FCC Won't Delay Vote, Says Net Neutrality Supporters Are 'Desperate' (arstechnica.com) 347
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Federal Communications Commission will move ahead with its vote to kill net neutrality rules next week despite an unresolved court case that could strip away even more consumer protections. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai says that net neutrality rules aren't needed because the Federal Trade Commission can protect consumers from broadband providers. But a pending court case involving AT&T could strip the FTC of its regulatory authority over AT&T and similar ISPs. A few dozen consumer advocacy groups and the City of New York urged Pai to delay the net neutrality-killing vote in a letter today. If the FCC eliminates its rules and the court case goes AT&T's way, there would be a "'regulatory gap' that would leave consumers utterly unprotected," the letter said. When contacted by Ars, Pai's office issued this statement in response to the letter: "This is just evidence that supporters of heavy-handed Internet regulations are becoming more desperate by the day as their effort to defeat Chairman Pai's plan to restore Internet freedom has stalled. The vote will proceed as scheduled on December 14."
Freedom! (Score:2, Insightful)
Companies will be free to fuck the consumer! Yay! Land of the free! Home of the voiceless!
Re:Freedom! (Score:5, Insightful)
So start a competing company.
There are laws against that. Laws that corrupt politicians got a lot of money for and that were written by the lawyers of incumbent telecom companies. You won't get access to utility poles built with taxpayer money. You won't get permissions to put up your own poles. Cities are prohibited from building their own infrastructure.
Net neutrality was a tool the FCC could leverage effectively to limit the price gouging and extortion the companies could engage in after corrupting state and federal politicians. Going after the corruption would have been better but clearly outside the reach of the FCC. Pai has been sent to make corruption great again, and he'll get a highly paying alibi job once he is finished with giving corruption back the leverage that it was intended to yield and couldn't because the FCC was angling for power effective for curbing the effects of corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
So start a competing company.
Yea, what the hell is wrong with these people, we don't need consumer protect^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hover reaching regulations. Yea, my social media startup I've sunk everything into needs an emergency investment round to buy this new fast lane access we will need to survive, but with some good hype my dillution won't be too bad. Fuck it though, we really stuck it to those snowflake libtards, I'm so happy with this win. /s
FCC is being disingenuous (Score:5, Interesting)
The FCC took over regulation of interstate communication in 1934 with the Communications Act of 1934. The took over this authority from the Interstate Commerce Commission. Their job is regulating interstate commerce aspects of communication. Punting this to the FTC is disingenuous and probably illegal. Perhaps the executive branch needs to be reminded to follow the law.
Re: FCC is being disingenuous (Score:2)
Isn't that what they're doing now, by taking it away from the FCC?
Re: FCC is being disingenuous (Score:2)
Interesting. Thanks, I was quite confused about what point he was trying to make.
I've been advocating this for years. BUT... (Score:3)
The [FCC] took over this authority from the Interstate Commerce Commission. Their job is regulating interstate commerce aspects of communication. Punting this to the FTC is disingenuous and probably illegal. Perhaps the executive branch needs to be reminded to follow the law.
The FCC regulates the interstate commerce of communication technology and utilities. They didn't take over all consumer protection, especially consumer fraud and antitrust (which remained with the FTC and the Justice Department). If t
War is Peace (Score:2, Funny)
"This is just evidence that supporters of heavy-handed Internet regulations are becoming more desperate by the day as their effort to defeat Chairman Pai's plan to restore Internet freedom has stalled."
Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
Desperation (Score:5, Insightful)
When contacted by Ars, Pai's office issued this statement in response to the letter: "This is just evidence that supporters of heavy-handed Internet regulations are becoming more desperate by the day as their effort to defeat Chairman Pai's plan to restore Internet freedom has stalled. The vote will proceed as scheduled on December 14."
In other news, people being held at gun point often become desperate when nothing they do can convince the gun totter to let them go.
Somebody at the FCC has a big payoff comming (Score:2)
And they cannot wait for the money to be theirs....
Seriously, while undoubtedly Google and other profit from network neutrality, the ones that profit most are ordinary citizens with not a lot of disposable income and small companies. Doing away with network neutrality is about the most anti-citizen thing the FCC could do. Does fit right in with the tax reform in that though. I guess the ones that voted for this administration just like getting screwed over...
Re:Somebody at the FCC has a big payoff comming (Score:5, Insightful)
And they cannot wait for the money to be theirs....
They were paid a long time ago. This deal to repeal NN was done a long time ago, Ajit Pai is just pushing the papers around for show. Nothing we say or do will have any impact. As another poster chimed in: Home of the voiceless. We have no say. If you want a say, better bring a blank check.
Re: (Score:2)
I've always wondered... what if Twitter simply put on the day the vote happens that access to Trump's twitter feed was restricted unless you paid for the "premium twitter" account package that lets you access to celebrities and other big name twitter users?
All for another $50/month. That's only fair right?
Newspeak (Score:5, Insightful)
"Chairman Pai's plan to restore Internet freedom...." Orwell himself couldn't write better newspeak.
Slight correction (Score:2)
This is just evidence that the billions of dollars to be made by doing nothing except forcing heavy-handed Internet regulations are becoming more desperate by the day.
Internet freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
... Chairman Pai's plan to restore Internet freedom ...
And by that, he means the freedom for ISPs to do whatever they want to customers and their traffic.
Re: (Score:3)
And that, my friends, is when we lose. The ISPs will control what we we read, see and hear on the web. They will promote the candidates they like, while removing the ones the don't, ensuring a modern day fascist relationship. They'll inject commercials and ads right into your data stream. They'll nickel and dime you for every packet, every click, every redirect. You'll use the search engines they want. You'll use the services they want. You'll view the content they want. And if you work to circumvent the ne
No desperate, just hacked the FCC w anti NN bots (Score:4, Informative)
It's not that, it's just that the comments were faked to the FCC by anti-NetNeutraility bots, and they're concerned that America is waking up to their criminal activities in hacking the "vote".
Re: (Score:3)
Bots or not, all those comments are going to /dev/null. No one is reading those. They never had any bearing on this deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC was looking for meaningful comments. Taking somebody else's form letter and attaching "me too" to the end will always go straight to the trash. It doesn't matter which side your form letter takes.
Now that it's dead... (Score:2)
We need to redirect our efforts elsewhere. The internet's protectors need to be pressuring congress and senate to pass new regulations that overrule the FCC and re-implement Net Neutrality outside of Title II, it's own beast, it needs its own laws. FCC is a lost cause, wasting our time with them. Bother your congress-critters.
Re:Now that it's dead... (Score:4)
We need to redirect our efforts elsewhere
I do believe that you are correct. I think we can conclude that pressuring the FCC is a lost cause. At least until a new administration is elected in 2020. Putting pressure on congress to do the right thing is one option we have.
Wait, Wait. I know what some of you are thinking. Congress doing the right thing. Well I was reading a story the other day where a French scientist is working on creating a avian sus scrofa domesticus. So it could happen.
But another option that we have to take into account is we can put direct pressure on isp's. Once we become aware of a isp being a problem let them know our displeasure. Refusing to pay bills and just plan old boycotting their services are two options.
Re: (Score:3)
Net neutrality has a Storied history in the U.S. There have been assorted Congressional bills proposed, but the problems are still partisan
Truth, but there is something different this time than the last times. Before today only nerds knew or really cared about net neutrality. Basically, us. Not really much of a force to influence the troop of baboons in Washington.
But now my 70 year old father asked me about net neutrality and he seemed concerned. My daughter and her friends are also asking questions. These are people that wouldn't even give net neutrality a second thought a few years ago. It has gone from a topic only a few knew abo
Better Idea: Pass the Damn Law (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not finding a reference for when the FCC got a law passed authorizing it to regulate the internet--the closest you get is the Telecommunications Act of 1934, but people had little concept of modern computers at the time, never mind most of the things we do with computers now. They'd consider the El Cheapo calculators we can pick up at a dollar store to be incredibly impressive and not just because those things can fit into a pocket.
It would be...reasonable to ask that, if the internet is going to be treated as telecommunications ect ect, that Congress actually pass the damn law saying as much. Having net neutrality be baked in on that level might also be actually preferable, especially since the ISPs being defined as common carriers by the FCC and having net neutrality regulations has failed quite entirely to prevent things like the MAFIAA from trying to get the ISPs to do their enforcement. (I would suggest not going for net neutrality but rather going straight to requiring they be agnostic about the content of their pipes--with them encouraged to know only the minimum amount of information required to ensure data gets where it's going, and not a single nibble more.)
Seriously, a lot of this feels like watching a group of people working on a program who keep implementing crocks with the assurance that these are only really temporary patches and they'll go back Any Day Now and implement a proper fix or at least a reliably-working kludge...with the distinct feeling that this 'any day' is going to be a few eons after the heat death of the universe. Can we please just implement the proper fix? One that might actually get us the real thing?
Re: (Score:3)
There is such a law, but it wasn't the FCC that got it passed. The law is the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which was passed in large part to take governance of the telecommunications industry away from the US District Court for the District of Columbia (fallout from the 1956 consent decree against AT&T) and into the FCC. That law is what gave the FCC the authority to classify services as either telecommunications services or information services.
I can't help but think (Score:3)
Eh, wishful thinking, I know.
Wondering if anyone will defend (Score:3)
we kinda arw, aren't we? (Score:2)
I, personally, stink of desperation.
We ARE desparate (Score:2)
Re:What specific problem did NN try to solve? (Score:5, Informative)
Here is a simple definition of net neutrality and links to further reading that will clear up you questions.
https://www.eff.org/issues/net... [eff.org]
Re: (Score:3)
It's in the first link on that page.
Re:What specific problem did NN try to solve? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Would you care to link to the specific page that has that info?"
Pretty simple:
paid prioritization / availability of some internet sites and providers over others:
example 1: without net neutrality, the ISP can offer a package that only allows access to their own properties. Does the ISP own a streaming service, then your internet service can only reach that service, you the customer can't reach netflix or hulu. Maybe they offer a higher tier internet package you can buy that will let you visit these services... or maybe they don't.
example 2: without net neutrality, the ISP can throttle netflix traffic to a crawl unless netflix pays some fee to your ISP. I mean sure the customers are already paying a fee to access netflix via the internet service, perhaps they are even paying extra just for permission to reach netflix but that's not important. They can also go after payments from each service and server with a "pay us, or people visiting from our network will be throttled to minimal speeds".
The effect of the loss of net neutrality is that:
a) services owned by the ISP do not have to be treated the same as other services. They can do whatever they want to make sure competing services are not reachable, not usable, or cost a lot more.
b) large services will pay the ransoms to the ISP to get their services to consumers. So facebook and netflix will pay the ISP for premium access. This serves to enrich the ISP, and entrench the big players.
If facebook-next comes along, or youtube-next comes along but doesn't have the money to pay all the ISPs not to block or throttle them into oblvious, then oblivion is where they'll stay. Even if they can pay their own hosting and bandwith costs, they also have to pay EACH ISP the ransom due to send those packets to the ISPs customers.
The resulting internt will have a few dozen channels owned by large companies, most of which will belong to the ISPs themselves, and a few more behemoths like apple etc that can afford the pay to be reachable.
Your new website or service, dies on the vine. Comcast users aren't going to pay comcast extra money each month to reach your site, and you can't afford to pay comcast and every other provider money to reach their customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. As a consumer I don't like the idea of bittorrent throttling at all, even if I haven't used it myself but I want to be able to. Regarding the ransom though, it seems that only very successful provides would have to pay it. If I start a new youtube I can't imagine ISPs would bother to throttle it, until such time that my new youtube it huge but then it seems like a fair game. Netflix, Google and FB are monopolies, it seems to me if they are slowed down by the greedy ISPs that
Re:What specific problem did NN try to solve? (Score:4)
can't tell if your shilling or not but obviously when you tried to get that website off the ground, you would have to enter into content agreements with possibly a handful of different ISPs in order to avoid for instance, constant buffering (which translates into no one using your site, because ISPs slowed it down so much that it sucks). The default would be the slow lane, and you would have to pay to get "upgraded". So you wouldn't be able to "start the new youtube" because you would need a few million to even try. Thus raising the barrier to entry on what used to be "any idiot with an internet connection and free web server software".
As i understand it, the telco situation in the USA is monopolies. Content is hardly a monopoly. Video sharing sites alone number in the tens or hundreds. For some americans, as i understand it, they only have the choice of 1-2 ISPs. So im not really worried about google being a monopoly as i personally use duck duck go daily
Re: (Score:3)
As i understand it, the telco situation in the USA is monopolies.
Local telcos are still monopolies for wired telephone service. ISPs are not. The two words are not synonyms.
Re:What specific problem did NN try to solve? (Score:4)
All consumers in the US also have a choice of one and only one internet. Net neutrality absolutely affects the internet backbone. And the backbone is where the damage is going to happen. We have tons of ISPs, not just a few, so if Netflix is going to be throttled then it will be by the backbone owners.
Re: (Score:3)
Where do you live that you have 13 different ISPs? For most people, they have one or two ISPs to choose from. A quick Google search located this report [arstechnica.com] that, at 25Mbps (the current definition of broadband), 30% have no providers, 48% have only one provider, and 19% had 2 providers. Only 3% had 3 or more providers. That means that nearly a third of people in the US don't have broadband and two thirds have only 1 or 2 providers. If you have 13 different ISPs, you're very lucky, but you're also a huge exceptio
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
As a consumer I don't like the idea of bittorrent throttling at all, even if I haven't used it myself but I want to be able to.
See, right there bit torrent traffic shouldn't be 'throttled' per se, but it, along with email, and other bulk non-realtime services, should be least priority. VOIP, gaming, etc and other such real-time monitoring should be highest priority. regular web browsing in the middle.
The important thing to note is that despite a lot of bleating by the ISPs about this, this is really nothing to do with net neutrality. Most net neutrality proponents are fine with sensible traffic shaping to the benefit of all users.
Re: (Score:2)
That does sound sensible. I don't know what I'm missing then but we are back to the claim that the primary effect of Net Neutrality is that it prevents ISPs from asking the big guys for ransom. And also that in principle it should not treat small guys unfairly but historically that has not been the issue. If that is correct then NN solves the wrong problem. We should have laws to prevent ISPs from acting as monopolies towards consumers, not to prevent them from acting unfairly to obscenely profitable compan
Re: (Score:2)
"We should have laws to prevent ISPs from acting as monopolies towards consumers, not to prevent them from acting unfairly to obscenely profitable companies."
The point is that the NN laws that force them to treat their own service, the same as the service from obscenely profitable companies, also forces them to treat the service from [new startup] the same.
without NN, comcast prioritizes its own streaming service since that's hte most profitable since it owns it. Then it tells netflix, well... pay us a huge
Re: (Score:2)
Mod up. This is precisely true.
Your ISP's own streaming service will get priority. Netflix / Google / Apple / FB have enough cash to throw at the ISP to buy their way in.
youtube-next, or itunes-next from some new startup... that goes nowhere. Comcast, etc isn't going to give their traffic any bandwidth without a ransom. Customers get shitty performance / connectivity, and the service dies.
The monopoly situation gets worse, not better.
Re:What specific problem did NN try to solve? (Score:5, Insightful)
I read the front page but there is no mention of ...
Maybe you should read beyond the first page before wasting everyone's time by asking questions that you can easily answer for yourself.
Your posting history shows that you post about network neutrality and little else, and your posts generally add nothing to the discussion.
You have made a habit out of feigning ignorance (as you are doing here), despite having your questions answered over and over. Your only interest seems to be trolling and spreading FUD.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you remember watching Netflix back then? ISPs would force Netflix traffic over congested links so people felt like they still needed Cable TV for Real Entertainment. A simple example, but a quite clear one.
The provider "fast lanes" were a similar ploy, favoring certain content.
In that position, the ISP can pick the winners and losers. Since the ISP is in a monopoly position, the customer has zero power to switch and remedy the situation.
I get a few of the reasons why ISPs shouldn't be bridled by "comm
Re: (Score:2)
https://imgur.com/qa3Ryyd.png [imgur.com]
I won't be hyperlinking the second post's delivery of [CITATION NEEDED]s one by one, but you seem to have a real keen interest on finding specifics so I'm sure you won't mind looking them up by hand.
Re:What specific problem did NN try to solve? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you don't feel like clicking on the link, the short story is that there's a municipal fiber network, but they actually don't act as an ISP. They are just a last-leg service and you select from a range of ISPs that have run a service to the town's central hub (which greatly lowers the barrier to entry for an ISP). Some are calling it new and novel, but it sounds to me like the Internet of the 90s, where you pay your phone company for the line and you pay AOL or some such to act as your ISP. Then the phone companies bought out the ISPs and that's how we ended up with today's mess. I vote for switching back to the 90's model like my old town did.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if the solution might be that the ISP must be "net neutral" if there are no competing ISPs (properly defined to avoid abuse) within 50 miles or something like that.
Re: (Score:3)
Pai and crew keep saying that the market should decide, and ignore the fact that there's absolutely no competition for the vast majority of the nation (only one broadband provider in my entire state, for example).
They are absolutely not ignoring it -- in fact, they've already addressed the problem by re-defining one provider as "competition"!
https://arstechnica.com/inform... [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I've been a strong proponent of FCC-enforced NN. However, this article does raise some really good counter points. Pai and crew keep saying that the market should decide, and ignore the fact that there's absolutely no competition for the vast majority of the nation (only one broadband provider in my entire state, for example). The EFF article talks about how fostering competition is really the solution, if it could somehow be done. Here's [arstechnica.com] something that was done in a small town where I used to live that really could make a huge difference.
If you don't feel like clicking on the link, the short story is that there's a municipal fiber network, but they actually don't act as an ISP. They are just a last-leg service and you select from a range of ISPs that have run a service to the town's central hub (which greatly lowers the barrier to entry for an ISP). Some are calling it new and novel, but it sounds to me like the Internet of the 90s, where you pay your phone company for the line and you pay AOL or some such to act as your ISP. Then the phone companies bought out the ISPs and that's how we ended up with today's mess. I vote for switching back to the 90's model like my old town did.
That would be the ideal situation yes; however, the government has granted our current ISPs a monopoly in most markets of the USA. We cannot legally do your example in most areas because of those previous agreements. This is why net neutrality must exist in its current form. The government took away true competition when it made those agreements, because of that we need the regulation so consumers can't be screwed by the monopolies the government allowed to happen.
Re:What specific problem did NN try to solve? (Score:5, Interesting)
Very simple:
* I pay $ISP from my campaign funds.
* $ISP drops packets to $OTHER_CANDIDATE's website, or actively injects malware in the HTTP transaction making it look like the website is malicious.
* I win the election.
Re:What specific problem did NN try to solve? (Score:5, Insightful)
oh my fuck can we please stop with this "well it was all fine and dandy back then" bullshit.
There are examples all over that provide excellent examples of why ISPs should not be allowed to have direct control over the data that flows over their networks. Even Canada has a shocking example: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/telus-cuts-subscriber-access-to-pro-union-website-1.531166
This fight has never been about what the state of the affairs was 5/10 years ago, it's about what the state of affairs will be 5/10 years from now, and putting rules in place to make sure that doesn't happen.
So fuck off with your nonsensical "WAH ALL GOVERNMENT IS BAD LET THE MARKET DECIDE" republican horse shit. It's stupid, and only idiots like you believe in it.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I still don't understand why the answer isn't to start a competing ISP
Re:What specific problem did NN try to solve? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the barrier to entry is so high not even Google can afford to do so in most cities.
Re: (Score:2)
So wouldn't the answer be to lower the barriers of entry with deregulation and decentralization?
Re: (Score:2)
You'd have to pass a regulation to do that!
Re: (Score:3)
No; it is a natural monopoly. If it costs $500 for every household you "pass" in a city or town (assuming near-zero permitting costs) then with 100% uptake your monthly capital recovery for the fiber is $6.55. If you have 50% then we are looking at $13.10. Once we drop to 30% uptake, we are around $20/month just for the fiber in the ground. $20 capital recovery would mean a monthly cost of around $100 to cover peering, repairs, core infrastructure, customer support, etc., at a minimum. Too many competi
Re: (Score:3)
You're lucky if you can average out to only $500 per household. Fiber typically costs ~$30k per mile, so you'll only get it down to that price if you have at least 50 houses per linear mile, or 1 house per 100 feet (including the cost of going over streets, mandatory open space, etc.). In the suburbs, it ends up often being somewhat higher than that, and in rural areas, you're probably low by an order of magnitude or more.
Re:What specific problem did NN try to solve? (Score:5, Insightful)
What makes you think it's *deregulation* that will lower the barriers to entry?
The thing actually that will lower the barrier to entry is regulation to stop the current players using their current scummy tactics to keep the competition out.
Deregulation (Score:2)
No, and I don't believe you're arguing in good faith. It's not like there's a $10 billion fee to start an ISP, or an army of paperwork-clutching government employees trailing after the fiber crews. A large difficulty is negotiating rights of access, especially if one has to negotiate such rights with every individual landowner, and it's also just plain costly to lay lots of fiber optic cable. And aside from a knee-jerk opposition to any and all regulation, there is no reason why there should not be some sor
Re: (Score:2)
That would be the answer but most of the same actors who want to do away with net neutrality also pay congress to keep a high barrier to entry and they're the first so sue you if you try so.
I mean that should be enough heuristic for anyone who isn't a paid shill to get what's going on.
Re: (Score:2)
It's high for other reasons as well (running transmission medium to each building is not a trivial expense), but those do contribute.
Re:What specific problem did NN try to solve? (Score:5, Insightful)
I still don't understand why the answer isn't to start a competing ISP
Well, there are generally three possibilities of a wired ISP: One using phone lines, one using cable, or one using fiber. Most of us have less than all of these options. If you want to start your own competing ISP, then you'll need to create your own infrastructure. To do this, you will need to figure out where to install it, and then negotiate rights with each of the property owners along the way, so that you can locate your stuff on their property. They will probably want money from this, and it'll likely be a lot. And if any of them refuse, you are going to be out of luck. The existing infrastructure was created using rights of way that were created for the telephone system or other government facilitated rights of way.
So maybe you could start your competing ISP using wireless. To do that, you would just need to gain rights to use the public spectrum. Your checkbook needs to open wide to do this.
Look, I am pretty far on the right politically, but the situation here is deeply corrupt. The existing providers are using public, government granted resources to build their businesses, but somehow think that they shouldn't be regulated. If they had to individually negotiate the rights to use - and pay a mutually agreed rent to - all of the property on which they've built, then I would buy the argument. But this is *far* from a free market that can provide competition.
The *only* rational policy is to treat any infrastructure that uses government facilitated rights of way, or public air spectrum, as a public utility. All traffic should be required by law to be routed as efficiently as practical, without regard to content, or origin/destination of the traffic. And it should not be possible for any company to simultaneously own any part of the infrastructure (directly or indirectly), and any content that it carries. And if they don't like it, they should be free to build their own infrastructure with no public aid of any kind.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
and then negotiate rights with each of the property owners along the way, so that you can locate your stuff on their property.
You don't locate "your stuff" on their property until they become a customer. Until then you stay on the already negotiated easements and public rights-of-way.
To do that, you would just need to gain rights to use the public spectrum. Your checkbook needs to open wide to do this.
Point-to-point microwave is relatively cheap. We've got a local wireless internet company, and their rates do not reflect a billion-dollar FCC licensing investment.
If they had to individually negotiate the rights to use - and pay a mutually agreed rent to - all of the property on which they've built,
They already pay a mutually agreed rent for access to the public rights of way. It's called a "franchise fee", and for Comcast in this area it is 3% of their revenue.
The *only* rational policy is to treat any infrastructure that uses government facilitated rights of way, or public air spectrum, as a public utility.
That is an assertion, n
Re: (Score:2)
I still don't understand why the answer isn't to start a competing ISP
Good luck getting several hundreds of millions in subsidies from taxpayers, like the incumbents already have.
Let's not pretend there is a market in the ISP industry in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
The specific problem was collusion between large sites and ISPs to give more priority to certain sites in the bandwidth stream.
The answer seems to me to be obvious: If an ISP in your area is doing this, buy some bandwidth on the backbone and use it as an advertising point to grab their business.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And here are a couple of specific examples:
Comcast throttling bittorrent https://www.wired.com/2011/10/bittorrent-throttling-comcast/
Comcast requiring payment from Netflix https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/02/23/comcasts-deal-with-netflix-makes-network-neutrality-obsolete/?utm_term=.52c1fd061840
And before you think the second is reasonable, recall that Netflix has already paid for bandwidth to the Internet, and Comcast's customers have already paid for bandwidth as well.
Re: (Score:2)
First, it's actually YOUR DUTY as an ISP to make sure that your clients are getting good service. Typically it involves paying the network that produces the content for peering.
Second, Netflix will gladly install caching edge servers in your datacenter and manage them for you: https://openconnect.netflix.co... [netflix.com] - all free of charge. This saves something like 95% of the total backbone traffic. Yet Comcast was refusing it.
Re: (Score:2)
No ISP is responsible to giving you an amazing connection to every site and service on the internet. Once that data is on their network you can make a case that they shouldn't interfere with it (true net neutrality) but they aren't responsible if the sender is using a TRS-80 on a dial-up modem to serve up their music service and that was effectively the issue with Netflix/Comcast.
The problem wasn't Comcast paying the other network for peering, it's was that the other network WASN'T PAYING for peering. For
Re: (Score:3)
Of course I'm not paying them to do this. Why should I pay THEM to use my electricity and network backbone so they can charge my customers for their content?
You meant to write "my slaves", didn't you? People that you own and exploit for profit. .
Because your customers PAY YOU to get the content. It's not like Netflix just shoves data into your network
Re:What specific problem did NN try to solve? (Score:5, Interesting)
You've changed a lot of words between your first claim and this one, but it is still wrong. My responsibility ends at the edge of my network. I cannot control what other network providers do, and I cannot control what bandwidth other content providers pay for.
No. It's you who are squealing like a pig being slaughtered. In case of fucking Comcast they were DECLINING TO BUILD UP THEIR INTERCONNECTIONS. Nobody was asking them to provide free transit to Netflix, they were asked to build up their fucking network so their fucking edge had enough capacity to peer with Netflix.
And Netflix is bending over their backwards to accommodate ISPs, at that.
There are four ISPs I can call at any time for service here, and those are just the ones I'm familiar with. There's 13 listed in the phone book.
I offered this bet several times - if by the end of the next year I have at least 3 wireline ISPs that will provide me more with more than 50Mbps connection then I'll pay you $10000. Otherwise you pay me that sum. I live in a middle of an affluent neighborhood (ZIP code 98119) and I can't get anything except Comcast or slow DSL. Do you believe your own convictions? I'm ready to post that sum into an escrow right now.
No? Then shut up your mouth. I actually used to run an ISP and I fucking know how deeply US ISPs are screwing people.
Re:What specific problem did NN try to solve? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, that is what I was looking for. I wanted to compare that against some other claims that Facebook and Google have cemented their position since Net Neutrality, with an argument being made that NN helps them. (The reasoning is that without NN, if the ISP offers a preferred channel, and anyone buys it, then say Google is forced to buy it as well, leading to lower profits to Google.) My goal was to deciding, for myself, which option I think is less harmful.
Re: (Score:2)
In particular, Comcast has been sandbagging fair use of encryption and swarmstreaming traffic across the board, while also illegally charging Netflix just for traversal of it's network. Now they want to charge customers for using Netflix too. This is all blatantly illegal, and always has been. Now they have an inside guy to try to overturn the law though.
Re: (Score:2)
in 2014 Netflix was paying Comcast because its traffic was being deprioritized
Verizon was slowing down Netflix in 2014 as well and asking for money
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
https://www.extremetech.com/co... [extremetech.com]
Re: (Score:3)
... when it was introduced in 2015? When the regulators sat down in that meeting they must have acted in response to a specific trouble caused by lack of net neutrality prior to that. What was that trouble? I am genuinely interested.
Comcast throttling Netflix and Bittorrent, the former had to pay up to setup CDN's on Comcast's networks to avoid throttling. Someone didn't wanna pay their peering for all those bits coming from Netflix. Just one example of why NN got enacted. I could go on.. Verizon blocking Facetime? The current fuckery with mobile providers dishing out 'no cap streaming' 'deals' to favor their affiliates.
But, don't worry. NN is dead, it has been dead since Ajit Pai was installed as chairman. They haven't been enfo
Portugal (Score:3)
Re: What specific problem did NN try to solve? (Score:3)
Oh you CAN crate laws for all kinds of reasons, but you SHOULD only create laws for really good ones. As in not just because someone somewhere came up a with a hypothetical thing that might some day be a problem.
Re: What specific problem did NN try to solve? (Score:5, Insightful)
In 2013, comcast throttled netflix and extorted millions of dollars out of netflix to allow them to continue to operate. Their own documents showed they were doing it on purpose. It was literally: "Gee - that's a popular website you've got there. It'd be a shame if something were to happen to it."
If it can happen to netflix in 2013, it can happen to the next big thing whenever the big internet kleptocracies want. Personally, I think what comcast did then already falls under fraud, extortion and racketeering laws, but having some clear cut protections would be nice.
That said, I also believe that filing the internet under title 2 is NOT a good idea. That would give the FCC way too much power to regulate the internet if existing regulation of radio under title 2 is any indication. Sure, they *might* prevent another comcast extorting netflix (hey - we can dream), but the same legislation would give them the power to set up the internet equivalents of public decency filters, the fairness doctrine, and who knows what else (all in the interests of fighting terrorism/pedophiles I'm sure).
The result of all of this is that people fall into several groups:
1) Politicians For NN - they see the new powers to regulate the internet and are giddy with joy
2) Politicians Against NN - they are generally getting bribed by the ISPs
3) People For NN - they see things like comcast v netflix and are righteously outraged
4) People Against NN - they see the FCC wants new regulatory powers over the internet and are aghast
5) People who have no idea what NN is, and, if they bother to try and find out, basically end up parroting either 3 or 4 depending on whom they listen to.
Re: What specific problem did NN try to solve? (Score:2)
That's about the most intelligent summary of the situation that I've seen thusfar. Of course, the fact that Comcast abused their position in no way suggests that we need to hand the government a ready-made tool for draconian censorship. It's a bit like jumping out of the frying pan and into a roaring volcano.
Re: What specific problem did NN try to solve? (Score:2)
You should probably open up the market to allow greater competition, thereby removing Comcast's ability to abuse their position.
Anyway you already have laws against monopolies, so if, as you say, Comcast is a monopoly abusing it's power, then why the hell do you need new laws? Start by enforcing existing ones.
Re: What specific problem did NN try to solve? (Score:2)
Future government can always use one of Comcast's own plays against it if they go all stupid with their internet plans:
" Thats's a nice Monopoly you got there. . . would be a shame if something happened to it. "
Re: (Score:3)
Even the Title 2 was the ISPs' own fault. The FCC used Title 1 first - which essentially led to a useless joke of a regulation. The ISPs didn't even want that and sued to stop it. The courts demanded that the FCC use Title 2 instead - which they did. Had the ISPs just shut their mouths, they could have paid lip service to Net Neutrality while jumping through tons of loopholes to abuse their monopoly positions.
Re: What specific problem did NN try to solve? (Score:2, Insightful)
AOL, Telenet, LD fees, Tierd cable packages. (Score:3)
Considering that all of our telecommunications companies had all the time, resources, and motivation that it would have taken to build the information superhighway for over 10 years and they failed to deliver until one was graciously delivered to them by our government and tax payers.
I would say there is plenty of evidence they will adopt short term measures to nickel and dime consumers instead of providing a general use platform that facilitates broad innovation like the internet as we know it. The probl
Re: (Score:2)
a bad thing for anyone except media companies that want to profit from fast lanes?
Media companies don't profit from fast lanes. Telecoms profit. Media companies are the losers, and oppose "fast lanes".
Re: (Score:2)
That is a pack of lies, and you are a liar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't corporate greed also be the solution?
Re: (Score:2)
Well... paid prioritization benefits the customer in that they get a premium service for no additional cost.
The problem is that history tells us that corporations will try to maximize profits, so they will bilk everyone they can.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
then wouldn't a delay actually help the Reptilians... I mean Republicans?
If they dare to seat Roy Moore, it will be the Repedocans.
You are delusional (Score:5, Insightful)
Both parties are full of crap and only a complete tool trusts either side.
Re:You are delusional (Score:5, Insightful)
Both parties are full of crap and only a complete tool trusts either side.
That is what Republicans always say when they get caught doing crappy things.
Re: (Score:3)
"If you can't bring yourself to vote republican, then just don't vote." - some talking head on Fox News. (I'm paraphrasing here, but it was something like this)
Re:You are delusional (Score:5, Insightful)
Horseshit. Fuck you and your they're all the same bullshit. Only one party is passing legislation that 75% of the electorate is against, with little to no oversight, and in the case of tax law no review period of any kind. Only one party continues their ratfucking crusade and dirty trick campaigns by preventing citizens from voting and gerrymandering urban districts out completely.
Before you yell Bamacare remember that the law was in review for over 9 months, and O did his best to include ideas from all sides.
Oh, and only one party is effectively in league with the Russians. You will never live this down, you dirty fucking commies. Get out of my country.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
As we all saw last year, there is nothing democratic about the Democrat party.
How's the weather in Moscow, Boris?
Like celebrating your dick falling off. (Score:3, Insightful)
If net neutrality fails it will just mean all the smart people can pack up their shit and start a new internet and scrubs like you can pay by minute on your AOL 2.0. I personally can't fathom why you'd be so excited by this.
Re: (Score:2)
If net neutrality fails it will just mean all the smart people can pack up their shit and start a new internet
Unfortunately, this isn't an option. The internet started because the US government need a dependable way to help end all life on earth if the USSR decided it wanted to get the ball rolling. With out this issue then the internet probably wouldn't have been built. Then in a moment of rare sanity the US government decided to let everyone play in their sandbox.
To create a new internet you will need to establish right of way for the cables you will be buying. That will require many legal hurdles to over
Re: (Score:3)
I think Net Neutrality has been mischaracterized in the media. Too often I hear it's about ISPs, such as those that serve the general public individually. But it's not, because net neutrality more directly involves the backbone and who can get access to it. Thus if Comcast decides they don't like Netflix because it competes with some of their business, they can raise the prices for Netflix (or lower the price for everone else). The big internet players will take advantage of this, they will screw over th
Re: (Score:3)
I could see where this would be a problem. Hopefully, this will led to cheap wireless as you said.
In another post I agree with another poster that our best bet would be to contact congress critters and begin the god given right to bitch at them. Of course I have plenty of confidence will do the right thing. Just as I firmly believe that Santa will leave a wrapped sus Volans under my tree.
Re: (Score:2)