URGENT - Net Neutrality Under Attack - Action Needed

[meketrefe]

People bring up valid points.
Now my question is how many read the entire law and understood it?
maybe we all are being deceived one way or another.

 

[libertysnake]

People bring up valid points.
Now my question is how many read the entire law and understood it?
maybe we all are being deceived one way or another.

We're always being deceived. This is just our wishful thinking basically.

 

[Grimscale]

Let me ask a question. Should Uber be able to do surge/low demand pricing? That is, should the Uber rates be set, regardless of time of day, day of week, and demand for their drivers? Should they not be allowed to offer discounts based on low demand?

Now apply that question to Internet Protocol (IP) packets. Do you have a different answer? If so, why?

Except this is not what this whole thing is about.
This isn't Netflix' direct connection saying "we're charging you more when your bandwidth requirements increase". This is a completely separate company that Netflix may not connect to directly, bypassing Netflix' direct-connecting ISP, and sending a bill to Netflix to carry their traffic faster. This is the companies who comprise the "core backbone" of the Internet trying to charge other people's customers directly. THIS is what is wrong.

This would be like General Motors charging an Uber passenger for the use of the Taxi, or threatening to place a speed governor on the car if they don't pay up. It is extortion, plain and simple.

There was no problem with this control when it was that way before Obama changed it to let gummint run things. so I wouldn't expect problems when it is reversed to how it was before the Kenyan inserted his "fix" of what wasn't broken.

unfortunately, you are incorrect. This was just starting to become a problem (re-read the news articles about how Netflix was forced to pay money to other carriers like AT&T etc., or risk having their traffic throttled) as Companies tried to find new and creative ways to monetize their already existing networks. Re-read the news articles about how companies like Comcast would throttle Netflix traffic to try to drive Comcast's customers into buying expensive cable-TV packages.

That meant that they were subject to special laws and regulations

But ISPs ARE subject to special laws and regulations. More and more often people are turning away from the old copper-based telco's and using VOIP (Voice Over I. P.) for their primary home telephone connections. ISPs have many regulatory hoops to jump through to ensure these people have access to 911 services, etc.

Down to the basic's: Should the operator of networking equipment connected to the network of networks (aka Internet) be able to prioritize IP packets that transverse their network. Yes or no?

IP Packets are prioritized based on their "importance" (ie: sensitivity to interruption).
For example, VOIP packets are prioritized over general data packets because VOIP is extremely sensitive to packet loss and latency, while general data packets can handle slight delays and retransmissions without the end-user being aware it was happening (unless it becomes too severe).

But now ISPs want to be able to further define the "general data packet" in an effort to suck even more money out of the public. Bittorrent traffic would be forced to be lowest priority, effectively rendering this technology useless (and yes, there are MANY uses that are perfectly legal, not just downloading the latest movie). Streaming traffic sourced from <not our company> and routing to <our customer> would be marked low priority but <our streaming service> to <our customer> would be marked high priority, thus effectively acting like a monopoly on that service. And in the majority of the U.S., people DON'T have alternate ISPs to go to, so no "free market".

And, just to bring the hypocrisy of the ISPs statements to light, these same ISPs, who for years have been claiming they cannot inspect each packet to tell what would be illegal (thus claiming "common carrier status") now say "we want to differentiate these packets which we can now inspect and charge people for them.
So which is it? Can they or can't they?

Should these companies be automatically exempt from lawsuits for illegal internet traffic that traverses their network while at the same time being able to monetize that traffic?

 

[1911guy]

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

Seems to be about 10 different opinions on this thread of what net neutrality means. Does anyone have an ACTUAL definition? How are we to know what will change if we don't even know what the hell we're even talking about? I agree with mek. Until someone reads all 300 pages all this arguing is a waste of time.

 

[@thewheels]

NN is a misnomer.
If the gov truly had consumers best interests at heart, the fix is simple.
The industry and consumer watchdogs gets their best and brightest to put together a short and sweet plan that's works for them and consumers. They all sign off on it and the ISP's police themselves and whoever is in violation gets to face the rest in court.
Take the 300 page repeal and the rest of the government regs and line bird cages with them.

 

[Phazer]

Over the past 10 years, the cellular phone companies have not been forced to have any kind of bandwidth neutrality rules. Yet, as with all open markets, cellular phone products have become more powerful, more accessible, more accessible, and cheaper to use.

Wouldn't it be nice if broadband providers and internet access at home would simply follow the same path as cellular plans?

 

[meketrefe]

Cellular plans suck big time. We are light years behind other countries and consumer protection like privacy and confidentiality is nowhere in sight.

 

[meketrefe]

 

[stuck in ny]

If we loose net neutrallity, then a company can just say that, say, gun blogs, take 56 minutes longer to load than normal sites, and nothing could be done about it.

 

[Grimscale]

Over the past 10 years, the cellular phone companies have not been forced to have any kind of bandwidth neutrality rules. Yet, as with all open markets, cellular phone products have become more powerful, more accessible, more accessible, and cheaper to use.

Wouldn't it be nice if broadband providers and internet access at home would simply follow the same path as cellular plans?

I hope this was sarcasm.

Being forced off of a true unlimited plan and onto a 6Gig/month, just because the cellular company wanted to "do away" with unlimited.
Forced off of the 6Gig/month (per phone) plan and onto a 8Gig/month (shared!) plan because the cellular company wanted to "do away" with the plan I had been using for over a decade.
Other cell companies reportedly throttling streaming of video, or forcing it to a lower bitrate, blocking tethering (using your cell phone as a wireless hotspot for your laptop), etc.

Yup. Just what I want in my home internet connection.

 

[Phazer]

I hope this was sarcasm.

Being forced off of a true unlimited plan and onto a 6Gig/month, just because the cellular company wanted to "do away" with unlimited.
Forced off of the 6Gig/month (per phone) plan and onto a 8Gig/month (shared!) plan because the cellular company wanted to "do away" with the plan I had been using for over a decade.
Other cell companies reportedly throttling streaming of video, or forcing it to a lower bitrate, blocking tethering (using your cell phone as a wireless hotspot for your laptop), etc.

Yup. Just what I want in my home internet connection.

I've experienced quite the opposite with the two carriers that my family uses (2 on one carrier and one on another).

I've got options for ISP/cable with Verizon FIOS and Optimum. I've switched between them to get better deals a few times. No government intervention was required.

 

[masterswimmer]

I have no ISP options here. It's an Optimum monopoly. They know it, and they take full advantage of it.

Net Neutrality or I'm phucked.

 

[meketrefe]

The idea of no regulations is an attractive one but what was put in the current law was just enough and much less
that what others wanted. Remember Obama administration had to change direction on this after public outcry
so that is when they passed what we have today.

The current proposal first eliminates the neutrality given a false sense of independence but that is
nothing further from the truth. In fact they are paving the way for the big ISPs to become the wild west
of the internet lanes because they are in control of most of the service infrastructure.

They are already profiting but they want more from services like netflix, amazon, hulu, that are eating their
market share in entertainment. That means what you used to pay in cable that you don't pay anymore
might be potentially used to increase fees on those services or to basically increased the cost of service
for the same infrastructure.
I am sure in some areas the infrastructure will improve like local sections here were we finally have fiber optics
but then they will have free range to go back to predatory practices like they have done in the past.

A marketing consultant from ATT told me they do want to improve the service but they also want to capitalize
on the losses from entertainment and controlling the distribution is a good way to impose new market rules.
For example, lets say today you spend $40 on a decent internet connection plus another $15 in netflix
and you are also a heavy user of Youtube... in the future this might cost you $100 to have the same level
of access and bandwidth. That difference is part of the profit ATT, Verizon, Comcast, etc... want.

Of course I would love zero FCC arbitration and freedom of market and everything but with so few big corps
controlling the service infrastructure I cannot trust this approach.

If they were worried about the people and consumers we would see some substantial changes regarding customer
privacy and security but we have none.

So, better stick with the devil you know until they can propose something that is more transparent and protects the little guy from being screwed.

 

[NirvanaFan]

I have no ISP options here. It's an Optimum monopoly. They know it, and they take full advantage of it.

Net Neutrality or I'm phucked.

And, with NN, you'll continue to have the same shit service you have. It's going to cost small ISPs too much and they won't be able to enter the market.

 

[Robin]

"Net Neutrality" Is that government speak for, we are really going to fuck up the internet but good. Kind of like that most unconstitutional and big "G" piece of crap "The Patriot Act" yeah real patriotic. Wrap a beautiful woman's hand around a piece of shit, it still smells like shit. They lost any trust I might have had long ago.
Robin

 

[masterswimmer]

"Net Neutrality" Is that government speak for, we are really going to fuck up the internet but good. Kind of like that most unconstitutional and big "G" piece of crap "The Patriot Act" yeah real patriotic. Wrap a beautiful woman's hand around a piece of shit, it still smells like shit. They lost any trust I might have had long ago.
Robin

Net Neutrality would actually keep the status quo. Eliminate NN and watch your ISP bills go up due to having to buy connection packages. You want sports? Buy the NFL or MLB or PGA or NHL package. Want social media? Buy the FB or Instagram or Twitter package. Want gun forums or firearms e-commerce sites? Maybe you can purchase a bulletin board package that doesn't restrict firearms sites. Want YouTube or movie streaming? Purchase a package that increases your bandwidth.

See where I'm going with this?

 

[meketrefe]

Pai and Lobby going full retard....


Ajit Pai made this skit (starts at 0:38) where he meets with an actual Verizon senior VP and agrees about how it would be great if they could get a FCC chair installed who was brainwashed by the company:



FCC officials shouldn't be joking about being shills. Whether or not they have industry backgrounds (like former Chairman Tom Wheeler), they're supposed to take corruption allegations seriously instead of turning them into comedy sketches. The humor fails in part because there's a painful degree of truth to it -- it wouldn't have come up if Pai weren't pursuing the exact deregulation policies that major telecoms want. And crucially, telecom executives shouldn't ever be involved. If anything, Grillo's inclusion in the skit supports accusations that Pai is on the take, since he's clearly cozy enough with Verizon to recruit one of its VPs for a gag.

For that matter, why would a Verizon executive agree to appear in a skit that makes light of corruption, especially knowing that the video might become public and damage the company's reputation? It's safe to say this is unusual even for a telecom that hasn't been shy about voicing its political stances and omitting views it doesn't like. The company appears unfazed about the connection, however, and even seems to endorse it. When asked for comment, Chief Communications Officer Jim Gerace joked that "we never knew Kathy was so funny."

Unfortunately, it's unlikely that Pai will face any repercussions in the near future. He was recently chosen to serve a second term, and his closeness to the companies he's supposed to regulate is par for the course at the moment. This just backs notions that Pai is comfortable flaunting his industry ties, and that he won't be shy about it going forward.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai 'jokes' about being a Verizon shill

 

[meketrefe]

NET NEUTRALITY R.I.P.

Net neutrality vote: FCC repeals Obama-era Internet rules

 

[masterswimmer]

Screwed.......

 

[meketrefe]

In Portugal, without Net Neutrality, internet providers are starting to split the net into packages.



So, if you want access to your email, you pay extra. You want to watch YouTube, you pay extra. You want access to Netflix, Facebook, your favorite music streaming site? You pay extra on top of any subscription fees you may already pay.

I have no clue why anyone would think this is a good idea.

Keep you wallet handy!

 

[minderasr]

meh.

 

[Darth]

In Portugal, without Net Neutrality, internet providers are starting to split the net into packages.

View attachment 22436

So, if you want access to your email, you pay extra. You want to watch YouTube, you pay extra. You want access to Netflix, Facebook, your favorite music streaming site? You pay extra on top of any subscription fees you may already pay.

I have no clue why anyone would think this is a good idea.

Keep you wallet handy!

You also have no clue that the photograph is entirely false, but posted it anyway.

This Viral Tweet About Net Neutrality is Fake News

I have no idea why anyone would think getting the government involved in private business is ever a good idea.

So Soros supports NN, Bernie says this will be the end of the Internet, this particular picture is propaganda crafted by a left of the left senator from California, and...people don't see the issue?

And this is with literally about 1 hour of research on the subject. Can't wait until I find out that NN is actually creating monopolies by driving smaller ISPs out of business.

 

[meketrefe]

You also have no clue that the photograph is entirely false, but posted it anyway.

This Viral Tweet About Net Neutrality is Fake News

I have no idea why anyone would think getting the government involved in private business is ever a good idea.

So Soros supports NN, Bernie says this will be the end of the Internet, this particular picture is propaganda crafted by a left of the left senator from California, and...people don't see the issue?

And this is with literally about 1 hour of research on the subject. Can't wait until I find out that NN is actually creating monopolies by driving smaller ISPs out of business.

I got it from the news. Didn't even look at it.
But they have similar packages split that way in Europe. I have been there working this year and see how
they take advantage specially in those areas where there is competition.
But even with neutrality rules they make big bucks and one can get a 100mb/s fiber optics symmetrical for 29 bucks
like Madrid downtown ...in Tokyo even better.
Here in Rochester is a joke. We get some of the worse service anywhere.

Soros is a SOB we know that. He supports whatever he has investments into that is pretty much anything. I used to love the Dinasaur BBQ downtown, not so much until I found out is part of one of soros stakes.

 

[Darth]

I got it from the news. Didn't even look at it.
But they have similar packages split that way in Europe. I have been there working this year and see how
they take advantage specially in those areas where there is competition.
But even with neutrality rules they make big bucks and one can get a 100mb/s fiber optics symmetrical for 29 bucks
like Madrid downtown ...in Tokyo even better.
Here in Rochester is a joke. We get some of the worse service anywhere.

...and NN is in place in Rochester.

That should tell you something.

 

[meketrefe]

...and NN is in place in Rochester.

That should tell you something.

What tells me is that people do not care chit because in other places with NN they get much
better service. You see the neutrality is a shitty name for this but consumers need some
basic protections from fraudulent practices like those from Time warner, ATT, comcast, etc...

My nephew got a letter from KIA after buying one of those kia cubes or whatever that are
nice little cars saying that they made a mistake and the car does 33mph and not 36 as
advertised. So now they are sending him a check every month for whatever the difference from
gas/miles.

Time warner and Frontier have been ripping off consumers for 2 decades and nobody does chit
about it. Well they are in a law suit right now but not too confident people will be compensated.
NN was not perfect but did something even if minimal.

I am all for less regulation but I am very concern about these type of companies who are
crooks.

Now we will have to see. I hope you are right but I am pretty skeptical.

 

[1911guy]

If we loose net neutrallity, then a company can just say that, say, gun blogs, take 56 minutes longer to load than normal sites, and nothing could be done about it.

Why didn't that happen before 2015 when NN was instituted?

 

[Darth]

What tells me is that people do not care chit because in other places with NN they get much
better service. You see the neutrality is a shitty name for this but consumers need some
basic protections from fraudulent practices like those from Time warner, ATT, comcast, etc...

My nephew got a letter from KIA after buying one of those kia cubes or whatever that are
nice little cars saying that they made a mistake and the car does 33mph and not 36 as
advertised. So now they are sending him a check every month for whatever the difference from
gas/miles.

Time warner and Frontier have been ripping off consumers for 2 decades and nobody does chit
about it. Well they are in a law suit right now but not too confident people will be compensated.
NN was not perfect but did something even if minimal.

I am all for less regulation but I am very concern about these type of companies who are
crooks.

Now we will have to see. I hope you are right but I am pretty skeptical.

And in what way did the government "solve these problems?"

The Kia story is a great example of the failure. That means the government smoothed things over and Kia keeps right on going. Have a few thousand customers simply lose brand faith because of that crap and see how fast they smarten up.

 

[Darth]

Why didn't that happen before 2015 when NN was instituted?

I swear some people aren't even sure how the Internet works. There isn't some big God router that outputs "the Internet" and some fat cat ISPs are holding it on a leash.

 

[meketrefe]

And in what way did the government "solve these problems?"

The Kia story is a great example of the failure. That means the government smoothed things over and Kia keeps right on going. Have a few thousand customers simply lose brand faith because of that crap and see how fast they smarten up.

Darth,
the Kia story is beautiful but there is a law they cannot cheat and lie to consumers. Not sure what % of error is accepted.
Imagine is Time warner had to compensate every customer for the bandwidth they stole through the years.
I do thing this happened due to the lack of people's interest in improving things. People are too relaxed and complacent
and that also has an impact. But many are also trapped, no options. Neutrality, that is a horrible name for it btw, didn't fix
chit but I think it slowed those practices down.
The Netflix - Comcast agreement was a good example how things were being worked out even with the neutrality rules.
The problem: Cable company want more profits and they are going to get them from our pockets.
Government are useless I agree but big lobby and corporations in control of infrastructure are crooks.