FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues
-
My favorite link I can’t post here because it linked to pornhub and was titled “Hot Indian fucks entire world” and was a link to the FCC broadcast of the NN live broadcast.
It was so funny I almost wished I was on the other side of the argument. Lmao.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
My favorite link I can’t post here because it linked to pornhub and was titled “Hot Indian fucks entire world” and was a link to the FCC broadcast of the NN live broadcast.
It was so funny I almost wished I was on the other side of the argument. Lmao.
And you can't link that here... why?
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I also always thought NN was bullshit, based on speculation and phantom issues that did not exist. More specific legislation could have addressed issued like throttling, one of the guises the NN supporters used to bring this into effect. It just wasnt a well crafted law, and was widely open to the kind of abuse that would reduce competition.
There is no system for competition today. They could have retained NN and fixed these things. Removing NN is the issue, failing to fix the other things is an issue, using repealing NN under the excuse of the other things is an issue.
NN didn’t add competition. And on the agenda Pai is looking to add legislation to donjust that.
On your other comment, I’m not saying one is bad and the other worst. Pai looks like Batman to me and Wheeler like the Joker.
Of course it didn't - it did give customers consumer protections that the lack of competition prevented them from getting.
i.e. an unthrottled connection to the internet for one.If I pay for a 100/20 connection, why should you the ISP be allowed to slow content you don't like down?
Right, it was dealing with reality... in the real world we don't have competition for utilities. NN protected us so that we kept ourselves free as a country.
Since it came into play NN has reduced infrastructure investment and only benefited big internet. It’s a ruse.
Also not true. Literally has been proven false every step of the way. There are dozens of links in this thread alone that show that infrastructure investment actually went up since 2015.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
But what really came to mind that isn’t listed here is the presidents ability to shut down websites for all kinds of reasons, since they are title ii utilities now...
That doesn't even make sense. ISPs were Title II utilities not website hosts or providers. It's actually easier now for a government agency/president to shut down websites, they just ask their friends at the ISP to throttle them into oblivion and we have no protection against it.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
But what really came to mind that isn’t listed here is the presidents ability to shut down websites for all kinds of reasons, since they are title ii utilities now...
That doesn't even make sense. ISPs were Title II utilities not website hosts or providers. It's actually easier now for a government agency/president to shut down websites, they just ask their friends at the ISP to throttle them into oblivion and we have no protection against it.
Right! Makes no sense! That’s why this particular bill should be called “The FCC Regulates the Internet”
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
But what really came to mind that isn’t listed here is the presidents ability to shut down websites for all kinds of reasons, since they are title ii utilities now...
That doesn't even make sense. ISPs were Title II utilities not website hosts or providers. It's actually easier now for a government agency/president to shut down websites, they just ask their friends at the ISP to throttle them into oblivion and we have no protection against it.
Right! Makes no sense! That’s why this particular bill should be called “The FCC Regulates the Internet”
So the FCC protecting websites, and consumers, against ISP throttling was the issue? I'm not sure I follow.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
But what really came to mind that isn’t listed here is the presidents ability to shut down websites for all kinds of reasons, since they are title ii utilities now...
That doesn't even make sense. ISPs were Title II utilities not website hosts or providers. It's actually easier now for a government agency/president to shut down websites, they just ask their friends at the ISP to throttle them into oblivion and we have no protection against it.
The second part of what you said, which is what has duped everyone, has never happened and never will. Also there is nothing that poor targeted website could do outside of public outcry to stop such a thing. Public outcry is always going to be the defense for the little guy getting oppressed. He will never be able to afford to wade into a court battle with whomever is throttling him. Which is why I always thought the whole was BS!
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
But what really came to mind that isn’t listed here is the presidents ability to shut down websites for all kinds of reasons, since they are title ii utilities now...
That doesn't even make sense. ISPs were Title II utilities not website hosts or providers. It's actually easier now for a government agency/president to shut down websites, they just ask their friends at the ISP to throttle them into oblivion and we have no protection against it.
The second part of what you said, which is what has duped everyone, has never happened and never will. Also there is nothing that poor targeted website could do outside of public outcry to stop such a thing. Public outcry is always going to be the defense for the little guy getting oppressed. He will never be able to afford to wade into a court battle with whomever is throttling him. Which is why I always thought the whole was BS!
Never happened or never will? You should read this thread there are at least 3 links to collations of net neutrality violations by ISPs.
And yes, they did actually have recourse. File a complaint against the ISP with the FCC. The FCC had the obligation to investigate these practices and determine their affect on consumers. It's a well documented process.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
But what really came to mind that isn’t listed here is the presidents ability to shut down websites for all kinds of reasons, since they are title ii utilities now...
That doesn't even make sense. ISPs were Title II utilities not website hosts or providers. It's actually easier now for a government agency/president to shut down websites, they just ask their friends at the ISP to throttle them into oblivion and we have no protection against it.
Right! Makes no sense! That’s why this particular bill should be called “The FCC Regulates the Internet”
So the FCC protecting websites, and consumers, against ISP throttling was the issue? I'm not sure I follow.
The FCC has no capacity to enforce small infrastractions.
This is complex issue that was discussed for well over a decade, when title ii was finally applied I really thought everyone had just said “fuck it”. Or better, big internet money had made its way to the right corrupt people. All the sudden after 10 years of debate some magical law was going to solve the issue (and again no one had really had an issue, all theory and speculation)
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
But what really came to mind that isn’t listed here is the presidents ability to shut down websites for all kinds of reasons, since they are title ii utilities now...
That doesn't even make sense. ISPs were Title II utilities not website hosts or providers. It's actually easier now for a government agency/president to shut down websites, they just ask their friends at the ISP to throttle them into oblivion and we have no protection against it.
The second part of what you said, which is what has duped everyone, has never happened and never will. Also there is nothing that poor targeted website could do outside of public outcry to stop such a thing. Public outcry is always going to be the defense for the little guy getting oppressed. He will never be able to afford to wade into a court battle with whomever is throttling him. Which is why I always thought the whole was BS!
Never happened or never will? You should read this thread there are at least 3 links to collations of net neutrality violations by ISPs.
And yes, they did actually have recourse. File a complaint against the ISP with the FCC. The FCC had the obligation to investigate these practices and determine their affect on consumers. It's a well documented process.
Lol sounds like it right? But no, that’s not how the law is written. There is no process for this nor would the FCC be able to handle it.
You have to go to court. You have to be the content provider affected. The consumer has no hotline to report an issue. Show me where.
I realize people believe this, but it’s not true. Show me where! This was to cover the fact that the FCC now controls your internet, because it’s a utility. The FTC can no longer oversee that your usage and data is protected. And got president can now suppress opposing points of view with little or no overwrite.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
Also, with title ii and voice we split the bill. I pay so much $$$ to take your call (akin to MB's now with its application to the internet) and you pay so much to send your call minutes to my network.
The FCC's use of Title ii and NN allows them to assign a value of $0 and set all kinds of fees between providers. In some situations small ISP's are screwed over because they are forced to carry connections that cost more than they are making. ISP's have been fighting over this since the early 2000's and NN did not "brilliantly" solve the dispute in any way,.
-
@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.
-
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).
-
@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.
So again, I totally agree with some of the premises here, but they have been long discussed well before 2014.
We have our own interconnection to the voice network as a CLEC, so we do not buy from those providers per se. We send traffic back and forth and pay both ways. Title ii was created to keep those rates under control, to set pricing between carriers. Data doesnt get billed this way so Title ii was a bad fit.
I think thats the bigger discussion point here. The idea the NN was somehow a silver bullet. There were 2 or 3 schools of thought for well over the decade discussed and suddenly Wheeler crammed through his iteration and going against it means that you hate the internet.
There was much better, more specific legislation already on the table to target throttling that was built around the end user. Basically the FCC now can control the parts of the internet that you wouldn't want. Depending on which politcal party is in power it can be abused because of the Title ii application.
-
@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.
-
@bigbear what legislation was written or drafted?
And you may be getting your service from your own interconnect, but it's at the end of your connection that the throttling can (likely will occur).
And not only does this effect you, but your customers who use any number of ISPs will also be charged more to use the bandwidth that they are already paying for at a set performance range. IE 60/6 or whatever else.
They too would see their new bill and say, you know what it isn't worth working with @bigbear because he can't get pricing better than ComCast can. I'm going to close shop with @bigbear and just work directly with ComCast.
This puts you out of business.
-
@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
-
@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.
Net Neutrality was there to equate all packets (of any kind) equally. So you wouldn't be charged more or less based on what you wanted to do with the service you had already paid for.
