The providers are already filtering, prioritizing, and subjectively pricing content.

It's vile, and already an example of what the NN naysayers are worried the gov't will do.

And they want to do more of it, and the ENTIRE point of stopping NN is so they can...

Fast lanes, special deals with certain content providers, etc, ought never be allowed.

Build the highway, charge a flat and reasonable rate that's agnostic of content type with respect to price, and kindly shut the fuck up and deal with it. It's as simple as that.

I don't care one bit how its accomplished, but get it done. It's a public resource, invented by the government with our tax dollars, and nothing else matters. It's a highway, period.

You guys need to start backing up your FUD with actual data or raw text of the lord and savior Obama-Christ’s NN fix.

Every time I read about how NN stopped traffic preferences, I feel like I’m reading the same GAWKER piece that was bandied about and proven as BS like 80 times over, and twice on Sunday.

That’s just my opinion though, and it’s probably worth less than the bag of lamb fries Comcast hits me with, every time I call to complain that my node is effed up.

1. Imagine you’re the citizen of a medieval town in which you find the local rules to be troublesome. So you say to yourself, “Someone really needs to do something … Wait a minute! I’ve got an idea! I’ll open the gates and let in the Mongols. That’ll really shake things up.”
This, in effect, is what telecom and social media firms supporting net neutrality have done to themselves by allowing the Federal Communications Commission to regulate the Internet service providers that irritate them.

2. With Net Neutrality, cable companies will be prevented from actively censoring content, but this isn’t something ISPs ever actually practiced. The three big rules are no blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization That’s all great, but do we have a single instance of an ISP doing any of those things? No.

3. FCC took the unprecedented step of declaring the broadband providers to be subject to Title II regulation – the rules invented to govern the Ma Bell monopoly of 80 years ago. FCC Chairman promises to regulate them lightly. Native Americans can tell you all about such promises from Washington. By turning the Internet into a utility, subject to myriad common carrier rules, there will no end to the gaming, lawyering, suing and politicking that will to spread between companies of all sorts.

4. Under Net Neutrality, the ISPs cannot charge more to providers such as Comcast or Netflix which downloads require a lot more bandwidth and network resources. If resources must be upgraded or innovation created, the cost will be born by the average consumer, not the big content social network providers.

5. It will be extremely difficult for a small, new provider to break into the industry. There will be regulation out the wazoo.

How do "New" ISP's happen with or without NN? Is Bob's Discount Internet going to run sixty miles if coaxial cable to my house?


And did you notice most of the examples sited as good things the government did are all like 60 plus years ago.

About those speedtest vs fast results.. you need to make note of the servers' locations in those tests and it may have nothing to do with ISP throttling Netflix. I have at&t fiber and speedtest usually direct me to at&t own servers located in the next town over. This is the fastest possible speed since it's almost certain that my home and at&t server were in the same BGP or even OSPF routing zone.

Netflix server probably is located outside of at&t local BGP/OSPF zone and that'd require additional BGP router hop(s), slowing things down significantly.

For example, if you use Speakeasy's speed test, more often than not, their servers aren't located very close to you. Speakeasy has servers in Dallas for instance, requiring additional BGP router hops to me in Austin area, and their results are significantly slower than Ookla speedtest but that doesn't mean that at&t throttling Speakeasy, who's also a national ISP..

Using same Ookla speedtest, if using at&t servers, I'm usually getting 920 Mbps down/940 Mbps up. I then chose Spectrum's server, also located in Austin, and speed dipped to 620 down/440 up. Same Austin area but different ISP routing zones thus additional routing hops and speed dipped significantly.

The anti-NN side is engaging in some pretty astonishing 1984 Speak. Such as...

quote:

Originally posted by arlen:
1. Imagine you’re the citizen of a medieval town in which you find the local rules to be troublesome. So you say to yourself, “Someone really needs to do something … Wait a minute! I’ve got an idea! I’ll open the gates and let in the Mongols. That’ll really shake things up.”
This, in effect, is what telecom and social media firms supporting net neutrality have done to themselves by allowing the Federal Communications Commission to regulate the Internet service providers that irritate them.

Yeah, because allowing large broadband monopolists unfettered freedom to control what you can do with the Internet connection for which you're paying will result in Nirvana.

Remember the days before AT&T (here I speak of the real AT&T, not the thing that's known as at&t today) and the local Bell operating companies were split up? I do. The only things you could connect to "your" phone line was equipment rented to you, by them. Period.

quote:

Originally posted by arlen:
2. With Net Neutrality, cable companies will be prevented from actively censoring content, but this isn’t something ISPs ever actually practiced. The three big rules are no blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization That’s all great, but do we have a single instance of an ISP doing any of those things? No.

Actually: Yes. Comcast throttled Netflix. (It was proven.) Another provider was caught actively blocking VoIP on its network--except, of course, to its own VoIP service.

quote:

Originally posted by arlen:
3. FCC took the unprecedented step of declaring the broadband providers to be subject to Title II regulation ...

A little context goes a long ways. In this case: A very long ways.

The FCC originally worked out a deal with the big ISPs under which they, the ISPs, wrote the NN rules. It was a very, very light hand, regulatory-wise. In fact it was widely criticized as being ineffective.

Comcast eventually balked. They took the FCC to court, insisting the agency had no authority to do what they'd done. The other ISPs were appalled, btw. They had a Good Thing Going and knew it. Comcast was right and the court sided with them. So the FCC did what they had to do: They gave themselves the authority by reclassifying Internet service under Title 2.

And what has the FCC used their new authority to do? Essentially all they did with it was re-establish the rules to which the ISPs had earlier agreed.

quote:

Originally posted by arlen:
4. Under Net Neutrality, the ISPs cannot charge more to providers such as Comcast or Netflix which downloads require a lot more bandwidth and network resources. If resources must be upgraded or innovation created, the cost will be born by the average consumer, not the big content social network providers.

This argument is disingenuous, for two reasons:

• 1. It is the customers demanding those services. If the customers weren't demanding the content, the providers wouldn't be supplying it.
  
• 2. If the suppliers are charged more, they'll simply pass the cost on to the consumers, anyway.
  

The argument that the providers should pay for what their customers demand is not unlike leftists arguing "business should pay its fair share of taxes"--as if those businesses won't simply pass the increased cost of doing business on to their customers.

quote:

Originally posted by arlen:
5. It will be extremely difficult for a small, new provider to break into the industry. There will be regulation out the wazoo.

Wow. Putting a crimp in large, monopolistic companies' efforts to remain monopolistic hurts new, small entrants to the market. What a... fascinating argument.

Irrespective of how its executed, the idea of Net Neutrality is a core principle - much like Freedom of Speech, and like the latter, there are/should be laws that govern and protect it.

*That's* the most important issue, here, preserving the Principle(s) of Net Neutrality.

The *how* (or specific language of the legislation) is another issue entirely.

It's *also* true that the free market has failed with respect to some notion that it would just sort of work out on its own. There isn't adequate competition to actually equate to choices for far too many, and the (effective) monopolies are *already* doing what monopolies do...

Rejecting the Principle of Net Neutrality because you don't like the current or proposed implementation is a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The *principle* must not be lost, and further - must be protected, one way or another.

Net Neutrality legislation *is* that way, since competition and regular market forces failed.

Fix the language if you have issues with the current version.

Tossing the whole thing is nothing more than letting ISP lobbyists (that would be Comcast/NBC/etc and other vast media conglomerates) get the laws that benefit *them*, at all of our expense. Believing this can be (or was) solved by the free market is pure folly.

There isn't a single member here who wishes for a smaller government and fewer rules than me. But this is too important of an issue to let a few large corporations control it.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
5 megabits, in 2017, is an absurd joke, as is thinking Netflix is the standard we aspire to.

And what if it is a house with a family of four or five all streaming video or surfing the Internet. Is 5 or 10 megabytes sufficient?

Pivot from this, and folks, please put on your thinking caps on before responding.

1) What, specifically, has to be done, by whom to improve those speeds? Can you do it? Can the content providers?

2) Why would anyone do those things, noted as answers to number 1, if it didn't make them money?

3) As they figure out how to recoup profit from an investment in expanding the system bandwidth, they can go two routes - charge the sources of the traffic, charge the recipients, or both. In thinking about the latter - pricing and service changes to the retail customer - why should grandma, who uses just email where speed doesn't matter - have to pay the same rate pay as a houseful of media-gurus?

Seems really simple - from a retail customer perspective at least.

For those saying 'I'm currently paying for unlimited freedom in what/when I use the net, and screw them if they change that"...Yes I agree. But I don't think that's on the horizon. Reason is I don't think that ISPs can change the prices and services on current contracts/service agreements, except as provided for in those contracts.

For example, my Verizon cell service is grandfathered in a truly unlimited data plan that they no longer offer, and like Verizon when they went to metered data, I expect the ISPs will honor their existing contracts or risk a wave of class action suits. So I expect people will have the option to keep the services and terms.

But I also expect there will be new ISP contracts with time-of-day and/or type-of-material discounts for limiting usage of those times/services that are driving utilities' peak demand. Plans that would offer better speeds and/or lower prices and/or higher data limits to make it worth many peoples' while to change to the new plans and adapt their usage patterns. With the old guard still grandfathered, most likely.

In the meantime, providers who don't want any of their customers throttled may well set up agreements with backbone/ISP companies for preferential priorities. Or, they use a technical solution and put up even more physical locations nearer their customers so there is not as much traffic on the backbones.

Personally, its not a big deal to me if the latest and greatest Face-Insta-Space has to factor more into their business plan for arranging for those costs. Delivery is a cost of doing business. If you buy online products, you pay shipping (yes, Amazon Prime an exception, admittedly.) Why should online services just get free delivery if their services are the things boxing up the network?

If a firm's current business plan can't support the cost of delivering their products/services, then they better start burning some midnight oil and come up with a new business plan.

Creative destruction, guys. Creative destruction. That's where technology meets economics.

quote:

But I also expect there will be new ISP contracts with time-of-day and/or type-of-material discounts for limiting usage of those times/services that are driving utilities' peak demand. Plans that would offer better speeds and/or lower prices and/or higher data limits to make it worth many peoples' while to change to the new plans and adapt their usage patterns. With the old guard still grandfathered, most likely.

And they will eventually come out with a service / device / 'something' that wont work for grandfathered plans to get you off of it. AT&T did it by not allowing unlimited devices to create a hotspot or tether to you computer.

As on SigForum, net neutrality sparks intense opinions on both sides. I hope however that we can agree that "activists" targeting the home and family of Ajit Pai is beyond the pale:

Ajit Pai's home, children targeted; pizza sent to his house very 1/2 hour overnight.

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:
As on SigForum, net neutrality sparks intense opinions on both sides. I hope however that we can agree that "activists" targeting the home and family of Ajit Pai is beyond the pale:

Ajit Pai's home, children targeted; pizza sent to his house very 1/2 hour overnight.

So were the attacks on Muslims, following Trump's winning the election, and we know how those turned out, don't we?

The more information I gather the less I am inclined that Net Neutrality is good.

I still have yet to see anyone post any actual language from what the federal government is tasked with doing that will lead to a more libertarian internet.

Everything pro NN seems to be anecdotal. Like saying that if we VERY HEAVILY regulate firearms and ammunition, it will lead to better firearms and easier access thereof. Hell, the guy at the FCC, in his twitter feed, even said that the Obama rules were restricted from even being published.

quote:

Originally posted by sig2392:


I would rather have business decide who is more neutral than others rather than government.


I would not want to see the government deciding what traffic is neutral and what needs to be censored for the good of the children.

A-effing-men.
THAT is the real crux of the problem.
Ether you trust Business and the Free Market or you trust the Guberment.
I think some rules for transparency are in order so we know to a degree what is going on but otherwise the Gov't needs to stay the F out.
We already have anti-trust and monopoly laws in place.
Looking at the short term how companies charge or do business is the wrong approach.
In the long run NN will only stifle innovation and infrastructure build up.
If companies providing these services get out of line the free market will correct.
The minor details of a Netfix packet is too stupid to discuss.
YMMV

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
The more information I gather the less I am inclined that Net Neutrality is good.

Which information, in particular?

quote:

Originally posted by Veeper:
I still have yet to see anyone post any actual language from what the federal government is tasked with doing that will lead to a more libertarian internet.

Everything pro NN seems to be anecdotal.

Did you look?

quote:

Originally posted by Veeper:
Like saying that if we VERY HEAVILY regulate firearms and ammunition, it will lead to better firearms and easier access thereof.

This is about as bad an analogy as ever I've seen.

For starters: There's competition in the firearms industry--from the raw materials all the way down to the retail level. The same most definitely cannot be said of broadband availability in the U.S.

quote:

Originally posted by Veeper:
Hell, the guy at the FCC, in his twitter feed, even said that the Obama rules were restricted from even being published.

"The guy at the FCC" wouldn't happen to be Ajit Pai, the man who's spent most of his career working for the ISPs that want to see NN taken down, would it?

There are no "Obama rules." There is regulation by the FCC.

The FCC cannot enact "secret regulation." In order for regulation to work, the rules must be published. Yes: Even under the Obama Administration. Now, they may engage in non-public discussion, negotiation, conferences, consultations, etc., but FCC Rules, once they become rules, must be published.

Here ya go: 13 things you need to know about the FCC's Net neutrality regulation

You will find most common misconceptions and anti-NN-proponents' assertions debunked therein.

Did you read my post, above, about exactly how the ISPs found themselves reclassified under Title II? Bottom line: The FCC tried to avoid reclassifying broadband under Title II. Comcast threw a monkey wrench into their efforts.

The ISPs, or, at least Comcast, did this to themselves.

Perfect. Thanks. I can get to readin'.

On Rush's program today, he did a great job of describing what Net Neutrality is all about.

quote:

Now, they may engage in non-public discussion, negotiation, conferences, consultations, etc., but FCC Rules, once they become rules, must be published.

Now why does that remind me of Obamacare?

Portugal's internet shows us a world without net neutrality, and it's ugly

Comcast hints at plan for paid fast lanes after net neutrality repeal

Net Neutrality Rules: Still a Threat to Internet Freedom

7 Reasons Net Neutrality Is Idiotic