FCC orders net neutrality repeal

[potoooooooo]

14 hours ago, AresKrieger said:

Actually it would hold up as federal law always trumps state law so long as the law isn't specifically banned from being made by the constitution it's legal, granted I am generally for states rights over federal rights but the civil war essentially decided this 150 years ago. The only way that doesn't happen is if the FCC exceeded its authority but this seems to be within those bonds, now congress could do something about it but they can't even agree to fund the government properly so expecting them to even mention this in a serious non pandering way is ludicrous.

 

Regardless net neutrality isn't the issue, monopolization we need Teddy Roosevelt 2.0

 

Except you're forgetting that the FCC rulings aren't federal law.

 

It has to go through congress to become federal law.

[jaggysnake57]

rip internet in the states

[DrMacintosh]

I guess what I posted before was removed for some reason? 

 

But Ajit Pie is being investigated by multiple independent agencies for possible corruption. 

 

 

[Guest The Viking]

1 minute ago, DrMacintosh said:

I guess what I posted was removed for some reason? 

 

But Ajit Pie is being investigated by multiple independent agencies for possible corruption. 

 

yes he is, big headlines, but it seems to be related to the merger of some company:

 

http://datanews.levif.be/ict/actualite/ajit-pai-cible-par-une-enquete-sur-un-fait-de-corruption/article-normal-800783.html

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/technology/fcc-sinclair-ajit-pai.html

 

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/15/fcc_chairman_investigation/

 

I admire these american companies, can you believe how much patience they have? took them years to place this dude there and use him for their purposes. Pretty sure Verizon gave him a huge stack of cash.

[Urishima]

5 hours ago, jtmoseley said:

That's completely false. There is not nearly enough competition in the internet service provider field to say that it is competitive.

Which the 2015 FCC net neutrality ruling is partly to blame for, since it cassified internet connections/ISPs as a tier 2 common carriers. As a result, barriers to entry for new ISPs were raised, discouraging competition.

 

Again, please consider the videos I posted here on page 3.

[Lurick]

5 minutes ago, Urishima said:

Which the 2015 FCC net neutrality ruling is partly to blame for, since it cassified internet connections/ISPs as a tier 2 common carriers. As a result, barriers to entry for new ISPs were raised, discouraging competition.

 

Again, please consider the videos I posted here on page 3.

Barriers to entry you say?

Like the laws pushed and passed to in essence forbid new competition to come into the area by existing and incumbent ISPs?

Barriers to entry that existed long before Net Neutrality came into play I might add.

[Urishima]

6 minutes ago, Lurick said:

Barriers to entry you say?

Like the laws pushed and passed to in essence forbid new competition to come into the area by existing and incumbent ISPs?

Your point?

 

"Here we have 2 barriers to entry, but because we can only get rid of one of them, we should not touch either." is the argument you are apparently making?

 

Yes, the big US ISPs have successfully lobbied to establish a monopoly (as a rule, no monopoly can exist without government help). That is an entirely different issue to be dealt with seperately.

 

With the drop of the 2015 net neutrality ruling, ISPs will stop being tier 2 common carriers. Thanks to that, a shitty situation regarding ISP choice for customers can now potentially get a tiny bit better. It won't get much better if you keep conflating one issue with another.

[Lurick]

Just now, Urishima said:

Your point?

 

"Here we have 2 barriers to entry, but because we can only get rid of one of them, we should not touch either." is the argument you are apparently making?

 

Yes, the big US ISPs have successfully lobbied to establish a monopoly (as a rule, no monopoly can exist without government help). That is an entirely different issue to be dealt with seperately.

And what barriers to entry did NN bring into the mix?

Please elaborate because I'm having a hard time finding them.

[Urishima]

1 minute ago, Lurick said:

And what barriers to entry did NN bring into the mix?

Please elaborate because I'm having a hard time finding them.

Again, I posted videos of someone more eloquent than me. They are short and concise. Please consioder watching them.

[ProfessionalOverclocker]

Everyone here talking about their 5, 10, and 50 MB/s internet speeds and I'm sitting here thinking my internet was speedy when it went from 0.3 to a whole 1 MB/s. 

[BuckGup]

22 hours ago, Unimaginative Name said:

The internet grew up perfectly fine without net neutrality. There is enough competition and there exists enough anti-collusion and monopoly laws to naturally mitigate the threat a la carte internet solution. At least in theory. 

Please elaborate. 

Sure there are different ISPs but good luck having more than one choice in the area. Literally 1 ISP to chose from where I am and others either get Charter or Centurylink. It would be different if you literally had a choice 

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, Urishima said:

Which the 2015 FCC net neutrality ruling is partly to blame for, since it cassified internet connections/ISPs as a tier 2 common carriers. As a result, barriers to entry for new ISPs were raised, discouraging competition.

 

Again, please consider the videos I posted here on page 3.

How did no competition in the market before 2015 have anything to do with a ruling passed in 2015? The problem existed before 2015 so something happening after that, while not being in place long enough to have an effect at all, cannot go back in time to create a problem? Time doesn't go backwards.

 

Also multiple ISPs under oath testified that the 2015 ruling had no effect on their operations at all and the rule change placed no extra burden on the creation of an ISP. Operationally they have to comply with the 2015 rules but it makes it no harder to start an ISP, what makes that so hard is many other things.

 

Also you're using the tiers of ISP wrong anyway.

 

Edit:

Also LLU wasn't a thing before 2015 and ISPs made sure it wasn't a thing after 2015.

[MeDownYou]

23 hours ago, Unimaginative Name said:

Three providers in a market where LITERALLY EVERYBODY is a customer provides plenty of competition. In both of the places where I live, there are 2-4 choices, and the competition is heavy, there is constant price undercutting and it forces large-scale technology improvements across the board. The possible exception would be people who live in BFE and have the option of 10/5 (trust me, it happens). 

Or like me who had the option of 1mb/128kb for $60 dollars a month. Legitimately had enough people leave and use their cell phones so they "upgraded" to 10/1 for the same cost. (But only because they took government money rolled out symmetric fiber and had to "upgrade" as part of the process...Does the government know what this fiber is capable of? it's sure capable for a lot more than what it's currently providing, and they literally won't pay the port cost for more and have no competition to make packages more attractive.)

[mr moose]

13 hours ago, leadeater said:

Nah, NZ would be a better pick if you purely want good internet in a country in the middle of nowhere.

I have to agree with that, it seems the physical implementation you got was far superior. 

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I have to agree with that, it seems the physical implementation you got was far superior. 

We just followed your original plan and didn't back down and change it, pitty since if Aus had stuck too it the end result would have been so much better.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

We just followed your original plan and didn't back down and change it, pitty since if Aus had stuck too it the end result would have been so much better.

Unfortunately we didn't have the money to make the original plan or the secondary plan work.   I'm just grateful the ground work is in and we are moving forward. 

[Emberstone]

On 2/22/2018 at 5:25 PM, GDRRiley said:

not here in CA. I got 2 options for carriers over 50mbs and I gain 1 more if I could live with 25.
 

You're lucky. Here in Indiana, I have the option of a 6 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up line from AT&T, or I could go with Comcast. They're the only two providers in my area.

 

I have a 150 Mbps down line from Comcast, but still, it's Comcast. Sometimes, in the middle of the night, my connection will just drop for an hour or two. And Comcast won't do anything about it because they don't have to. Who else could I get service from?

[AngryBeaver]

On 2/22/2018 at 8:53 PM, AresKrieger said:

Actually it would hold up as federal law always trumps state law so long as the law isn't specifically banned from being made by the constitution it's legal, granted I am generally for states rights over federal rights but the civil war essentially decided this 150 years ago. The only way that doesn't happen is if the FCC exceeded its authority but this seems to be within those bonds, now congress could do something about it but they can't even agree to fund the government properly so expecting them to even mention this in a serious non pandering way is ludicrous.

 

Regardless net neutrality isn't the issue, monopolization we need Teddy Roosevelt 2.0

 

Have you even heard of the word federalism? States are able to make laws that contradict federal law to an extent. Look at the legalization of marijuana for one... legal on a state level illegal on a federal level.

 

If anything the government should step in and regulate the ISP's like it did with telco companys... or if they want to keep pushing this metered approach then they should be regulated like all other utilities. They should only have control over my guaranteed speed and my bandwidth charges. No fast lanes, no censorship, no packet inspection or shaping. They should ONLY be a gateway to the internet and the pipe for my bandwidth needs, nothing else.

 

Also it shouldn't cost me more for JUST internet than it does for a internet tv bundle, but guess what it does! You can get a blast basic bundle with blast internet and a handful of tv channels for like 79.99... try to get just blast internet alone and it jumps up to 119.99. Nice! Then even if I am getting just internet they still charge me TV surcharges for a service I don't even receive from them.. then all of the other taxes and fees they make up out of thin air half the time.

 

Then look at all the money these big monopolies pay to fight legal battles and campaigns to block municipal and small startup isp. The last I heard they spent in the range of 350 million dollars last year just in blocking competition in their regions. They are not required to rent out their lines to other isp or sell bandwidth to them. Then look at these infrastructures.... the ones they slowly upgrade and still have not hit the goal the government set when giving them tax funded grants in the BILLIONS to promote more competitive speeds vs the rest of the world.

 

So they pocket all of these grants funded by me and you, then they offer us the shit we currently have now. It costs these isp less than a penny per TB of data, yet they charge hundreds of dollars for these internet tiers with caps? Internet is a 95+ % profit margin for these big companys. THAT is the problem.

[Mail me to the Moon]

20 minutes ago, AngryBeaver said:

Have you even heard of the word federalism? States are able to make laws that contradict federal law to an extent. Look at the legalization of marijuana for one... legal on a state level illegal on a federal level.

 

If anything the government should step in and regulate the ISP's like it did with telco companys... or if they want to keep pushing this metered approach then they should be regulated like all other utilities. They should only have control over my guaranteed speed and my bandwidth charges. No fast lanes, no censorship, no packet inspection or shaping. They should ONLY be a gateway to the internet and the pipe for my bandwidth needs, nothing else.

 

Also it shouldn't cost me more for JUST internet than it does for a internet tv bundle, but guess what it does! You can get a blast basic bundle with blast internet and a handful of tv channels for like 79.99... try to get just blast internet alone and it jumps up to 119.99. Nice! Then even if I am getting just internet they still charge me TV surcharges for a service I don't even receive from them.. then all of the other taxes and fees they make up out of thin air half the time.

 

Then look at all the money these big monopolies pay to fight legal battles and campaigns to block municipal and small startup isp. The last I heard they spent in the range of 350 million dollars last year just in blocking competition in their regions. They are not required to rent out their lines to other isp or sell bandwidth to them. Then look at these infrastructures.... the ones they slowly upgrade and still have not hit the goal the government set when giving them tax funded grants in the BILLIONS to promote more competitive speeds vs the rest of the world.

 

So they pocket all of these grants funded by me and you, then they offer us the shit we currently have now. It costs these isp less than a penny per TB of data, yet they charge hundreds of dollars for these internet tiers with caps? Internet is a 95+ % profit margin for these big companys. THAT is the problem.

Honestly I would argue that there is benefit to fast lanes, especially when an area is lacking infrastructure. Take skype for an example, Video and call quality deteriorate quickly on a bad connection, fast lanes are one way to remedy that.

 

The best answer is to actually provide decent infrastructure though.

[AngryBeaver]

2 minutes ago, Mail me to the Moon said:

Honestly I would argue that there is benefit to fast lanes, especially when an area is lacking infrastructure. Take skype for an example, Video and call quality deteriorate quickly on a bad connection, fast lanes are one way to remedy that.

 

The best answer is to actually provide decent infrastructure though.

If you pay for a connection, then you should get to use that connection unfettered. Adding priority lanes only makes the internet more about nickle and dimeing people.

 

So lets say I am in an area with bad infrastructure and you are in one with a good one. I pay 60 a month for my 25mb you pay 60 a month for your 50. Why should I also be paying a premium to get say skype faster? I am already paying a penalty in the way of speed offered. Also it is there responsibility to upgrade their network and make sure it keeps up with demand. They have plenty of markets and more than enough money to push those upgrades... the fact is they would rather sit on their profits instead of investing back in to their infrastructure. We already are being forced to pay for speed and consumption rate (which is double dipping imo) so adding another angle for this is even worse. We are completely killing off any protection consumers have from these practices and just handling the big ISPs another way to milk us even more.

[Mail me to the Moon]

5 minutes ago, AngryBeaver said:

If you pay for a connection, then you should get to use that connection unfettered. Adding priority lanes only makes the internet more about nickle and dimeing people.

 

So lets say I am in an area with bad infrastructure and you are in one with a good one. I pay 60 a month for my 25mb you pay 60 a month for your 50. Why should I also be paying a premium to get say skype faster? I am already paying a penalty in the way of speed offered. Also it is there responsibility to upgrade their network and make sure it keeps up with demand. They have plenty of markets and more than enough money to push those upgrades... the fact is they would rather sit on their profits instead of investing back in to their infrastructure. We already are being forced to pay for speed and consumption rate (which is double dipping imo) so adding another angle for this is even worse. We are completely killing off any protection consumers have from these practices and just handling the big ISPs another way to milk us even more.

I'm not saying that it is morally right or wrong, simply that there is benefit to it. The right answer in my eyes is to just invest in the infrastructure as it'll pay for itself and benefit society.

 

Net neutrality has pros and cons, as does a world without it. It is wrong in my eyes to blindly support any cause without considering at both sides.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Mail me to the Moon said:

I'm not saying that it is morally right or wrong, simply that there is benefit to it. The right answer in my eyes is to just invest in the infrastructure as it'll pay for itself and benefit society.

 

Net neutrality has pros and cons, as does a world without it. It is wrong in my eyes to blindly support any cause without considering at both sides.

I guess that kind of depends if you are talking about the concept of the internet being neutral or the current FCC ruling mess. There isn't really any good reason to not want or have neutral internet when it comes to bandwidth, the current way laws are written and the legal system uphold them makes it near impossible to write a law for it though.

 

Also on the technical level there is actually no way to properly prioritize network traffic between autonomous networks, any effort to do so is very complex and requires agreements and configuration standards between parties and being that ISPs compete with each other there is little apatite of it. Without something at the protocol level that the origin network tags with a priority that is tied to that packet along with originating network that is agnostic to network configuration of other autonomous systems end to end prioritization is impossible so any concept of 'fast lanes' is laughable, it won't work as advertised nor will you actually get what you pay for.

 

DiffServ has the groundwork for this but is not designed for crossing autonomous systems so relies on other network administrators for it to work and to also use the prioritization configuration that you expect them to use, which they may not. MPLS also has QoS/ECN capabilities but again I think this doesn't work natively across autonomous systems, @Lurick you able to clarify this?

 

Edit:

When it comes down to it network operators can ignore and/or override what another network operator does.

Edited February 24, 2018 by leadeater

[Urishima]

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

How did no competition in the market before 2015 have anything to do with a ruling passed in 2015?

I never said it did.

 

[EDIT]

 

Let me rephrase. The Tier 2 classification exacerbated the already existing issue.

[leadeater]

20 minutes ago, Urishima said:

Let me rephrase. The Tier 2 classification exacerbated the already existing issue

Oh you mean Title II? Sorry was thinking you were talking about tiers of ISPs in relationship to network exchanges.

[Mail me to the Moon]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

I guess that kind of depends if you are talking about the concept of the internet being neutral or the current FCC ruling mess. There isn't really any good reason to not want or have neutral internet when it comes to bandwidth, the current way laws are written and the legal system uphold them makes it near impossible to write a law for it though.

 

Also on the technical level there is actually no way to properly prioritize network traffic between autonomous networks, any effort to do so is very complex and requires agreements and configuration standards between parties and being that ISPs compete with each other there is little apatite of it. Without something at the protocol level that the origin network tags with a priority that is tied to that packet along with originating network that is agnostic to network configuration of other autonomous systems end to end prioritization is impossible so any concept of 'fast lanes' is laughable, it won't work as advertised nor will you actually get what you pay for.

 

DiffServ has the groundwork for this but is not designed for crossing autonomous systems so relies on other network administrators for it to work and to also use the prioritization configuration that you expect them to use, which they may not. MPLS also has QoS/ECN capabilities but again I think this doesn't work natively across autonomous systems, @Lurick you able to clarify this?

 

Edit:

When it comes down to it network operators can ignore and/or override what another network operator does.

1

A simple example would be fastlanes based on ports and protocols. It ain't complex dude, power users can still get around it but you can easily throttle their traffic.

 

There are many ways to go about it, and with comcast being the only provider in a lot of areas it ain't hard to make standards.