quote:

Originally posted by Audioholic:
Fuck 'em with a U.S. Robotics 56k modem. Sideways.

Now, that was funny!

It is concerning because in many areas a single internet provider has a monopoly on high speed internet. Repealing this opens the door to abuse where the only alternative is to go without.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
Before Obama, the Internet was classified as Title 1, nearly unregulated. After Obama, it was reclassified as Title 2, the same as land line phone service. Highly regulated.

I don’t see how giving the government the ability to control everything about internet communications is a good thing. Title 2 is the whole enchilada, giving the FCC the ability to regulate everything about IPP communications. Net neutrality sounds good on the surface, but the trip is not worth the gas.

At least if an ISP starts to prioritize packets, I can switch providers. If the government can regulate everything about it, you have zero recourse. For example, under Title 2 the FCC has the authority to theoretically block packets from certain websites, perhaps as hate speech. Maybe sites like our favorite gun forum. No thanks, I’ll take my chances with a government without that much control. Maybe they wouldn’t do that immediately, but the creep of regulation could get us there. Net neutrality gets us started down that path.

Really? Switch providers? I live in a city and we have exactly one Provider available to most of us.

It's here:

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...tch/DOC-347927A1.pdf

Apparently we're not allowed to see Obama's 332-page plan to regulate the internet.

https://twitter.com/AjitPaiFCC...s/563724099906568193

https://twitter.com/AjitPaiFCC...s/933372798210334720

Seems like everyone talks about what Net Neutrality is, but it's all based on what they believe it to mean, not what it actually is or was.

It's like calling a piece of legislature "Liberty Act", when in reality no one knows if it relates to liberty at all, or whether or not it actually encroaches on the 1st, 4th, or any other protected natural rights.

That's a fair point, Veeper (the "Patriot Act" immediately come to mind).

So yes, there's the notion of NN (all content is the same, and ought to be treated as such, connectivity is a core utility in modern times - much like power and water are, etc).

And there's the actual legislation, which surely deviates from that in some way(s).

I've no doubt the legislation has its faults. But what's worse is the absence of NN at all.

And make no mistake, Pai is heavily biased against the very notion of Net Neutrality. His loyalties lay firmly with big business and he intends to gut NN for their primary benefit.

The proposal has received more that 22 million comments (maybe the most ever, IIRC), which are overwhelmingly against what Pai intends to do, but he doesn't care.

Verizon, et al, have managed to get a Snake inside the Hen House, and Pai loves chicken...

I am usually anti-regulation, but ensuring access to methods of communication for the small guys seems to have value. I don't know enough about this one to have a strong opinion, though.

quote:

Originally posted by Dusty78:

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
Before Obama, the Internet was classified as Title 1, nearly unregulated. After Obama, it was reclassified as Title 2, the same as land line phone service. Highly regulated.

I don’t see how giving the government the ability to control everything about internet communications is a good thing. Title 2 is the whole enchilada, giving the FCC the ability to regulate everything about IPP communications. Net neutrality sounds good on the surface, but the trip is not worth the gas.

At least if an ISP starts to prioritize packets, I can switch providers. If the government can regulate everything about it, you have zero recourse. For example, under Title 2 the FCC has the authority to theoretically block packets from certain websites, perhaps as hate speech. Maybe sites like our favorite gun forum. No thanks, I’ll take my chances with a government without that much control. Maybe they wouldn’t do that immediately, but the creep of regulation could get us there. Net neutrality gets us started down that path.

Really? Switch providers? I live in a city and we have exactly one Provider available to most of us.

A quick search shows Charlotte, NC to have several providers, plus there is satellite, and internet supplied by the cell providers.

What you think NN is and what it really is are two different things. The point I was making is that by making the internet regulated as a Title II entity, then it opens the door to nearly unlimited government regulation. Everybody wants to argue about packet parity, but nobody wants to talk about the utility reclassification. Why is this?

Net Neutrality is a misnomer. In the end, the net will only be as neutral as the government dictates. Perhaps we can put someone like Lois Lerner in charge of all the new regulations.

Nothing the government gets involved in is ever beneficial to you or I.

That's all I need to know.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:

quote:

Originally posted by Dusty78:

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
Before Obama, the Internet was classified as Title 1, nearly unregulated. After Obama, it was reclassified as Title 2, the same as land line phone service. Highly regulated.

I don’t see how giving the government the ability to control everything about internet communications is a good thing. Title 2 is the whole enchilada, giving the FCC the ability to regulate everything about IPP communications. Net neutrality sounds good on the surface, but the trip is not worth the gas.

At least if an ISP starts to prioritize packets, I can switch providers. If the government can regulate everything about it, you have zero recourse. For example, under Title 2 the FCC has the authority to theoretically block packets from certain websites, perhaps as hate speech. Maybe sites like our favorite gun forum. No thanks, I’ll take my chances with a government without that much control. Maybe they wouldn’t do that immediately, but the creep of regulation could get us there. Net neutrality gets us started down that path.

Really? Switch providers? I live in a city and we have exactly one Provider available to most of us.

A quick search shows Charlotte, NC to have several providers, plus there is satellite, and internet supplied by the cell providers.

What you think NN is and what it really is are two different things. The point I was making is that by making the internet regulated as a Title II entity, then it opens the door to nearly unlimited government regulation. Everybody wants to argue about packet parity, but nobody wants to talk about the utility reclassification. Why is this?

Net Neutrality is a misnomer. In the end, the net will only be as neutral as the government dictates. Perhaps we can put someone like Lois Lerner in charge of all the new regulations.

My neighborhood (28208) has only one. And my building doesn’t allow sat dishes. If you actually type my address into Fios, AT&T, etc...searching for high speed broadband they all return not available in your area. Sure there are slow services under 10mbps speeds but that’s like using a rotary phone these days. All these providers are available in theory only. So what’s the difference if the government dictates neutrality or Spectrum (TWC) which is my only ISP option? You are just trading one shitty untrustworthy group of dickbags for another. The real difference is that in 4 years you can get a new government...try removing Spectrum’s strangle hold in that same amount of time. I already pay $100 a month for just internet...I only stream, no cable. I bet my package will run $200 after the kill NN the same as it would if I just bought their shitty cable.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
What you think NN is and what it really is are two different things. The point I was making is that by making the internet regulated as a Title II entity, then it opens the door to nearly unlimited government regulation. Everybody wants to argue about packet parity, but nobody wants to talk about the utility reclassification. Why is this?

Net Neutrality is a misnomer. In the end, the net will only be as neutral as the government dictates. Perhaps we can put someone like Lois Lerner in charge of all the new regulations.

That's exactly why the left wanted the internet to be regulated as a utility. In fact, Google's lead for it's 'Internet For Everyone' project flat out publicly stated it.

quote:

Originally posted by Graniteguy:
Nothing the government gets involved in is ever beneficial to you or I.

That's all I need to know.

Where do you think the Internet came from?

quote:

Originally posted by MTJbyrd:

quote:

Originally posted by Graniteguy:
Nothing the government gets involved in is ever beneficial to you or I.

That's all I need to know.

Where do you think the Internet came from?

Sarcasm on >> AL Gore << sarcasm off

Think of it this way.

Google is one of the most vocal proponents of net nuetrality. Several employees and ex employees have fear mongered us with statements about ISP prioritizing content, removing websites and controling what you see based on their preferences.

Google is the TIP OF THE SPEAR when it comes to doing these things. They prioritize searches, remove apps like GAB from the play store and control what you see and get suggested on youtube by shadow banning and deplatforming people.

No ISP has EVER done this nor is there any indication that they would ever attempt this.

Google being for net neutrality is what convinced me it has to go.

quote:

Originally posted by Graniteguy:
Nothing the government gets involved in is ever beneficial to you or I.

Nothing?

Interstate Highway System?

The important thing to remember about Net Neutrality is that the proposed rules aren't neutral at all, reduce the flexibility of your ISP to run their network smoothly, and provide you good service.

It is a really long back story, but here it goes. The internet works on one of two principles, paid customer-ISP connections, and peering connections. A Peering relationship is what it sounds like, two peers, in a similar business, decide to interconnect (at no fee), in order to provide better access to their respective customers. Along comes Netflix, who use an obscene amount of bandwidth- and they pay through the nose for it- to the ISPs. Once Netflix became big enough, they started demanding Peering relationships with their ISPs-- I.e., they wanted free bandwidth. The ISPs pretty much all laughed them off. At this point, Netflix (and others) goes whining to Uncle Sam, and starts fear monger if about "fast lanes", and other such things that don't actually exist. Eventually, some lefty radicals picked up the cause, rebranding it slightly, in order to start the process of regulation, and eventually nationalization, of the internet. And here we are.

The other thing to note is that your ISP's ability to discriminate traffic is an unalloyed win for us consumers. An example: in Australia, the internet is expensive, because most traffic has to come over long distance undersea pipes. So, ISPs frequently had bandwidth caps and similar ways of tiering business. Now, when iTunes first showed up, Apple put iTunes servers in Australia-- this meant no use of the expensive undersea connections. ISPs responded by exempting iTunes traffic from their bandwidth cap. From a business and from a technical perspective, this makes imminent sense. This would be illegal under Net "Neutrality", and encourage suboptimal (and expensive) solutions. Similarly, Facebook sponsored some business in Africa recently, where they paid cell phone data charges for Facebook traffic, meaning that tens of thousands of poor people could afford phones with internet for the first time. Once again, pro-consumer.

tl;dr: Net Neutrality puts technical decisions in the hand of politicized beaurocrats, and not the tech and business folk. It does nothing to protect free speech, and would probably do the opposite, long term.

quote:

Originally posted by Dusty78:
... Sure there are slow services under 10mbps speeds but that’s like using a rotary phone these days.

No, it's not. 5Mbps is sufficient for a HD quality Netflix stream. And, if we're honest with ourselves, HD quality, on-demand, streaming is a pure luxury. I lived just fine for several decades with standard def, scheduled programming only.

This is one of the things ticks me off the most about these Net Neutrality and self appointed customer advocate types: the constant moving of the goalposts. The inability to recognize our privileged, free lives for what they are, and instead constantly demanding premium quality services as an entitlement. Not everybody can have everything, and calling something a "Right" doesn't make it one.

We live blessed lives because of our freedom, and the free market. I wish folks would quit trying to spoil that.

You guys opposed to NN are completely ignoring that these giant ISP providers basically have monopolies in many parts of the country. Free trade is fine as dandy when it’s allowed. The industry and government alike have basically made it impossible for any real competition to arise. Mom and pop local ISP providers either piggy back off the big boys or just plain suck. And anyone saying 5mbps is sufficient in this day in age is delusional. I don’t even think that aniting under 25 is even considered broad band anymore. Let’s face it gents cable TV is quickly dying and the ISP providers are doing whatever they can to hold on to that revenue. I’m surprised they haven’t successfully lobbied to get rid of OTA programming yet.

There is no actual free market when it comes to broadband access in much of the US, and this problem is getting worse, not better, and shows no signs of changing anytime soon.

Further, the state of our broadband capabilities are well behind many other countries, despite billions in subsidies and all of the American greatness we love to boast about.

Thinking that streaming HD content is a luxury is a solid decade behind in thinking. Not only should it be expected, it ought to be more widely available, and cheaper, by now.

And no one in their right mind thinks it's appropriate to be able to charge different rates for different types of content. Bits are bits are bits are bits. No one except Telcos care.

What Pei intends to do benefits no one but the major providers, under the guise of "less regulations are better", but it's a lie in this case, no matter how flawed the current rules are. He's not trying to fix anything, he's gutting it to benefit his former employers, et al.

We're fucked anyway, at this point. Little can be done to stop him.

quote:

Originally posted by Dusty78:
And anyone saying 5mbps is sufficient in this day in age is delusional. I don’t even think that aniting under 25 is even considered broad band anymore.

Straight from the source :

quote:

Internet Connection Speed Recommendations

Below are the internet download speed recommendations per stream for playing TV shows and movies through Netflix.

• 0.5 Megabits per second - Required broadband connection speed
  
• 1.5 Megabits per second - Recommended broadband connection speed
  
• 3.0 Megabits per second - Recommended for SD quality
  
• 5.0 Megabits per second - Recommended for HD quality
  
• 25 Megabits per second - Recommended for Ultra HD quality
  

Watch Netflix in HD

To watch Netflix in HD, ensure you have an HD plan, then set your video quality setting to Auto or High. Titles will play in HD as long as you have a connection speed of 5.0 megabits per second or faster.

I'm sorry, these "giant ISP's" marketing departments have tricked you into thinking you need way, way more bandwidth than you need. And BTW, if you followed my explanation above "Net Neutrality" is exactly the lobbying you fear to get rid of competitors.. It is not pro-consumer, it is anti consumer. It is an effort by politically-connected companies to shackle those with different business models than they have.

5 megabits, in 2017, is an absurd joke, as is thinking Netflix is the standard we aspire to.