FCC Unveils Plan To Repeal Net Neutrality Rules

[vanished]

1 hour ago, Implosivetech said:

Since the internet providers wanting to repeal net neutrality have 50 out of the 100 senators, Mike Pence will need to break the vote. Currently, Mike Pence wants Net Neutrality to stay, so the repeal can't go through.

I thought it was being voted just by the FCC and was likely to be repealed 3 to 2?

[TheCherryKing]

1 hour ago, Implosivetech said:

Since the internet providers wanting to repeal net neutrality have 50 out of the 100 senators, Mike Pence will need to break the vote. Currently, Mike Pence wants Net Neutrality to stay, so the repeal can't go through.

The senate is not voting on net neutrality. Besides Mike Pence actually opposes Net Neutrality. http://www.ontheissues.org/IN/Mike_Pence_Technology.htm

[Bit_Guardian]

8 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I thought it was being voted just by the FCC and was likely to be repealed 3 to 2?

You are correct. Unless Congress wants to enact a law, it's currently just FCC purview and jurisdiction.

[vanished]

Just now, TheCherryKing said:

The senate is not voting on net neutrality. Besides Mike Pence actually opposes Net Neutrality. http://www.ontheissues.org/IN/Mike_Pence_Technology.htm

I have no knowledge of his opinions on NN one way or the other but that is more believable to me

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, TheCherryKing said:

I have answered your questions many times.

No you haven't. You dodged my questions as if you were Neo and my questions were bullets.

 

You never answered what benefits a privatized Internet has over one where the government owns the fiber and rents it to ISPs.

You never said what you think would happen if it was government owned (the infrastructure that is).

You never answered what solution you would suggest instead.

 

You also haven't answered what benefit removing NN would have.

 

 

5 hours ago, TheCherryKing said:

First off the word "Alleging" means claiming not proving. Secondly you should pick unbiased sources that don't favor either side.

Is this source unbiased enough for you?

In before:
1) You say The Way Back Machine is a biased source and that they have altered the content on Verizon's own website.

2) You don't understand what the webpage actually says.

To spell it out for you in less technical terms, Verizon started transcoding video streams depending on how much bandwidth they felt their network could handle. If someone tried to stream YouTube at 1080p and Verizon didn't want that user to use that much bandwidth, they reduced the quality. They also throttled video buffering.

Once NN passed, they were forced to stop these practices (note how it says they discontinued these things in 2015).

[TheCherryKing]

15 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

No you haven't. You dodged my questions as if you were Neo and my questions were bullets.

 

You never answered what benefits a privatized Internet has over one where the government owns the fiber and rents it to ISPs.

You never said what you think would happen if it was government owned (the infrastructure that is).

You never answered what solution you would suggest instead.

 

You also haven't answered what benefit removing NN would have.

 

 

Is this source unbiased enough for you?

In before:
1) You say The Way Back Machine is a biased source and that they have altered the content on Verizon's own website.

2) You don't understand what the webpage actually says.

To spell it out for you in less technical terms, Verizon started transcoding video streams depending on how much bandwidth they felt their network could handle. If someone tried to stream YouTube at 1080p and Verizon didn't want that user to use that much bandwidth, they reduced the quality. They also throttled video buffering.

Once NN passed, they were forced to stop these practices (note how it says they discontinued these things in 2015).

Why do you keep spamming me? Stop! If you want answers look at all of my previous posts.

[LAwLz]

20 hours ago, Maxxtraxx said:

Fixed my quoting for clarification.

 

Are you sure Europe is doing that much better?

According to information Here

 

It doesn't look terribly impressive, Sweden being the top performer at 19Mbps. I am at 25 Mbps myself(I rarely need anywhere near that speed, but it is useful for downloading big steam games. I have to confess that I do really like the Xfinity hotspots that are popping up seemingly everywhere now and allows me to avoid using my project fi data.) I could easily go to over 300 Mbps if I Really wanted to now that docsis 3.1 is active.

 

 None of my friends or family that have 5-10Mbps(because they choose to have cheaper service) have ever complained to me about speed, my parents have gone to antenna TV and streaming vs cable TV, I myself noticed zero difference in performance with normal usage when I went from 10 to 25 other than with large download times.

You can't just look at the average of an entire country.

1) Not everyone wants high speed Internet. For example a lot of people in Sweden can get up to 1Gbps if they want, but they choose to get the very cheap 10Mbps offering. My grandparents are one of them. This dramatically reduces the average. So those statistics doesn't differentiate between people who can get better but are satisfied, and those who simply can't get anything better.

2) Nobody expects an entire country to have superb Internet infrastructure. For example Sweden has terrible Internet infrastructure up in the north. It's not uncommon for people in the northern parts to rely on radio towers for Internet traffic. When I (very briefly) worked first line support at an ISP I actually had a few people call in with Internet problems. Turned out it was snowing and that killed their bandwidth. In those areas (including remote areas in the US) it's hard to justify the expenses of building fast fiber connections, but that's no excuse for not having proper infrastructure in the cities.

3) 14.2Mbps to 19.1Mbps is still about 35% higher speeds. Not sure about you but if Intel released a processor with 35% higher instruction per clock then I would be very impressed and say it was a huge improvement.

 

 

 

19 hours ago, leadeater said:

Sweden and NZ are actually different in how the fibre network was deployed. Sweden is government owned where as NZ it is not government owned however it was government funded and designed. Each area in the country fibre installers put bids in for the contracts to deploy the infrastructure so there was equal opportunity and multiple different companies were awarded contracts. So we ended up with privately owned fibre network with government regulations on how that network is operated, ISPs resell access to this network to customers at regulated pricing but that does not mean every ISP plan is the same price or has the same terms to it.

I'd just like to add that not all fiber is built or owned by the Swedish government.

A lot of it is (probably the majority) but we also have some private companies who build fiber. For example Itux, IP-Only, Utsikt, Zitius, and a few more. It's just that most of the fiber is either owned by a company that's not directly consumer facing (which is to say, the owners of the fiber are not the same companies as the ISPs private consumers subscribe to) or the government. This makes it so that when fiber is built, you have one cable go into your home and then any ISP that wants can offer their service to a customer.

 

 

There are some places where the ISPs own the fiber too. For example the apartment building I live in has a contract with an ISP called "bredbandsbolaget" and they are the only ISP I can choose which offers fiber (although I can still go with coax or ADSL from some other company).

 

The ISP Telia also owns quite a bit of fiber, but they are owned by the Swedish government (or well, the government owns 40% of it) and they allow other ISPs to use their fiber too. That creates an incredibly competitive marketplace, while keeping the cost of the actual fiber deployment down (just need 1 set of cable to satisfy 20+ ISPs). That's how my parents can choose from 15+ different ISPs, or how Telia can list 22 different ISPs who can use their fiber on the website I linked above. I think it's a brilliant system and in the cases where it's a private company that owns the fiber (such as Itux) then there is very little government involved, while at the same time multiple private companies all make a profit.

 

 

@TheCherryKing I just want you to answer my questions. I have gone through your posts and you have not given any answers to those questions. Just saying "less government is better" is not a valid answer to the question "what benefit would less government involvement have". You need to be more specific than that. I don't think I am alone in thinking that your posts are extremely vague, and that to me indicates a lack of knowledge or an attempt to hide/mislead. I can't say I am a fan of either.

[TheCherryKing]

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

You can't just look at the average of an entire country.

1) Not everyone wants high speed Internet. For example a lot of people in Sweden can get up to 1Gbps if they want, but they choose to get the very cheap 10Mbps offering. My grandparents are one of them. This dramatically reduces the average. So those statistics doesn't differentiate between people who can get better but are satisfied, and those who simply can't get anything better.

2) Nobody expects an entire country to have superb Internet infrastructure. For example Sweden has terrible Internet infrastructure up in the north. It's not uncommon for people in the northern parts to rely on radio towers for Internet traffic. When I (very briefly) worked first line support at an ISP I actually had a few people call in with Internet problems. Turned out it was snowing and that killed their bandwidth. In those areas (including remote areas in the US) it's hard to justify the expenses of building fast fiber connections, but that's no excuse for not having proper infrastructure in the cities.

3) 14.2Mbps to 19.1Mbps is still about 35% higher speeds. Not sure about you but if Intel released a processor with 35% higher instruction per clock then I would be very impressed and say it was a huge improvement.

 

 

 

I'd just like to add that not all fiber is built or owned by the Swedish government.

A lot of it is (probably the majority) but we also have some private companies who build fiber. For example Itux, IP-Only, Utsikt, Zitius, and a few more. It's just that most of the fiber is either owned by a company that's not directly consumer facing (which is to say, the owners of the fiber are not the same companies as the ISPs private consumers subscribe to) or the government.

There are some places where the ISPs own the fiber too. For example the apartment building I live in has a contract with an ISP called "bredbandsbolaget" and they are the only ISP I can choose which offers fiber (although I can still go with coax or ADSL from some other company).

 

The ISP Telia also owns quite a bit of fiber, but they are owned by the Swedish government (or well, the government owns 40% of it) and they allow other ISPs to use their fiber too.

 

 

@TheCherryKing I just want you to answer my questions. I have gone through your posts and you have not given any answers to those questions. Just saying "less government is better" is not a valid answer to the question "what benefit would less government involvement have". You need to be more specific than that. I don't think I am alone in thinking that your posts are extremely vague, and that to me indicates a lack of knowledge or an attempt to hide/mislead. I can't say I am a fan of either.

If you continue to harass and spam me you will be blocked. 

[leadeater]

6 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Ok, that was interesting. Those 2 connections are provided by the same company?

It's part owned by multiple companies, the cable network itself (between NZ/AUS and USA) is called the Southern Cross Cable.

 

Quote

Southern Cross Cables Limited (Spark NZ (50.01%), Singtel/Optus (39.99%), Verizon Business (10%))

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Cross_Cable

 

There's actually a competing undersea cable being put in soon, I think it's already started? Not sure but after that was announced the SCC suddenly doubled it's lit bandwidth around a week or so later.

[LAwLz]

49 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

If you continue to harass and spam me you will be blocked. 

I don't see how asking you question about your point of view and what you suggest should be done could be considered "harassment" and "spam".

 

Personally I don't have any problem at all with people asking me what my thoughts are and what I actions I would recommend, but that's probably because I feel like I have a decent understanding of the situation and feel comfortable with my point of view.

You can ask me anything you like about NN (or basically anything really) and I will gladly answer it. We might not come to an agreement, but I will at least make an attempt to explain why I have the position I do, and how I came to that conclusion.

 

Also, I am strongly against blocking others just because they have different opinions. All that does is create an echo-chamber where your own beliefs are constantly reinforced and never challenged. That's very dangerous because if you are never exposed to opposing views then you run the risk of never learning why other people might have different opinions, but you also run the risk of getting a feedback loop, constantly enforcing things which might be wrong, or lead to circular logic.

I am proud to say that I have never blocked anyone on a forum.

 

 

 

Edit:

Also, if you block someone just because one of thread then you run the risk of missing out on a lot of good posts.

 

Just take @mr moose as an example. He and I have gotten into very heated arguments several times. I can't speak for him but I have gotten quite upset because of his posts several times and wanted to call him a huge idiot that's so stupid I am surprised he even knows how to operate a keyboard... But if I had blocked him because of the few threads where we disagree then I would also miss out on all the informative and good posts he has made. I would have missed all three of them! (just kidding, I like you)

[TheCherryKing]

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I don't see how asking you question about your point of view and what you suggest should be done could be considered "harassment" and "spam".

 

Personally I don't have any problem at all with people asking me what my thoughts are and what I actions I would recommend, but that's probably because I feel like I have a decent understanding of the situation and feel comfortable with my point of view.

You can ask me anything you like about NN (or basically anything really) and I will gladly answer it. We might not come to an agreement, but I will at least make an attempt to explain why I have the position I do, and how I came to that conclusion.

 

Also, I am strongly against blocking others just because they have different opinions. All that does is create an echo-chamber where your own beliefs are constantly reinforced and never challenged. That's very dangerous because if you are never exposed to opposing views then you run the risk of never learning why other people might have different opinions, but you also run the risk of getting a feedback loop, constantly enforcing things which might be wrong, or lead to circular logic.

I am proud to say that I have never blocked anyone on a forum.

I can't argue with you anymore. We will never come to an agreement. I have polar opposite political views to you so there is no possible way to please you. We should bring this debate to an end and be civil to one another.

[LAwLz]

17 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

I can't argue with you anymore. We will never come to an agreement.

Well that's one thing we can agree on, that we won't come to an agreement on NN.

 

I didn't ask you for your thoughts because I wanted to convenience you to agree with me though. I asked you because I wanted to learn how you came to your conclusions. Maybe you had some ideas or arguments I hadn't thought of? Maybe I came with some questions you hadn't thought of?

 

Right now I think it is completely illogical how anyone can be against NN. If you explained your way of thinking then maybe I could understand you better. I would most likely still not agree with you on the conclusion, but at least I could understand your position a bit better. Right now the only three reasons I can think of why you would hold the position you do is because:

1) You are paid by the ISPs to say the things you do.

2) You are just repeating what you have heard someone else say and blindly believe them.

3) You are an anarchist who dislikes everything which is related to the government no matter what they are.

 

Maybe there is a fourth reasons, but without talking about things I won't learn what that would be.

[mr moose]

11 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

Edit:

Also, if you block someone just because one of thread then you run the risk of missing out on a lot of good posts.

 

Just take @mr moose as an example. He and I have gotten into very heated arguments several times. I can't speak for him but I have gotten quite upset because of his posts several times and wanted to call him a huge idiot that's so stupid I am surprised he even knows how to operate a keyboard several times... But if I had blocked him because of the few threads where we disagree then I would also miss out on all the informative and good posts he has made. I would have missed all three of them! (just kidding, I like you)

 

Do you feel better having got that off your chest?   I can assure you that Idiocy is a universal phenomenon.  We can't all occupy the most informed position and even if we do our opinions can still be different.

 

BTW, I never block either.  I find it to be the single most self defeating action anyone can take.  It's the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "I can't hear you!".   

[TheCherryKing]

Just now, LAwLz said:

Well that's one thing we can agree on, that we won't come to an agreement on NN.

 

I didn't ask you for your thoughts because I wanted to convenience you to agree with me though. I asked you because I wanted to learn how you came to your conclusions. Maybe you had some ideas or arguments I hadn't thought of? Maybe I came with some questions you hadn't thought of?

 

Right now I think it is completely illogical how anyone can be against NN. If you explained your way of thinking then maybe I could understand you better. I would most likely still not agree with you on the conclusion, but at least I could understand your position a bit better. Right now the only three reasons I can think of why you would hold the position you do is because:

1) You are paid by the ISPs to say the things you do.

2) You are just repeating what you have heard someone else say and blindly believe them.

3) You are an anarchist which dislikes everything which is related to the government no matter what they are.

 

Maybe there is a fourth reasons, but without talking about things I won't learn what that would be.

I have been accused of trolling and this forum is no exception. I do lots of research before I make a decision on what I believe. Just to make it clear i support treating data equally but I do not support government intervention or treating the Internet infrastructure as a public utility. 

[GDRRiley]

On 11/29/2017 at 8:47 AM, gabrielcarvfer said:

\ Build a new one.

We CAN"T EVEN GOOGLE WITH ALL ITS money couldn't.

the ISPs have to strong of a grip of the government so we can't. 

[Lurick]

Don't forget everyone, check your names and see if comments were filled in your name supporting the repeal of net neutrality

 

https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/12/01/2017222/was-your-name-stolen-to-support-killing-net-neutrality

[GDRRiley]

5 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

I have been accused of trolling and this forum is no exception. I do lots of research before I make a decision on what I believe. Just to make it clear i support treating data equally but I do not support government intervention or treating the Internet infrastructure as a public utility. 

why? these are the only options when you have almost 2 complete monopolies that work together.

The is 3 real solutions. Gov/companies who aren't ISPs controlled fiber, Breaking up the main ISPs, keeping net neutrally for now or make it easier for ISPs to be formed. 

[TheCherryKing]

1 minute ago, GDRRiley said:

why? these are the only options when you have almost 2 complete monopolies that work together.

The is 3 real solutions. Gov/companies who aren't ISPs controlled fiber, Breaking up the main ISPs, keeping net neutrally for now or make it easier for ISPs to be formed. 

The best solution is to make it easier for ISPs to be formed. There are two major barriers to offering internet in certain areas:

1. City/Township

2. Homeowner's Association(if you have one)

[Lurick]

4 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

The best solution is to make it easier for ISPs to be formed. There are two major barriers to offering internet in certain areas:

1. City/Township

2. Homeowner's Association(if you have one)

You forgot the most common, at least in ~20 states.

Laws preventing communities from deciding if they want to invest in fiber locally.

https://muninetworks.org/communitymap

 

https://muninetworks.org/content/mo-fight-not-over-til-its-over-time-call

[LAwLz]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Do you feel better having got that off your chest?   I can assure you that Idiocy is a universal phenomenon.  We can't all occupy the most informed position and even if we do our opinions can still be different.

I would just like to say that I mentioned you not because I have been holding a grudge against you, but because you happened to be the one showing up in my notification just when I wanted to write an example.

 

6 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

I have been accused of trolling and this forum is no exception. I do lots of research before I make a decision on what I believe. Just to make it clear i support treating data equally but I do not support government intervention or treating the Internet infrastructure as a public utility. 

Maybe you would be accused of trolling as frequently if you explained your position a bit better?

 

So you agree that data needs to be treated equally, but you are against Internet infrastructure being a public utility? By public utility do you mean it falling under Title II of the telecommunications act? If so, could you explain what part of Title II you think is bad? Why is it being a "public utility" bad?

[TheCherryKing]

17 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I would just like to say that I mentioned you not because I have been holding a grudge against you, but because you happened to be the one showing up in my notification just when I wanted to write an example.

 

Maybe you would be accused of trolling as frequently if you explained your position a bit better?

 

So you agree that data needs to be treated equally, but you are against Internet infrastructure being a public utility? By public utility do you mean it falling under Title II of the telecommunications act? If so, could you explain what part of Title II you think is bad? Why is it being a "public utility" bad?

There's no way of describing that without getting into politics more.

[LAwLz]

1 minute ago, TheCherryKing said:

There's no way of describing that without getting into politics more. I would send you a PM on that but that may be against the rules too. I'll respond if I am given the "okay" to continue. 

Feel free to send me a PM if you think it is too political for this thread. From what I know the mods can't read PMs but even if they could I doubt they would do anything against you.

[Damascus]

In theory a deregulated free market would break the stranglehold the big ISPs have right now but let's be honest, that isn't happening.

[Oshino Shinobu]

1 minute ago, Damascus said:

In theory a deregulated free market would break the stranglehold the big ISPs have right now but let's be honest, that isn't happening.

It's likely to end up doing the exact opposite by the looks of things. I can't understand why any consumers are voted against net neutrality. I guess maybe those that have fallen for the false advertising for abolishing net neutrality. 

[vanished]

-merged-