Tech companies to 'nerf' online services on July 12th in a bid to keep net neutrality

[Gwion101]

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-40494909?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook

 

Just a heads up to those in the USA (I assume this will only happen in the USA...) who may see certain services 'slow down' in a bid to keep net neutrality.

Quote

On 12 July, huge tech companies such as Amazon will join more than 170 organisations which will "slow down" their services to protest the proposed change. The protest is an attempt to simulate what could potentially happen to popular websites if net neutrality rules are scrapped. The companies will show advertisements and pop ups which encourage users to comment on a dedicated campaign website.

This will be in protest to the FCC reverting the net neutrality regulations made in 2015.

Quote

The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC), with the support of the Obama administration introduced new net neutrality regulations in 2015, after an extensive campaign by activist groups and tech companies. Those rules put ISPs in the same category as other telecommunication companies. 

But President Trump is a vocal critic of the measures, and he appointed a net neutrality opponent, former commissioner Ajit Pai, to chair the FCC at the beginning of this year. Pai said he fears that internet service providers are not investing in critical infrastructure such as connections to low income or rural households because the net neutrality rules prevent them from making money from their investments.

I really wouldn't want this to happen and I think the majority of you think the same. Let's just hope we don't lose net neutrality, I can imagine Floatplane Media and LMG getting effected by this among meany others.

[Drak3]

At this point, content creators/providers have done more throttling than throttle happy ISPs.

[SansVarnic]

37 minutes ago, Gwion101 said:

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-40494909?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook

 

Just a heads up to those in the USA (I assume this will only happen in the USA...) who may see certain services 'slow down' in a bid to keep net neutrality.

This will be in protest to the FCC reverting the net neutrality regulations made in 2015.

I really wouldn't want this to happen and I think the majority of you think the same. Let's just hope we don't lose net neutrality, I can imagine Floatplane Media and LMG getting effected by this among meany others.

Not worried, internet ISPs already throttle even with the current "net neutrality" farce that is in place.

Apparently OP you are not up to speed on what the "net neutrality" even was and how it is not enforceable in its current form. It is neither legal (constitutionally) or effective it was all for show and did nothing but show just how power hungry a non-law making entity was. Thee FCC did not have the authority to do this.

18 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

When will Trump stop...

 

Actually is there a countdown timer that shows how long will he stay?

And what specifically does trump has what to do with this? the "net neutrality bill"  was and is a farce, trump need not do anything as congress can walk in and ell them to drop dead and move on with a real piece of legislation.

 

Both of you need to brush up on constitutional law view the actions through those lenses.

 

*edit

The only thing this will do is hurt the ISP's. Which in turn can be a good thing.

 

Edited July 10, 2017 by SansVarnic

[PlayStation 2]

Again, what fucking purpose did the net neutrality bill serve when many ISPs didn't give a shit about it? It was a broken ass bill from the get go, and reinstating said broken ass bill won't change shit. 

 

Also, what the fuck does Mr. Washington Post care about net neutrality?

[SansVarnic]

Remember it wasnt even a bill it was a panel decision by the FCC to enact growth of power without the consent of congress.

[Gwion101]

12 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

At this point, content creators/providers have done more throttling than throttle happy ISPs.

I've never been aware of that but maybe I'm just oblivious to it (I don't live in America last I checked). Throttling is only part of the problem it the ISPs could have it their way, we could see them providing 'internet packages' similar to tv packages on cable tv where you would have to pay extra to get access to services like Facebook, youtube or amazon. I think you can agree, it would be pretty crap if we had to pay more for a social media package along with our gaming and shopping packages or heaven forbid the business 'unlimited access package'!

[Drak3]

Just now, Gwion101 said:

I've never been aware of that but maybe I'm just oblivious to it (I don't live in America last I checked). Throttling is only part of the problem it the ISPs could have it their way, we could see them providing 'internet packages' similar to tv packages on cable tv where you would have to pay extra to get access to services like Facebook, youtube or amazon. I think you can agree, it would be pretty crap if we had to pay more for a social media package along with our gaming and shopping packages or heaven forbid the business 'unlimited access package'!

That would only work were the myth that ISPs own monopolies is believed. Basically, just where Comcast operates. Otherwise, ISPs will actively try to undercut each other by either offering more or charging less, often both. And even then, it'd only work with less knowledgeable people and only for a limited amount of time. It's opening a door for competition to kick out any major ISP's legs out from under them, and why net neutrality has not been seen as necessary until recently. It's only been seen as necessary because of hose sensationalized it has become.

 

The reality is, nothing has changed or will change.

[SansVarnic]

Just for point to be made; true net neutrality would enact the following:

1. Unlimited access to the net, ie no data caps. You cannot cap something that doesn't have physical form, capping bandwidth due to hardware restraints yes but data caps no.

2. ISP should be given the choice to either;

    a. pay back all the subsidies over the last 20-30 years or

    b. start the infrastructure upgrades that the subsidies were meant for.

3. If the ISP's are to be listed as a utility then utility pricing needs to be adhered to. Sensible flat rate prices to be hooked up for access and/or tier pricing for bandwidth. 

4. Absolutely no throttling allowed which would be a breach of #1 above.

 

Honestly that is it.

 

 

*edit 

I forgot to define tier bandwidth;

Dial-up

DSL

Broadband Cable

Fibre

Edited July 11, 2017 by SansVarnic

[BuckGup]

10 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Just for point to be made; true net neutrality would enact the following:

1. Unlimited access to the net, ie no data caps. You cannot cap something that doesn't have physical form, capping bandwidth due to hardware restraints yes but data caps no.

2. ISP should be given the choice to either;

    a. pay back all the subsidies over the last 20-30 years or

    b. start the infrastructure upgrades that the subsidies were meant for.

3. If the ISP's are to be listed as a utility then utility pricing needs to be adhered to. Sensible flat rate prices to be hooked up for access and/or tier pricing for bandwidth. 

4. Absolutely no throttling allowed which would be a breach of #1 above.

 

Honestly that is it.

 

 

*edit 

I forgot to define tier bandwidth;

Dial-up

DSL

Broadband Cable

Fibre

Right but what stops the ISP from putting in the fine print they can throttle you and you agree. Or they make up some lie like it's peering or time of day?

[LAwLz]

33 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Remember it wasnt even a bill it was a panel decision by the FCC to enact growth of power without the consent of congress.

Remember when I proved you wrong about your view of net neutrality and you never replied? Still waiting on that response. 

[SansVarnic]

13 minutes ago, BuckGup said:

Right but what stops the ISP from putting in the fine print they can throttle you and you agree. Or they make up some lie like it's peering or time of day?

1 and 4 cover that. 2 covers the network capabilities, if ISP's spent the time and money received in the first place to put in the infrastructure throttling due to peak use would not be an issue.

 

Example; In the State of Iowa we have the largest fiber network in the US its like 6 or 7k miles now (and continuing to grow at an extensive rate) all paid for by the state with no federal dollars used, expanded as money was made available. At the time I write this it was approximated that less than 10% of the bandwidth is being used and that is with the load being placed on it by Mediacom and CenturyLink as a backbone to connect local networks. It was surmised that if the fiber network was opened to the public (which the state of Iowa just did by selling it to a public entity very recently) that bandwidth use across the board would only increase to about 45-55%.  The only thing holding back the network would be local servers.

[SansVarnic]

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Remember when I proved you wrong about your view of net neutrality and you never replied? Still waiting on that response. 

My argument was sound and the source material I linked too I wont rehash that thanks.

[captain_to_fire]

As an Asian bystander to American affairs, does American ISPs and wireless carriers charge enough from their customers which allows them to invest in technologies that can increase bandwidth and future proof for the years to come like replacing copper for fiber optic cables? 

 

Source

 

Here's an old clip from CNET but the hosts do make valid points on net neutrality. https://archive.org/details/NetNeutralityDoubleRant

[SansVarnic]

Just now, hey_yo_ said:

<snip>

Yes

Google has shown it can be done. It is being done In the State of Iowa with out ISP help.

[captain_to_fire]

Just now, SansVarnic said:

Yes

Google has shown it can be done. It is being done In the State of Iowa with out ISP help.

How much does Google charge their customers for that gigabit internet named Google Fiber?

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, hey_yo_ said:

As an Asian bystander to American affairs, does American ISPs and wireless carriers charge enough from their customers which allows them to invest in technologies that can increase bandwidth and future proof for the years to come like replacing copper for fiber optic cables? 

 

 

Source

Wonder how up to date that data is considering we are in the middle of a nation wide fibre rollout. I can see the average speed is above that of ADSL2+ so it is capturing some of it but most places have access to 1Gbps plans now, if people choose that speed plan is a different story though.

[SansVarnic]

3 minutes ago, hey_yo_ said:

How much does Google charge their customers for that gigabit internet named Google Fiber?

IIRC during the intital install phase it was expensive 3-$400.

But packages were to be at about 90-120 a month. Not much more than current 1gb cable access on average.

[captain_to_fire]

Just now, leadeater said:

Wonder how up to date that data is considering we are in the middle of a nation wide fibre rollout. I can see the average speed is above that of ADSL2+ so it is capturing some of it but most places have access to 1Gbps plans now, if people choose that speed plan is a different story though.

What is the common speed plan most people in NZ subscribe to? I think the data was out of date but I don't think that much late. Also, the average speed on a daily basis is put into consideration. Assuming that majority of the people are subscribed to a 10 mbps plan but most of the time they're only getting 5, then they'll take 5 as the average internet speed. But of course, sampling size, sampling methods, and standard deviations are put into consideration.

[leadeater]

11 minutes ago, hey_yo_ said:

What is the common speed plan most people in NZ subscribe to? I think the data was out of date but I don't think that much late. Also, the average speed on a daily basis is put into consideration. Assuming that majority of the people are subscribed to a 10 mbps plan but most of the time they're only getting 5, then they'll take 5 as the average internet speed. But of course, sampling size, sampling methods, and standard deviations are put into consideration.

Kind of depends, the slowest speed plan offered on the fibre network is 30Mbps but not everyone bothers to offer that and most start at 100Mbps. We don't really have network congestion problems so you get very close to what you pay for, most people are limited by their cheaper routers if at all. Router limitations only happen to people that go for the 1Gbps plans.

 

https://truenet.nz/speed

 

Smaller towns are getting deployment upgrades of fibre to the node then VDSL2 so get speeds between 20Mbps to 60 Mbps based on distance from node.

 

Edit:

The number on the website you gave will be close, not everyone has actually signed up for the new network and not every town has finished it's deployment. I wouldn't think the average is over 35Mbps.

[captain_to_fire]

Just now, leadeater said:

Kind of depends, the slowest speed plan offered on the fibre network is 30Mbps but not everyone bothers to offer that and most start at 100Mbps. We don't really have network congestion problems so you get very close to what you pay for, most people are limited by their cheaper routers if at all. Router limitations only happen to people that go for the 1Gbps plans.

 

https://truenet.nz/speed

 

Smaller towns are getting deployment upgrades of fibre to the node then VDSL2 so get speeds between 20Mbps to 60 Mbps based on distance from node.

Given that NZ population is around 5 million people only, I can easily see NZ getting at the top 15 for the next two to three years. Compare that to US population around 324 million as of 2016. 

[SansVarnic]

Next House I will live in will be 2 blocks from a fiber node. *excited* so I will get really nice internets yay.

and that is in the country, Iowa leads the way with this, (one thing techie that Iowa did right)

[Jito463]

1 minute ago, SansVarnic said:

Next House I will live in will be 2 blocks from a fiber node. *excited* so I will get really nice internets yay.

and that is in the country, Iowa leads the way with this, (one thing techie that Iowa did right)

Of course, they would wait until after I left the state to start rolling it out (mind you, it's been 10 years now, but still....NOT FAIR! ).  I'm glad for you, but I also envy you.

 

In any event, we're finally getting Gigabit fiber here in Lincoln.  It's currently in the rollout phase, with some parts of the city already receiving it, and others (like me) still waiting on construction to finish.  Not a bad price, either.  They're quoting $90/mo for 1Gb.  Considering I'm presently paying $60/mo (with taxes/fees, around $80/mo !!!) for mere 12Mb DSL, I'm definitely looking forward to the day I can switch.  Windstream has decent service (at least for me), but their pricing is absolutely atrocious.

[Techstorm970]

This is why I'm tired of all the protesting that's been going on.  Protesting is why these companies are starting this massive computerized pissing contest that no one will benefit from.  This sucks!  

[catzambia]

Fuck the "federal" government.

 

We need this back.

That was, to a point, sarcasm. Not the fuck the feds part, but the Articles of Confederation part, though it would be better than the shit we've got now.

A side note, the current govt. is not a federal government at all, I really wish people would quit calling it that.

[SansVarnic]

32 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

<Snip>

IIRC Its been in the works since approx 1978. The public sale renamed it Aureon as for public access that is still a hurdle to over come, they don't do the end user experience (at least not yet). I dont know the plans on how this will all go down really but I do know that fiber has been rolled out continuously now at an exponential rate compared to before.  

4 minutes ago, catzambia said:

<snip>

Um Republic with a federalist system work? lol.