FCC Unveils Plan To Repeal Net Neutrality Rules

[GDRRiley]

3 minutes 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.

yes thats the point I tried to make. 

 

6 minutes ago, GamingMemeKing said:

Is there any advantages to NOT having net neutrality to consumers?

no other than supposedly more ISP investment. (the amount hasn't changed)

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, TheCherryKing said:

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

If your comments are on topic then even if they are political in nature there should be no issue stating your opinion. I can't exactly give you a free pass to say anything but I would also like to hear your reasoning on your position, my best advice would be to PM @LAwLz because as indicated we cannot see PM's unless someone included reports the message. In regards to PM's we would really only enforce harassment and personal attacks because if two or more members want to discuss something in private that would otherwise be against the CS in an open topic then that is actually fine and something we are not interested in.

 

It would also be great in the case where you do PM @LAwLz that any constructive reasoning also be posted here unless you get the sense during that discussion that it would be best not to. I'll leave that up to you two to sort out in that event.

[PETRGangKing]

2 hours 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. 

I agree with you on the non government intervention aspect. I'm kind of stuck in the middle here. I definitely agree that I do not like NN, I think that a free market ISP economy would do leaps and bounds for both increasing availability and quality for internet access. The problem is, that even without NN, we wouldn't have a free market economy as it Is easier to climb mountains then to become an ISP. If we could make it to where it there were no government barriers to offering internet service, we wouldn't have problems as people would take advantage of the money to be made by offering a competing and higher quality internet service. The free market, when allowed to function as purposed to, creates all the answers we need to our problems. 

 

It is because of this, that I am stuck. It seems Net neutrality is the solution to the problem too much government has caused, an internet Monopoly. Ironically, the proposed solution is more government intervention.

[leadeater]

21 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

And Vocus is not one of them, so there might be ways to circumvent them if necessary.

Vocus controls the networks that get you connected to the SCC, it's possible but the cost involved with installing the required infrastructure to do it is very significant and the SCC won't just let anyone use that cable either.

 

25 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

That competing cable is related to Kim Dotcom? I remember some announcement when he launched Mega that he was going to install new submarine cables to NZ.

That was the first attempt at a new cable, that fell through. The current plan has no involvement with Kim Dotcom, which is a good thing honestly.

 

Quote

Three separate cable projects with a combined value of about $1 billion are advancing, with progress ranging from the survey stage to final testing.

 

Hawaiki Cable chief executive Remi Galasso turned up the heat on Southern Cross, saying its $500 million trans-Pacific cable could be ready ahead of schedule, before June next year.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/90397463/Trans-Tasman-cable-completed-as-Hawaiki-and-Southern-Cross-advance

 

30 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

About SCC doubling bandwidth, isn't that because of new equipment? There were huge fiber advances in the last 3~5 years, new modulation techniques, error correction, getting rid of repeaters and so on.

No, all they did was turn on unlit wavelengths of equipment that was already installed but not operational. The SCC is comprised of 3 or 4 actual fibre pairs and there are 16 possible wavelengths.

 

I believe a combination of OC-768/STM-256 and OC-1920/STM-640 are in use, OC-768/STM-256 being used for the dedicated wavelength for REANNZ.

 

Also remember the cable was laid in 1998-2000 and the physical nature of it cannot change, not that it actually has any real effect on possible bandwidth and technology other than the 3 or 4 fibre pairs.

 

Quote

The network is almost 30,500 km in length, including 28,900 km of submarine cable incorporating around 500 optical repeaters (placed every 40-70 km), and 1,600 km of terrestrial cable. There are nine cable stations (two each in Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii and the US mainland, and one in Fiji) and additional access points in San Jose, Palo Alto, Los Angeles, and Seattle as well as Sydney.

 

Both cables in the network contain six optical fibres (3 fibre pairs) between Sydney and Hawaii, and eight fibres (4 fibre pairs) between Hawaii and the US West Coast.

https://www.southerncrosscables.com/home/network/overviewandmap

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

The cables can be old and all, but some techniques don't require much change and can still make a lot of difference.
https://newatlas.com/cudos-fiber-optic-network-capacity/26969/

I know, that was essentially my point. Fibre cables do little else other than bounce light so there is very little that would actually require replacing. If you want more speed you either use more wavelengths or upgrade the optics to newer better ones, scale out (wavelengths) or scale up (faster optics).

 

Originally the SCC only had 20Gbps of bandwidth in 2000, it's got a fair amount more than that now .

[Tsuki]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

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?

keep in mind, i fully support NN and title2, BUT to play devils advocate here for a second:

 

One problem with making the internet a Public Utility, is that it removes all power from the FTC. They arent allowed to regulate common carriers.  Before 2015, any of the Net Neutrality violations could have been reported to, and investigated by the FTC. Things like enforcing anti-trust laws, price gouging, this is all within FTC jurisdiction and they arent allowed to do anything about it right now.

 

That being said, under title2, it would be the FCC's job to enforce Net Neutrality laws, and they dont want to.

 

The biggest problem right now is that, when it gets repealed, we dont know what will happen.   We're scared of the "what if" scenarios especially since the people we're scared of are the ones telling us it'll be fine.

 

 

Its like the spider on the wall saying "dont worry, i eat other annoying insects, im here to help" but you know that fucker is gonna bite you when you turn the light off.

[TheCherryKing]

1 hour ago, Tsuki said:

keep in mind, i fully support NN and title2, BUT to play devils advocate here for a second:

 

One problem with making the internet a Public Utility, is that it removes all power from the FTC. They arent allowed to regulate common carriers.  Before 2015, any of the Net Neutrality violations could have been reported to, and investigated by the FTC. Things like enforcing anti-trust laws, price gouging, this is all within FTC jurisdiction and they arent allowed to do anything about it right now.

 

That being said, under title2, it would be the FCC's job to enforce Net Neutrality laws, and they dont want to.

 

The biggest problem right now is that, when it gets repealed, we dont know what will happen.   We're scared of the "what if" scenarios especially since the people we're scared of are the ones telling us it'll be fine.

 

 

Its like the spider on the wall saying "dont worry, i eat other annoying insects, im here to help" but you know that fucker is gonna bite you when you turn the light off.

You're right about "what if" scenarios. Saying what will happen when net neutrality is repealed before it officially is like saying who will win an election or where exactly a hurricane will hit. Nobody knows!

[warmmilk]

5 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

You're right about "what if" scenarios. Saying what will happen when net neutrality is repealed before it officially is like saying who will win an election or where exactly a hurricane will hit. Nobody knows!

except that this isn't an unprecedented event.  look at other countries that don't have net neutrality laws, like Portugal.  they broke down the internet into different packages.  There's the base price, then if you want access to messaging apps thats an 5 bucks, want netflix? thats another fee.  on top of that they can (and will) turn around and charge netflix to make sure their content is on the fast lane and not always buffering.  and guess what, netflix isn't gonna eat that cost, its gonna get passed down to the consumer.  so the consumer ends up getting gangbanged by every internet service out there.

 

but you already know this... like stated before, you're either on the ISP's payroll or you're just trolling, either way you should at the very least be banned from this thread.  looks like mods dropped the ball on this one

 

 

[Tsuki]

37 minutes ago, warmmilk said:

except that this isn't an unprecedented event.  look at other countries that don't have net neutrality laws, like Portugal.  they broke down the internet into different packages.  There's the base price, then if you want access to messaging apps thats an 5 bucks, want netflix? thats another fee.  on top of that they can (and will) turn around and charge netflix to make sure their content is on the fast lane and not always buffering.  and guess what, netflix isn't gonna eat that cost, its gonna get passed down to the consumer.  so the consumer ends up getting gangbanged by every internet service out there.

actually no, you dont get to use Portugal as an example.

i know the image you are referring to, it has nothing to do with internet, at all.

its mobile data plans zero rating, something that actually exists already in the US.

 

Yes it is possible that it might happen with the internet here, but that graphic is NOT a good example since it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. and bringing it up does not actually help your argument, it only hurts it since its unrelated and just shows you dont do your own research on the topic.

 

also, asking for another person with opposing views to be banned, is not constructive to this thread.  If we want to keep this thread actually alive, without it getting shut down completely, please keep comments like that to yourself.

[GDRRiley]

39 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

ISPs charging more because of Netflix seems just fine to me. If you're going to use 40%~70% (average and peak) of the ISP infrastructure, you're going to pay more, and that is it. Don't like it? Then optimize your software to reduce the traffic.

why? its just traffic why does it mater where it starts and where it ends. You should have to pay more because your service is popular 

[GDRRiley]

2 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Why don't Netflix cache content of users on their devices and then distribute with P2P? They could save up a lot of bandwidth, reduce traffic on main links of the ISP, cut costs and the list goes on. YouTube could do the same.

Netflix does cache at the ISPs location. youtube has to much different content 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Your service is popular? Good for you, but if you destroy the quality of service for other customers that don't care about that service, you should pay more or improve your delivery to reduce bandwidth usage.

 

 

The problem here is not that netflix users are ruining the system for others, it's that ISP are overselling their network.    If User A pays for 500Gb at 100Mb/s then that's what they should get, what they use it on is irrelevant.   If the ISP can't provide the service they are selling then they need to either change their plans or improve their network.

[Tsuki]

4 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Because it can overload the network and increase package loss and/or delay for traffic that is more important and occupies less bandwidth, for example online shopping, audio streaming, web browsing in general, business applications, VoIP, etc.

Your service is popular? Good for you, but if you destroy the quality of service for other customers that don't care about that service, you should pay more or improve your delivery to reduce bandwidth usage.

Why don't Netflix cache content of users on their devices and then distribute with P2P? They could save up a lot of bandwidth, reduce traffic on main links of the ISP, cut costs and the list goes on. YouTube could do the same.
 

thats actually not how it work, especially with netflix. look up Netflix Open Connect

 

Netflix uses Amazon Web Services to periodically re-cache the content, and it does this during non-peak hours so it doesnt affect other users bandwidth.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

That's defined by statistical usage. If you sell it in fixed blocks, you would have huge amount of bandwidth idling the entire day just to make sure you had enough for peak usage. And BTW, if you want that, I agree that you should be able to get that service, but that would cost you much more than what you currently pay.

 

It doesn't matter how we define it.  If they can't provide what they promise then they need to promise something different.  If they need to slice up the speeds into time blocks and offer packages like that then so be it, but the problem is they aren't.  It's got nothing to do with users using more than their fair share, it's ISP's not managing their product.

 

 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

I doubt you can find any ISP promising 100% of the bandwidth of your plan 100% of the time.

so far mine does.   But that's the best thing about Australia at the moment, there are no real monopolies and as the NBN gets bigger the ISP's who are overselling their product become more and more obvious.

[GDRRiley]

4 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

It's exactly how it works... It re-cache content to their cache servers inside the ISP network, but that doesn't prevent high traffic inside the main ISP network, while with P2P you could limit the high traffic to few peripheral networks of the ISP.

but with the slow upload speeds of most residential it isn't fair to the users to eat up all of their upload speed and with most of us having data caps that hurts us even more. 

Edited December 2, 2017 by GDRRiley
added more

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Delivering is not the same as promising, and you're totally not checking it 100% of the time with 100% bandwidth usage.

I never run out of data and every time I am on it is running at full speed.  It does not matter if I am watching netflix, youtube, downloading a game/program or a combination of any of those. Nor does it seem to matter what time of day this all happens at.

 

At the end of the day, you can't blame users for wanting what their ISP has sold them. 

 

 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Slow update speeds and data caps never prevented people from seeding torrents,

which people? 

[mr moose]

Just now, gabrielcarvfer said:

That doesn't prove that you're at 100% speed 100% of time. No ISP sells that level of service to common users and for those prices. People should read the contracts before signing them...

 

No you're right, when I am not using the internet it is not downloading at full speed.   IN fact I am not even using any of my data cap when I am not using the internet.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

The torrent people, in general. Even leechers end up seeding 1~5%, that in Netflix case could make a huge difference.

I don't know anyone on a data cap that uploads torrents.   If they can't turn it off, they set the upload bandwidth to 0.1kb/s until the torrent is finished then delete it.

[vanished]

14 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

I doubt you can find any ISP promising 100% of the bandwidth of your plan 100% of the time.

10 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Delivering is not the same as promising, and you're totally not checking it 100% of the time with 100% bandwidth usage.

 

I'm in the same boat, they don't promise 100% speed 100% uptime, and I know they don't deliver on 100% uptime, but it's pretty close, and I have never noticed being throttled.  In fact, I often see more than the promised download speed.  But then, I am in Canada

 

[leadeater]

39 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

I doubt you can find any ISP promising 100% of the bandwidth of your plan 100% of the time.

They all do in NZ, it's even tracked and rated by a few different sources and checked by our Commerce Commission to make sure we get what is being both advertised for and paid for.

 

If your plan says 100Mbps then that is what you should get 100% of the time, within reasonable control of the ISP. That means if there is congestion upstream from the ISP that is not their fault i.e. Netflix cache servers.

 

As for P2P caching that would be worse because internet infrastructure is deployed on the assumption that 80% or more traffic is download, that means any P2P traffic quickly overloads the available bandwidth.

 

Also architecturally ISP networks are designed to get it's customers as quickly as possible to content servers and major network trunks, not to other customers. For example the path traffic would take from my house to my next door neighbor would be first hop 500km away to Auckland, to Vocus, it would then be looked at for the destination IP address, route tables evaluated then sent back down the country using a mixture of routing and MPLS packet switching. This is best case where both end points are on the same ISP.

 

If we were on different ISPs and the other person's ISP was peering with CityLink in Wellington for example traffic would trombone up and down the full length of the country twice for each single packet path so round trip time would be 4 times greater and twice the bandwidth on the network would be used, horribly inefficient use of network bandwidth. Would be much better for both of us to just use the cache server at Vocus in Auckland.

[LienusLateTips]

Well, I'm moving to Taiwan now.

[TheCherryKing]

2 minutes ago, JDE said:

Well, I'm moving to Taiwan now.

How would that help? You are already in Canada! Net neutrality will not directly effect Canada. 

[SansVarnic]

3 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

How would that help? You are already in Canada! Net neutrality will not directly effect Canada. 

Laws on this scale in the US have a tendency to trickle down to other countries. It happens more often than not.