F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

[Gadarene]

Woops, can’t complain about restrictions on the internet in the UK anymore, guys

 

[HannahT]

What would've been better for you would be to expand the the footprint(s) in municiple broadband (see Chattanooga TN). Surprise,surprise, the big ISPs oppose that as well.

I know many electrical coop's laid fiber on their lines to help with electricity, and then also offer fiber internet. I know many have used the grants from the federal government to do this. It's still a HUGE endeavor, and some counties have problems doing it regardless.

It is strange that ATT won't delivery the service to the areas, and then won't allow others to do this either. That has been happening forever, and I think part of it is due to franchise agreements.

 

[MoonlessNight]

My position, incidentally, is that both Net Neutrality and the repeal of it (without any other changes) are going to lead to a worse internet. All that it changes is which specific corporations are going to benefit the most by exploiting you the most efficiently.

But in the long run it's not even clear that it changes that to a significant extent, since an issue this controversial will perpetually be changed by new decisions. After all, it's not like the ruling in 2015 stopped the fight, did it? Thus I expect a new set of controversial legislation to be fought over by 2019.

In the end, though, there isn't really anything that the average internet user can do about it, so I don't see the point in getting too worked up about it. And I especially don't see the point of taking it up as a crusade, complete with ritual denunciation of the nonbelievers, as many seem compelled to do.

 

[Nithavela]

I'm not sure I understand what net neutrality is overall.

Don't worry, you'll find out soon.

 

[LoAmmi]

I'm not sure I understand what net neutrality is overall.

It was in place for a while, and now it is not again.

Has anything changed between those two periods of time? I'm totally serious.

Did you have competition prior to net neutrality, and don't anymore?

I don't get it I suppose. Did they charge more to stream stuff before, and didn't after - and now will do it again? Is that all net neutrality is? Throttling?

Let me give you an example of something that did happen. Around 2013/2014, Comcast and Netflix had bit of an issue with each other and Comcast decided to throttle their traffic. So, people accessing Netflix on a Comcast connection would experience more delays and such than those accessing it on another ISP who wasn't throttling it. Now, let's move that to today where there is a whole bunch of streaming services that compete with each other. I like that there's so much competition actually. Makes the services want to offer more. But...

Let's say Hulu makes a deal with Comcast to prioritize Hulu traffic and slow down traffic to Netflix and other steaming services. What happens? Well, it hurts consumers services other than Hulu. It would likely filter people toward Hulu, since that's the one you get the best connection with.

Imagine traveling to get something to eat. Up ahead there's a McDonalds, a Wendys, and a local place. Unfortunately for you, the road going to McDonald's is 50mph, the one to Wendy's is 20mph, and the local place couldn't pay up so the road is 5mph.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Imagine traveling to get something to eat. Up ahead there's a McDonalds, a Wendys, and a local place. Unfortunately for you, the road going to McDonald's is 50mph, the one to Wendy's is 20mph, and the local place couldn't pay up so the road is 5mph.

This is a rather poor analogy to make, considering that every city will be constructed so that roads approaching different locations will have different speeds.

Indeed, I can travel from my current location to a McDonalds almost entirely along a highway with a speed limit of 65mph. However, the nearest Wendy's requires me to go through a large number of local roads with a speed limit of 30 mph.

For your analogy to function at all all of the places would have to be located on the same highway with the speed limits of travelers artificially limited not by their location but rather their destination. But at that point the analogy is so strained that it isn't effective anymore, and that's not really how internet communication works anyway, so the analogy is probably beyond repair.

 

[LoAmmi]

This is a rather poor analogy to make, considering that every city will be constructed so that roads approaching different locations will have different speeds.

Indeed, I can travel from my current location to a McDonalds almost entirely along a highway with a speed limit of 65mph. However, the nearest Wendy's requires me to go through a large number of local roads with a speed limit of 30 mph.

For your analogy to function at all all of the places would have to be located on the same highway with the speed limits of travelers artificially limited not by their location but rather their destination. But at that point the analogy is so strained that it isn't effective anymore, and that's not really how internet communication works anyway, so the analogy is probably beyond repair.

Nice nits. Any trouble picking them?

 

[MoonlessNight]

Nice nits. Any trouble picking them?

If you don't want your analogies criticized, don't make embarrassingly poor analogies.

In particular you might want to avoid asking people to base your point around getting people to imagine what you hope to be absurd situations (like different stores having different speed limits on the roads near them), when in fact these situations actually already exist in the real world and with good justifications for their existence. It weakens your point considerably to make such comparisons.

 

[Nithavela]

If you don't want your analogies criticized, don't make embarrassingly poor analogies.

In particular you might want to avoid asking people to base your point around getting people to imagine what you hope to be absurd situations (like different stores having different speed limits on the roads near them), when in fact these situations actually already exist in the real world and with good justifications for their existence. It weakens your point considerably to make such comparisons.

Actually it doesn't.

 

[FenderTL5]

I'm not sure I understand what net neutrality is overall.

It was in place for a while, and now it is not again.

Has anything changed between those two periods of time? I'm totally serious.

Did you have competition prior to net neutrality, and don't anymore?

I don't get it I suppose. Did they charge more to stream stuff before, and didn't after - and now will do it again? Is that all net neutrality is? Throttling?

As the internet developed the ISPs were operating in a quazi-monopolized, don't blink, stand-off. There were some basic neutrality rules in place, even initially.
In larger service areas, you'd have a telecom and a cable company vying for your business with no other competition. It sort-of worked, for a while. With only two competitors, if one was throttling, they'd be sure to lose to the competitor. Then both cable and the telecoms started experimenting with throttling, data-caps, etc (see LoAmmi's comment/example above)

When the FCC tried to enforce the existing NN rules; the ISPs sued to stop them.
What the courts determined was that the only way the NN rules could be enforced would be if the internet were classified as common carrier under Title II. That's what happened under the Obama administration. They didn't change anything as far as the rules go, they just moved into a classification where the FCC could actually enforce the existing rules.
Now, as of today that's been reversed.
All of the throttling, caps, tiered service, etc is back in play.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Actually it doesn't.

I'd love to hear your explanation for why making a poor analogy does not weaken your point.

Is it because the conclusion is correct, so it doesn't matter what argument is used to get to it?

 

[LoAmmi]

If you don't want your analogies criticized, don't make embarrassingly poor analogies.

In particular you might want to avoid asking people to base your point around getting people to imagine what you hope to be absurd situations (like different stores having different speed limits on the roads near them), when in fact these situations actually already exist in the real world and with good justifications for their existence. It weakens your point considerably to make such comparisons.

I don't think you understand the point of an analogy.

 

[Nithavela]

I'd love to hear your explanation for why making a poor analogy does not weaken your point.

Is it because the conclusion is correct, so it doesn't matter what argument is used to get to it?

An analogy is by nature an abstract correlation of a complicated concept with an everyday occurence to facilitate understanding. It only has to make sense in the way it is presented, once you start to bring real life complications into it, it stops being abstract and therefore stops being usefull.

 

[HannahT]

Let me give you an example of something that did happen. Around 2013/2014, Comcast and Netflix had bit of an issue with each other and Comcast decided to throttle their traffic. So, people accessing Netflix on a Comcast connection would experience more delays and such than those accessing it on another ISP who wasn't throttling it. Now, let's move that to today where there is a whole bunch of streaming services that compete with each other. I like that there's so much competition actually. Makes the services want to offer more. But...

I think I have heard about that. So, I googled it.

Here is a quote from the article:

Much like Netflix’s ongoing standoff with Verizon FiOS, the drop in speeds wasn’t an issue of the ISP throttling or blocking service to Netflix. Rather, the ISPs were allowing for Netflix traffic to bottleneck at what’s known as “peering ports,” the connection between Netflix’s bandwidth provider and the ISPs.

Until recently, if peering ports became congested with downstream traffic, it was common practice for an ISP to temporarily open up new ports to maintain the flow of data. This was not a business arrangement; just something that had been done as a courtesy. ISPs would expect the bandwidth companies to do the same if there was a spike in upstream traffic. However, there is virtually no upstream traffic with Netflix, so the Comcasts and Verizons of the world claimed they were being taken advantage of.

So, according to the two companies in question it wasn't throttling of the speeds that was the issue. Comcast and Verizon both worked it out with Netflix as well. It was an issue of peering that net neutrality goes NOT seem to cover.

In other words the problem was capacity, and not throttling of the speed - or blocking of the content.

I mean okay - so the Comcast, Verizon etc. can't throttle speeds to competing sites. They were not dong that anyway, but it seems they put the rules in place just in case?

I think I'm still missing something here. lol maybe I need some coffee, because it doesn't make sense to me. I know I must be missing a key component here.

I think I'm confusing myself. Sigh.

 

[LoAmmi]

I think I have heard about that. So, I googled it.

Here is a quote from the article:



So, according to the two companies in question it wasn't throttling of the speeds that was the issue. Comcast and Verizon both worked it out with Netflix as well. It was an issue of peering that net neutrality goes NOT seem to cover.

In other words the problem was capacity, and not throttling of the speed - or blocking of the content.

I mean okay - so the Comcast, Verizon etc. can't throttle speeds to competing sites. They were not dong that anyway, but it seems they put the rules in place just in case?

I think I'm still missing something here. lol maybe I need some coffee, because it doesn't make sense to me. I know I must be missing a key component here.

I think I'm confusing myself. Sigh.

The problem is that a lot of other streaming sites have come online recently. I mean, it may seem unbelievable because we're not used to things moving so fast. I mean, 2011 is six years ago and it's when I got my first smart phone. But I feel like I've had it forever.

Anyway, my point is now that there's a lot more competition for that space, you could see them favoring one site over the other.

 

[FenderTL5]

The problem is that a lot of other streaming sites have come online recently. I mean, it may seem unbelievable because we're not used to things moving so fast. I mean, 2011 is six years ago and it's when I got my first smart phone. But I feel like I've had it forever.

Anyway, my point is now that there's a lot more competition for that space, you could see them favoring one site over the other.

and.. the ISPs all buying major content providers shouldn't be ignored either.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I think I'm still missing something here. lol maybe I need some coffee, because it doesn't make sense to me. I know I must be missing a key component here.

I think I'm confusing myself. Sigh.

And everything in society is attempting to keep everyone confused, befuddled, incapacitated, towards death.......

(1) everyone wants money. almost everyone wants your money. and control of what you have.

(2) this is written in Scripture.

(3) most people NEVER care what is written in Scripture.

(4) practically all the internet is deceptive, on purpose, including most posts and threads and sites.
(a lot obviously due to marketing; a lot not so obviously due to spiritual darkness in high places in control)

 

[Nithavela]

Look at it another way.. if the ISPs aren't going to abuse this, why did they spend so much effort and money to lobby for it?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Right! Like practically all the 'unions' do/ medical/ lobbyists/ dental/ corporations/ stock markets/ bankers/ schools/ pharmakeia/ oil industry/ utility providers(ha! yeah, right) / etc etc etc

Look at it another way.. if the ISPs aren't going to abuse this, why did they spend so much effort and money to lobby for it?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

And I quote the article, according to a Mr. Ajit Pai: "rollback of the rules would eventually help consumers because broadband providers like AT&T and Comcast could offer people a wider variety of service options. Mr. Pai was joined in the 3-to-2 vote by his two fellow Republican commissioners."


Does anyone else smell the BS from any given location across the planet? Eventually help the consumer? ... Really?

Providers have already proven they can't be trusted when they're given the keys to the asylum so to speak.

Verizon and Comcast have been busted on multiple occasions for bandwidth throttling. They were the reason we needed Neutrality rules in the first place...yet, now they're some how the solution to their own problem?

That'd be like saying "This bar keeps over-serving people and sending them out on the roads and it's causing accidents, we're going to create laws to crack down on that"...and then a few years later someone has the bright idea "Hey, let's get this pesky law out of the way and let the bars set their own policies for this...that'll really help motorists"