FCC orders net neutrality repeal

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, AngryBeaver said:

You don't need to prioritize it from point a to point b. They just need to give it priority on their own network. If they see Netflix traffic on your connection they throttle it to 10mb. If you pay for the fast lane then you get full 150 or whatever you pay for. They only need to give the customer a reason to buy it and claim it is for their fair usage policy.

But that's not a fast lane, that's making you pay for what you had previously. That still doesn't address the issue that you the customer is paying for a fast lane service but your ISP has no way to guarantee that service because of the issue I pointed out. What's the point in paying more for something you may or may not get.

[AngryBeaver]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

But that's not a fast lane, that's making you pay for what you had previously. That still doesn't address the issue that you the customer is paying for a fast lane service but your ISP has no way to guarantee that service because of the issue I pointed out. What's the point in paying more for something you may or may not get.

They aren't aren't necessarily guaranteeing you a fast lane from point to point. They are just guaranteeing you won't be throttled when using that service compared to someone else who isn't paying for it. So from that PoV it IS a fastlane.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, AngryBeaver said:

They aren't aren't necessarily guaranteeing you a fast lane from point to point. They are just guaranteeing you won't be throttled when using that service compared to someone else who isn't paying for it. So from that PoV it IS a fastlane.

If you're paying for a fast lane from your ISP for say Netflix and there is no Netflix CDN server on their network then they cannot offer the service you are paying for, to do so would be false advertising. They can prioritize the traffic all they like but you won't be getting a fast lane at all since once the traffic leaves their network it is no longer prioritized, you are not getting what you are paying for.

 

And it does not excuse the fact it's not required at all, if it were then why is it ISPs are not running out of bandwidth? They aren't and there is no way they will, bandwidth contention is purely between ISPs at internet exchanges where ISPs are being assholes to each other, why should you pay per service to sort that issue out? You shouldn't, and they shouldn't be able to be assholes to each other at the detriment of internet users.

 

Networking equipment is not that expensive and there is a lot of extra capacity in internet exchanges in both unused but already connected links as well as network ports that do not currently have QSFP+ modules installed in them, those are not expensive.

 

The whole thing is just an argument over who should pay for increasing the bandwidth at internet exchanges, the one thing for sure is it should not be consumers on a per service basis. The other issue is some of the US ISPs are cable TV providers who own and have exclusive access over the cables, any FTTH deployment means losing that control, they'll fight that till they die or maintain that exclusive control over it.

 

Edit:

Prioritization or QoS is not the issue, it's how they want to do it and charge for it and that it's based on false information. I pay for a business connection at my house so I get a higher priority for EVERYTHING not just one thing but I understand once it leaves my ISP's network they have no control over it.

[DutchTexan]

I've been following the LTT community on this topic since November. 'Net Neutrality' needed to be repealed in the US and it was. I'm very happy the FCC undid their own restrictions from 3 years ago. It's time to accept it.

 

Treating political issues like they are life or death choices isn't healthy. Who would have thought that emotions don't make sound arguments? When viral emotional arguments have declared intention, then their purpose is obvious: mass manipulation.

[divito]

19 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

I've been following the LTT community on this topic since November. 'Net Neutrality' needed to be repealed in the US and it was. I'm very happy the FCC undid their own restrictions from 3 years ago. It's time to accept it.

 

Treating political issues like they are life or death choices isn't healthy. Who would have thought that emotions don't make sound arguments? When viral emotional arguments have declared intention, then their purpose is obvious: mass manipulation.

And yet the ones who stand to gain, whose propaganda has clearly worked on some people, have succeeded.

[DutchTexan]

7 minutes ago, divito said:

And yet the ones who stand to gain, whose propaganda has clearly worked on some people, have succeeded.

Like Google and Facebook being for NN. I don't trust either.

[leadeater]

32 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

I've been following the LTT community on this topic since November. 'Net Neutrality' needed to be repealed in the US and it was. I'm very happy the FCC undid their own restrictions from 3 years ago. It's time to accept it.

 

Treating political issues like they are life or death choices isn't healthy. Who would have thought that emotions don't make sound arguments? When viral emotional arguments have declared intention, then their purpose is obvious: mass manipulation.

Thing is it wasn't a repeal, new rules were included so it's not a revert back to pre 2015.

[Guest]

On 2/24/2018 at 12:38 AM, Dabombinable said:

Its even worse when your trying to upload something...and the upload speed is limited to 1Mbps. And uploading even near that rate drops the download speed to dialup levels....

And apparently people only need ADSL......

1Mbps is pretty fast tbh

[DutchTexan]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Thing is it wasn't a repeal, new rules were included so it's not a revert back to pre 2015.

"The FCC's repeal will allow both blocking and throttling by Internet providers, leaving one requirement intact: that broadband companies — such as Comcast, Verizon and AT&T — have to disclose to users how they handle web traffic. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has said the Federal Trade Commission should then police violations. The FTC does not pre-emptively regulate them."

 

I'm happy with that.

 

If you want a good product, then you have to pay for it. Forcing a base price to offer a set standard just turns into everyone getting equal shit.

[Dabombinable]

7 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

1Mbps is pretty fast tbh

Uploading at 100KBps and not being able to download anything while uploading...is awful.

[leadeater]

6 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

"The FCC's repeal will allow both blocking and throttling by Internet providers, leaving one requirement intact: that broadband companies — such as Comcast, Verizon and AT&T — have to disclose to users how they handle web traffic. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has said the Federal Trade Commission should then police violations. The FTC does not pre-emptively regulate them."

 

I'm happy with that.

 

If you want a good product, then you have to pay for it. Forcing a base price to offer a set standard just turns into everyone getting equal shit.

There was no forced base price lol, you know only a small sub section of the Title II was applied to ISP as well. And over charging still isn't allowed now, before or ever but the FTC can't really do much about it anyway due to legal issues.

 

Kind of not my direct problem but don't get suckered in to ISP's lies like fixed pricing, that wasn't a thing.

[Donut417]

Heres my take on this. ISP's are not going to go out and start doing stupid stuff. Sure AT&T is talking about zero rating stuff, but they own Directv, so it make sense. Its not like they are going to block any other streaming service. Customer backlash would be too great. The fact is, if you want things to change, voice your opinion on the ballot in November. Also, think about contacting your state representatives to see what they might do. Just because its repealed now, doesn't mean it wont come back in a few years. Remember the administration has a chance to change every 4 years. If you have a problem with the repeal, I would suggest not supporting any congressman or senator who was for the repeal. Consider convincing your family and friends to do the same. To me net neutrality wasn't doing enough. It didnt out law caps and overages which are bull shit. It didnt stop Comcast from extorting money from Netflix to make sure their content hit the Comcast network unhindered. To me we need real legislation here, not title II but an actually 21st Century law that not only provides the standards ISP's need to provide service at, but also gives enforcement agencies the power to back these rules up. 

[DutchTexan]

58 minutes ago, leadeater said:

There was no forced base price lol, you know only a small sub section of the Title II was applied to ISP as well. And over charging still isn't allowed now, before or ever but the FTC can't really do much about it anyway due to legal issues.

 

Kind of not my direct problem but don't get suckered in to ISP's lies like fixed pricing, that wasn't a thing.

I was meaning to imply that repealing NN is closer to a free market idea and keeping 'net neutrality' is closer to a communist idea. Obviously this is a very drastic, polar generalization, but that's where I was going with, ". . .a set standard just turns into everyone getting equal shit." 

 

I should not have mentioned price, but to elaborate Internet is not a utility and that's the basic premise. Treating it like a utility is a stupid, impracticable idea in the United States.

 

When someone pays for cellular data for their dandy cellular device, why is it unreasonable for their service to be throttled after they use up too much bandwidth? 

Why can't ISP's be this way?

 

Why can't I say hey I only want to pay for fast Netflix and nothing else? And if I don't want to pay for individually directed bandwidth, or one ISP forces that, then why wouldn't another provide what I want to pay for?

 

Capitalism isn't ran by greed. Capitalism works because it is a mutual, self-correcting relationship. Or have faith in government making your decisions for you, worked great for Venezuela.

 

You're going to give me a strike or naughty point again for that, but NN is socialism for the internet. 

[asus killer]

 

 

1 hour ago, DutchTexan said:

I've been following the LTT community on this topic since November. 'Net Neutrality' needed to be repealed in the US and it was. I'm very happy the FCC undid their own restrictions from 3 years ago. It's time to accept it.

 

Treating political issues like they are life or death choices isn't healthy. Who would have thought that emotions don't make sound arguments? When viral emotional arguments have declared intention, then their purpose is obvious: mass manipulation.

the best not to follow a bad argument is to study the problem and the arguments on both sides and especially the motivations on both sides. If someone is manipulating someone else what's their motivation. The problem is not if they are viral or not, that's like saying just because something is trending than it's a manipulation.

For me is absolutely clear who is being manipulated but that's besides the point. Have you done this little exercise? It shouldn't be a leap of faith

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

but to elaborate Internet is not a utility and that's the basic premise.

In what way is internet not a utility? How does it differ from a phone line (which you don't need now days neither do I have one).

[DutchTexan]

1 minute ago, asus killer said:

 

 

 the best not to follow a bad argument just because is to study the problem and the arguments on both sides and especially the motivations on both sides. If someone is manipulating someone else what's their motivation. The problem is not if they are viral or not, that's like saying just because something is trending than it's a manipulation.

For me is absolutely clear who is being manipulated but that's besides the point. Have you done this little exercise?

Mass manipulation goes hand in hand with a viral whatever. That's the point. You can take out me saying 'mass' and the word 'viral' from my statement and your little straw man argument disappears.  

 

Who is it that is so obviously being manipulated to you? Don't be vague, tell me you think I think wrong.

[Donut417]

1 minute ago, DutchTexan said:

Capitalism isn't ran by greed.

Last time I checked, in the US capitalism is ran by greed. The great depression and the Financial crisis in 08 are two prime examples. Greed fucked the economy in both instances. 

 

4 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

why is it unreasonable for their service to be throttled after they use up too much bandwidth? 

Because when you pay for "unlimited" you expect not to be throttled. I can see if you got a 2GB plan and your throttled after that, but If I were to pay Comcast the $50 extra dollars for "Unlimited" Internet service, I expect I can down load the contents of the internet monthly. They should not be able to say shit. Because Im paying for "Unlimited". 

[DutchTexan]

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

In what way is internet not a utility? How does it differ from a phone line (which you don't need now days neither do I have one).

Is internet a utility? Yes or No. Has my Supreme Court ruled it as a telecommunication service or a as the transfer of data?

[asus killer]

Just now, DutchTexan said:

Mass manipulation goes hand in hand with a viral whatever. That's the point. You can take out me saying 'mass' and the word 'viral' from my statement and your little straw man argument disappears.  

 

Who is it that is so obviously being manipulated to you? Don't be vague, tell me you think I think wrong.

i has just point out the flaw in the reasoning, feel free to disagree. I give an example, people started protesting Vietname war, went viral, was just a manipulation? was the ones doing the manipulation the anti war movement?

Was not trying trying to discusse the actual NN. could do it, just don't have the time now, literally got to go offline. sorry.

[Jtalk4456]

On 2/22/2018 at 6:25 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.
 

I have one option in my area if i want more than 25 mbps

[ARikozuM]

7 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

When someone pays for cellular data for their dandy cellular device, why is it unreasonable for their service to be throttled after they use up too much bandwidth? 

Why can't ISP's be this way?

Because a computer is necessary, and nearly essential, to today's marketplace, employment opportunities, and education. There's also very little reason for throttling being a "necessary evil" of wireless and wired communications since it isn't a "finite" resource that requires an electron truck to drop off electrons into an underground receptacle like a gas station requires. Collusion is a very real problem in the US for ISPs, but more so the price-matching practices that most dole out. "Yea, Guy A has TV+Phone+Internet for $100 a month, but we'll give the same to you for $60* a month."

 

*Monthly bill will then be $160 a month after the initial promotional period of 12 months. 

[leadeater]

10 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

Is internet a utility? Yes or No. Has my Supreme Court ruled it as a telecommunication service or a as the transfer data?

Does it need to be a telecommunication service to be a utility?

 

Mind you yes internet is a telecommunication service, by direct definition of what that means.

Quote

Telecommunication is the transmission of signs, signals, messages, words, writings, images and sounds or information of any nature by wire, radio, optical or other electromagnetic systems.[1][2] Telecommunication occurs when the exchange of information between communication participants includes the use of technology. It is transmitted either electrically over physical media, such as cables, or via electromagnetic radiation.[3][4][5][6][7][8] Such transmission paths are often divided into communication channels which afford the advantages of multiplexing. Since the Latin term communicatio is considered the social process of information exchange, the term, telecommunications, is often used in its plural form because it involves many different technologies.[9]

 

You shouldn't have to keep falling back to the supreme court to sort out all your problems either or create/remove loopholes.

 

But lets riddle this some more, what about VoIP phone services over an internet connection which is now the most common way business get phone services. What happens now? Is their internet connection now subject to all the rules phone lines are? Do you treat only that VoIP portion part of it? If so how do you apply and enforce the requisite regulations while not doing so on general internet traffic?

[DutchTexan]

13 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Last time I checked, in the US capitalism is ran by greed. The great depression and the Financial crisis in 08 are two prime examples. Greed fucked the economy in both instances. 

I'd rather have serious corrections(key word: Corrections) as the worst thing to live through than having everyone equally poor forever. 

 

One out of every 22 adults in the US is a millionaire. That's a beautiful thing. If you hate capitalism, then I could understand how you see success as evil greed.

 

You are free to spend or not spend your hard-earned money however you like. 

 

Quote

Because when you pay for "unlimited" you expect not to be throttled. I can see if you got a 2GB plan and your throttled after that, but If I were to pay Comcast the $50 extra dollars for "Unlimited" Internet service, I expect I can down load the contents of the internet monthly. They should not be able to say shit. Because Im paying for "Unlimited". 

So, to be clear, you agree that you should be paying more for better service? And that it would be unreasonable to assume that there is unlimited cellular bandwidth for hundreds of millions of cellular devices? 

 

You're just saying it's uncool to pay for unlimited and then you get '*unlimited*'.  

[Donut417]

Just now, DutchTexan said:

You're just saying it's uncool to pay for unlimited and then you get '*unlimited*'.  

No Im saying paying for "Unlimited" and being told that OH you used too much data. Stop or get your shit turned off in not cool. Which even wired ISP's have done in the past. Most ISP's are not clear on what they consider "Unlimited" which is unethical. But there are not ethics in business now days. Its all about bending the customer over and taking every thing they have. 

 

3 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

One out of every 22 adults in the US is a millionaire. That's a beautiful thing. If you hate capitalism, then I could understand how you see success as evil greed.

 

You are free to spend or not spend your hard-earned money however you like. 

I have no problem with those people. I have a problem when that money is used to buy off the god damned government. Which is what wealthy fuckers do and other organizations. Such as Wall Street, the oil companies and not to forget the NRA (who is taking lots of heat due to issues that happened recently). The Governments job is to represent the people, that includes all people, not just the 1%. Also, if greed is not the problem then why does the Walton Family have billions of dollars but my tax dollars are spent on Walmart workers having to be on Government assistance? Its not the workers fault they have to work for starvation wages, its the greedy system we live in. Or how about what Wall Street did back in 08. They could have throw the world back in to another great depression. Im sorry but I dont want to live thru one of those, but they never learn. I guess the market crash of 1929 was never tough in what ever school these dumb asses went to. 

 

Net Neutrality job should be to make sure there is free flow of information on the internet. To make sure all data is treated equally. Im not against QoS options as long as there are no zero rating. Also, if an ISP wants to cap, they should be required to submit there meter in to the goverment every so many years to be inspected. Just like Gas pumps are here in my home state, just like I expect they do in all states. ISP's should not be able to throttle based on what service you want to use. To use Zero rating or throttling on a service is anti competitive. 

 

Also I agree with @leadeater ISP's should be a utility. They should have to be treated as such, especially if they cap. 

[DutchTexan]

36 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Because a computer is necessary, and nearly essential, to today's marketplace, employment opportunities, and education. There's also very little reason for throttling being a "necessary evil" of wireless and wired communications since it isn't a "finite" resource that requires an electron truck to drop off electrons into an underground receptacle like a gas station requires. Collusion is a very real problem in the US for ISPs, but more so the price-matching practices that most dole out. "Yea, Guy A has TV+Phone+Internet for $100 a month, but we'll give the same to you for $60* a month."

 

*Monthly bill will then be $160 a month after the initial promotional period of 12 months. 

Hey I agree, internet is necessary and pretty essential to me and my life. That doesn't mean I will pass away without it. Internet is not water or electricity; I do not think it should not be treated that way.

 

Like I said in another thread, my beautiful state isn't heavily regulated. Therefore, my choices for utilities are numerous. I literally have dozens of options for electricity and at least 3 really solid choices for water, excluding digging my own deep well which is only slightly less impracticable/cost effective. 

 

Alls I am saying I come from the mindset that the least regulation, government intervention and taxation for whatever is always better. I think that is the moral and ethical ideology for any just individual.

 

34 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Does it need to be a telecommunication service to be a utility?

 

Mind you yes internet is a telecommunication service, by direct definition of what that means.

 

You shouldn't have to keep falling back to the supreme court to sort out all your problems either or create/remove loopholes.

 

But lets riddle this some more, what about VoIP phone services over an internet connection which is now the most common way business get phone services. What happens now? Is their internet connection now subject to all the rules phone lines are? Do you treat only that VoIP portion part of it? If so how do you apply and enforce the requisite regulations while not doing so on general internet traffic?

I value what the Supreme Court decides, because they are the only individuals truly capable of interpreting the Constitution. That's very important to me.

 

VoIP. I am not knowing.