% (made up number, but it's damned high) of the internet traffic is Netflix traffic. So assuming Verizon customers are using Netflix, Verizon will be at a noticeable unbalance on the peering point.
Peering arrangements are always at the interconnect, that’s what it’s for.
It’s about 25% of perk traffic.
So the difference between Verizon and Comcast and normal network management is that they throttle the stream to 10mb and in the case of Fios they are fiber.
Normal ISPs eb and flow, making their approach more sister.
That’s where this recently repealed law looks good, they actually addressed it and planned to continue to use Title II to stop it from the way it’s written.
They even site “network management” in a way that shows they understand the challenges involved.
This make Pai’s move all the more suspect to me.
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
In a shot to the nuts move against the US, the UK is making broadband internet a legal right by 2020 across every part of the country. Just as telephones were made a legal right in the past.
I remember a wired article some years ago about how we were mostly funding their fiber roll out. Would like to find it and reread.
I agree it should be a right, it should be stated in a law and it seems like we are moving backwards for unknown reasons.
-
@bigbear I'd be interested in that article as well.
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
In a shot to the nuts move against the US, the UK is making broadband internet a legal right by 2020 across every part of the country. Just as telephones were made a legal right in the past.
considering this
https://i.imgur.com/LxIrgnd.pnghow does this change? The providers are already required to provide if asked for it.
https://i.imgur.com/Xe58Kbo.png
But they already can, see quote above. -
https://i.imgur.com/roZ8R0u.png
36%, OK that's a lot lower than I thought it was.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
In a shot to the nuts move against the US, the UK is making broadband internet a legal right by 2020 across every part of the country. Just as telephones were made a legal right in the past.
considering this
https://i.imgur.com/LxIrgnd.pnghow does this change? The providers are already required to provide if asked for it.
https://i.imgur.com/Xe58Kbo.png
But they already can, see quote above.So is it just a matter of them forcing the ISP in an area to build out on request, spread construction costs out over time?
I will see, UK telecom is extraordinary. They have been ALL-IP for some years now. I have seen an article where a town created their own internet fiber service, paid for the installation, and kicked everyone out.
I have a lot of old article digging to search for. Google isn't turn up much from memory and I cant recall the article titles lol.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I will see, UK telecom is extraordinary. They have been ALL-IP for some years now. I have seen an article where a town created their own internet fiber service, paid for the installation, and kicked everyone out.
I would love that. The ISPs should be at the border to a municipality, not inside it. Similar to how power can from from any number of power companies (the grid is all interconnected).
As for phones - I'd just like to see them die! Move everything to app based. I think one of the biggest push backs you get is from the safety side of things.
If your power is out, it's still possible (and likely) that your copper landline is still working.
That is not the case if you have phone service by cable, etc. -
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I will see, UK telecom is extraordinary. They have been ALL-IP for some years now. I have seen an article where a town created their own internet fiber service, paid for the installation, and kicked everyone out.
I would love that. The ISPs should be at the border to a municipality, not inside it. Similar to how power can from from any number of power companies (the grid is all interconnected).
As for phones - I'd just like to see them die! Move everything to app based. I think one of the biggest push backs you get is from the safety side of things.
If your power is out, it's still possible (and likely) that your copper landline is still working.
That is not the case if you have phone service by cable, etc.Even though I have all the UC apps I still find it so easy to click the app and have the physical phone go off hook. Or to just hit speakerphone to answer when I am sitting at my desk.
I know Altigen and a lot of people have tried pushing those desk phones that are just a base for a mobile phone, but they have never taken off and I assume its because they must not work well.
All the E-911 stuff is their with mobile. Even in the UCC apps I have been using (in case someone dialed 911 there instead of via their own phone).
-
Remember these?
When of the many times I thought voip handsets were about to die off...
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Even though I have all the UC apps I still find it so easy to click the app and have the physical phone go off hook. Or to just hit speakerphone to answer when I am sitting at my desk.
Nothing says you can't have a hardware phone connected to say - skype or What's App or Facetime, etc. It would be no different than a VOIP phone connecting to the services you sell today.
A great device will allow you to install any android app onto it to integrate with any IM/voice solution. Instead of the bluetooth headset today, you'd just use the handset on the phone.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I know Altigen and a lot of people have tried pushing those desk phones that are just a base for a mobile phone, but they have never taken off and I assume its because they must not work well.
I'm guessing people don't like the idea of plugging their mobile into the phone to make it work. That combined with the often high price of VOIP type phones compared to typical home POTS line phones - people haven't bought into it yet.
