Net Neutrality

[Discus-n00b]

Totally agree with that last point Rick. It's part of the reason why Google can't come in and lay fiber. If google could lay fiber freely this thing wouldn't be an issue because AT&T, Time Warner/Spectrum, Comcast, etc would all get forced out and beat down. Perhaps the current companies in the area just need to spend the money and lay fiber or find a way to beef their services up without having to throttle so much or often! Lol one could wish.

I understand throttling has happened, and I don't mind the act of throttling but it shouldn't be as harsh especially when streaming has become norm. And it shouldn't drop me below the speed I paid for. Throttle me back to that speed fine, but way below it? No. I'm paying for a product I am not getting. Streaming is normal now for watching TV or playing video games online. Streaming is a profession these days, bad internet could really hinder your job.

[Clawhammer]

The danger of throttling IMO is most relevant when you think of ISP's favoring particular websites or services over others, not throttling high usage customers or for peak usage time. If ISPs have that right, they will have the power to fleece customers and favor their own products. New innovative start ups will not be able to compete with large corporations that can afford to pay the ISP to make their websites faster.

Get ready to pay much more for internet services, which is already subpar to that of Europe and most of Asia.

The only people this benefits is shareholders of ISPs and their lobbyists

[Demosthenes]

The danger of throttling IMO is most relevant when you think of ISP's favoring particular websites or services over others, not throttling high usage customers or for peak usage time. If ISPs have that right, they will have the power to fleece customers and favor their own products. New innovative start ups will not be able to compete with large corporations that can afford to pay the ISP to make their websites faster.

Get ready to pay much more for internet services, which is already subpar to that of Europe and most of Asia.

The only people this benefits is shareholders of ISPs and their lobbyists

Spot on.

[nc0gnet0]

The danger of throttling IMO is most relevant when you think of ISP's favoring particular websites or services over others, not throttling high usage customers or for peak usage time. If ISPs have that right, they will have the power to fleece customers and favor their own products. New innovative start ups will not be able to compete with large corporations that can afford to pay the ISP to make their websites faster.

Get ready to pay much more for internet services, which is already subpar to that of Europe and most of Asia.

The only people this benefits is shareholders of ISPs and their lobbyists

That's not completely true. If it can't lawfully prioritize traffic, then how can it prioritize garbage-packets like bots and spam? Even with exceptions and perfect language in a law/regulation, bots don't care, they work off exploits in the structures. My point is, it's a double edged sword, so be careful what you wish for.

[nc0gnet0]

Totally agree with that last point Rick. It's part of the reason why Google can't come in and lay fiber. If google could lay fiber freely this thing wouldn't be an issue because AT&T, Time Warner/Spectrum, Comcast, etc would all get forced out and beat down. Perhaps the current companies in the area just need to spend the money and lay fiber or find a way to beef their services up without having to throttle so much or often! Lol one could wish.

I understand throttling has happened, and I don't mind the act of throttling but it shouldn't be as harsh especially when streaming has become norm. And it shouldn't drop me below the speed I paid for. Throttle me back to that speed fine, but way below it? No. I'm paying for a product I am not getting. Streaming is normal now for watching TV or playing video games online. Streaming is a profession these days, bad internet could really hinder your job.

The biggest hurdles in Internet speed, and the most troublesome, are what ISP's call the last mile. Free market economy sounds fantastic, with the exception most ISP's operate more like your gas or electric utility, with little or zero competition from any competitors, and as such do require regulation. Forcing them to allow other ISP's to share the existing conduits isn't going to fix anything, might even make the problem worse. The biggest problem lies within the infrastructure itself, and it's ability to handle greater and greater traffic.

[nc0gnet0]

Rick,
If you pay for 6 gbs of data on your smart phone. How many Gbs of data do you expect to recieve?

al

If you purchase a corvette that is advertised to do 180 mph, but hop onto the freeway during rush hour and can only do 35 mph do to traffic, where does the real problem lie? There have been a few municipalities that get it. Austin Texas and Provo Utah, have allowed companies to come in and lay fiber optics in their conduits and such for free, removing right of way fees and access fees, that stifle competition.

[brewmaster15]

Part of the issue here is a big lack of understanding as to exactly what the FCC''s net neutrality rules covered and didn't cover before the current FCC chair (former Verizon guy)initiated the proposed back pedal currently proposed.

Here is a synopsis as to what the current brightline rules cover and don't cover. Before people willingly ditch the current protections it's probably a good idea to understand them and why they are important.

https://www.cnet.com/news/13-things-...ty-regulation/


13 things you need to know about the FCC's Net neutrality regulation
Having trouble digesting all 400 pages of the FCC's Net neutrality order? Have no fear, CNET's Marguerite Reardon is here to tell you what you really need to know.


CNET/James Martin
Two weeks after voting to preserve the open Internet (also referred to as Net neutrality) the Federal Communications Commission finally released a 400 page document detailing the new rules in all their glory.

If you haven't been following along, Net neutrality is the idea that all traffic on the Internet should be treated equally. That means your broadband provider, which controls your access to the Internet, can't block or slow down the services or applications you use over the Web. It also means your Internet service provider -- whether it's a cable company or telephone service -- can't create so-called fast lanes that force content companies like Netflix to pay an additional fee to deliver their content to customers faster.


Even though most people agree with the basic premise of Net neutrality, the FCC's rules have become a lightning rod for controversy. The reason: The FCC has now reclassified broadband as a so-called Title II telecommunications service under the 1934 Communications Act. That reclassification places broadband providers under the same strict regulations that now govern telephone networks.

Broadband providers, like AT&T and Comcast, say Title II allows the FCC to impose higher rates and will discourage them from building or upgrading their networks. On the flip side, Title II will help the FCC fight any legal challenges that AT&T, Verizon and Comcast (among others) lob its way.

But 400 pages of government-speak and legalese is a lot to swallow (let alone digest). So we've done it for you. What follows is a quick FAQ explaining the most pressing issues.


1.What are the new rules?
The FCC's Net neutrality order boils down to three key rules:

No Blocking. Simply put: A broadband provider can't block lawful content, applications, services or nonharmful devices.

No Throttling. The FCC created a separate rule that prohibits broadband providers from slowing down specific applications or services, a practice known as throttling. More to the point, the FCC said providers can't single out Internet traffic based on who sends it, where it's going, what the content happens to be or whether that content competes with the provider's business.


No Paid Prioritization. A broadband provider cannot accept fees for favored treatment. In short, the rules prohibit Internet fast lanes.

2. Why did it take 400 pages to say that?
Just to clarify, the actual order takes up 313 pages, and the remaining 87 pages are statements from the five FCC commissioners, including lengthy dissenting comments from two of those commissioners.

Beyond that, FCC officials say they needed to give detailed explanations of how and why they wrote these rules, because they expect the rules will be challenged in court. That's because the FCC's two previous attempts were thrown out of court for improper legal justification. AT&T and Comcast have already hinted they will sue the FCC over the rules and, in particular, their reclassification as broadband services.

3. Some broadband providers say the FCC's rules ban them from effectively managing traffic on their networks. Is this true?
That depends on how they want to manage traffic. According to the FCC, broadband providers need to show a technically justified rationale for how they manage traffic, rather than for purely business reasons.

Generally speaking, this means your broadband provider can block spam from your email inbox, block traffic from a denial of service attack and slow down or redirect traffic to ensure the network runs smoothly during times of congestion, so long as the provider isn't targeting any particular application or traffic source. It can't block or slow down access to video streaming services like Netflix or Hulu just because it thinks those services use too much bandwidth.

4. Will the FCC determine how much my broadband and wireless service costs?
No, the new rules don't regulate broadband rates or require providers to get the FCC's permission to offer new rate plans or new services. Broadband providers will still be able to offer new services and rates, which means they can add a faster tier of service, at a new price, without permission from the FCC.


That's different from the old-style telephone regulation. Under the full Title II regulation, phone companies were required to file tariffs with the FCC and wait for regulatory review before they could offer new products. The FCC said it is "forbearing" from using some of those requirements for broadband services.

5. Will my broadband bill go up because of taxes associated with these rules?
There is nothing in the FCC's Open Internet order that imposes new taxes or fees on broadband service. That said, there is a separate FCC proceeding that began before the Net neutrality order was published that looks at whether broadband customers should pay into the Universal Service Fund. (Customers of traditional telephone services already pay into USF to help subsidize phone service in rural and low-income areas.)

Depending on how that proceeding plays out, broadband customers could be required to contribute to USF. If that does happen, your broadband bill could go up a few pennies each month.

6. Is the government taking over the Internet?
These new rules don't regulate any content or application on the Internet, or dictate how the Internet operates or where traffic is routed. So in that sense, the answer is no. They do regulate access to the "last mile" of the Internet, which is the network that connects your home or mobile device to the Net.

This means the rules govern just the companies and the sections of their networks that deliver Internet access to consumers. Companies subject to the regulation are broadband providers, like AT&T, Verizon or Comcast, which sell consumers fixed or wireless access to the Internet.

7. The FCC keeps saying that not all of the Title II regulations apply to broadband. What pieces of the old style regulation will apply?
The FCC isn't applying more than 700 rules found in the Title II regulation.

So what's left? The FCC has kept at least nine sections of the Title II regulation.These include sections 201, 202 and 208 -- which the agency said are necessary for open Internet rules.

Additionally, the agency is applying parts of sections that protect consumers, promote competition and "advance universal access, all of which will foster network investment, thereby helping to promote broadband deployment."

Section 222, for instance, protects consumer privacy. Sections 225/255/251(a)(2) ensure broadband access to people with disabilities. The agency also kept section 224, which requires utilities to give cable system operators and telecommunications carriers access to their poles so they can attach their own wires for service.

The agency is also keeping section 254, which promotes universal deployment of services. But to make sure broadband customers aren't forced to pay into the Universal Service Fund, the FCC is forbearing from a subsection of section 254 that would require broadband providers to collect universal service fees from customers. That said, the agency does have the authority under section 254 to distribute USF funds already collected to promote broadband deployment in rural or low-income areas.

8. This current FCC may be forbearing most Title II provisions, but could a future FCC change that?
In theory yes. But FCC officials said on a call with reporters on Thursday that it's not that easy. That's one reason the FCC spelled out its rationale in a 400 page document. With it, the agency creates a record that could be used to prevent future iterations of the FCC from undoing everything.

And keep in mind that the FCC has to follow procedures for any official action it takes, including changing its own regulations. Those procedures include a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which must be introduced and accepted by the majority of commissioners. Then there's a public comment period on the proposal, followed by a comment period on the comments. Then the full commission votes. And at least three out of five commissioners need to approve those new rules before they can pass.

9. Will emerging services, like connected cars and telehealth applications, be regulated under these new rules? Won't that stifle innovation?
Services that don't offer full Internet access won't be regulated. These include things like cable telephony or voice over IP services, dedicated heart-monitoring services, e-readers, connected cars or the new voice over LTE services offered by wireless operators. Such services all use the Internet, but they don't offer consumers access to the public Internet.

10. Let's get into some specifics. Will the FCC put a stop to "sponsored data" deals where a certain service, like Spotify, won't count against my monthly data allotment?
The answer is a fuzzy "maybe." The FCC said it understands some people worry such plans could "distort competition by allowing service providers to pick and choose among content and application providers to feature on different service plans." But it also realizes these plans can benefit consumers and promote competition.

Therefore, it will not ban these types of services outright. Instead, it will evaluate these plans on a case-by-case basis to make sure a specific offering doesn't give any one service an unreasonable advantage over another.

11. Will wireless providers still be allowed to use data caps to limit the bandwidth their customers use?
The FCC said it can't make "blanket findings about these practices." For instance, some data caps can benefit customers because they allow wireless operators to offer a variety of service plans at different price points.

Still, the FCC acknowledged that broadband providers can wield data caps against competing "over-the-top" services like Netflix, which offers streaming video over the Internet.

For now, the FCC will not ban data caps. But if consumers or other Internet companies feel that a certain data cap policy is unfair, they can lodge a complaint, which the FCC will examine case-by-case.

12. What about "interconnection" deals between companies like Netflix and broadband providers like Comcast? Is the FCC regulating those deals now?
Yes and no.

First, let me explain what "interconnection" is. The Internet is made up of a series of networks. The "last mile" is the connection your broadband provider offers consumers to get to the public Internet. A broadband provider then connects with other network providers to get access to content on the Internet. These "interconnections" between network operators are commercial arrangements between companies. The FCC has never before intervened in these commercial deals.

But the FCC acknowledges that broadband providers could act in a way that harms competition, affecting how or if consumers can access certain services. Netflix will say that's just what happened last year while it was in contentious negotiations with Comcast and Verizon. The streaming video service provider argued that Comcast and Verizon were unfairly charging it for increased capacity to their "last mile" networks. Meanwhile, Comcast and Verizon said they were justified in asking Netflix to pay for network upgrades to accommodate an uptick in Netflix traffic.

And all the while, some Netflix customers saw a degradation in the quality of their Netflix service.

Was this Netflix's fault or the broadband provider's fault? It depends on how you look at it, the FCC has reasoned. It also recognized that the industry is rapidly changing. And it concluded that it's currently unwise to impose the same no-blocking, no-throttling, no-paid prioritization bans on this part of the Internet.

Instead, the agency said it will review these disputes when complaints are filed.

13. Have the lawsuits started yet?
Not yet. And they won't until the rules are officially published in the Federal Register, which may take a few days or a week. The rules will then take effect two months after they're published.

This story is part of a CNET special report looking at the challenges of Net neutrality, and what rules -- if any -- are needed to fuel innovation and protect US consumers.

Net Fix
The notion of Net neutrality means all Internet traffic gets treated the same. But a deep divide exists on what rules -- if any -- will fuel innovation and protect US ....


This articLe was published just after the Net neutrality rules went into effect and areally what the. Current FCC chair and big telecom lobbyists want to undo.

Al

[Clawhammer]

That's not completely true. If it can't lawfully prioritize traffic, then how can it prioritize garbage-packets like bots and spam? Even with exceptions and perfect language in a law/regulation, bots don't care, they work off exploits in the structures. My point is, it's a double edged sword, so be careful what you wish for.

I only wish for the status quo in terms of net neutrality

[nc0gnet0]

Just to clarify, I am neither for or against net neutrality. I consider it a band aide on a gaping wound. It apparently solves some problems, while creating others. Many branches of the Internet, in particular the "last mile" have a finite amount of bandwidth. It like trying to force a 4-6 lane highway to only use 2 lanes, and not expect any slow downs. When you exceed capacity, ISP's have to throttle. It's much like a brown out in a major city when the power grid can't handle demand.

Ultimately, the key will be an improved infrastructure, one designed to handle the ever increasing demands new streaming services and such place on the network. An infrastructure designed, and regulated from the ground up. In the past, many municipalities have made sweetheart deals with ISP's, that allowed them to service there area, for fees and concessions. These "deals" had the ISP paying for, and owning the networks paths and cables that service the areas in question. I exchange the municipalities would receive free Internet (for gov buildings) and kickbacks. It turned into a revenue stream for local governments. The legalities involved to terminate these "deals" are numerous and complex. But suffice it to say, this is what has effectively stifled competition. I am of the opinion that internet will soon need to be governed as a utility, not as a title II entity. Municipalities will have to take ownership of there particular nodes, and upgrade the infrastructure themselves, at a cost to the taxpayers, eventually recouping the cost by a fair and REGULATED access charge to the ISP's, to use their interconnects. But even this is problematic, as some remote areas will not be cost efficient to give access.

Many of the people that oppose throttling, don;t understand the issue. Throttling has always happened. Just because a highway has a posted speed limit of 70 mph, doesn't always mean you will be able to travel that fast. Ask anyone in a major city. Internet speed has always been a matter of the underlying infrastructure, and traffic. It is not designed to handle everyone connected to it to be using it 24/7 at full speed, but rather a certain percentage at any one time. Streaming services such as netflix and hulu, and sites such as utube are consuming more and more of the available bandwidth.

The net neutrality issues you are seeing is not David vs Goliath as some would have you believe. It's not Isp's vs Joe blow consumer. It's Goliath vs Goliath. On one side you have the ISP's such as Comcast, Verizon, At&T, etc vs Netflix, Hulu, utube, etc. Were going to get screwed until the real problem is addressed regardless.

When the most people come out against "throttling" what they are really saying is they don't want the particular services THEY use to be slowed down. But what they fail to realize that unless Internet traffic is allowed to be prioritized by someone (and I am not saying it should be the ISP's to do so without regulation), is that the results will be quite different than what they expect.

In reality, if someone were to come into their area, start an on-line porn site with massive streaming advertising, and basically consume all of the available bandwidth on that node/branch, causing their Internet to basically come to a crawl, they would have absolutely no problem with that porn site being throttled. At issue here is how the throttling is administered, and if ISP's might be able to use throttling as a mechanism to earn even more $$.

-Rick

[Discus-n00b]

The difference is though, that yes some traffic jams may come and slow downs occur especially during peak hours, but in your example it would be like the companies putting out something to intentionally slow down the traffic in the middle of the day when it's not warranted. It's the intentional part that is the problem, not the act of throttling itself. I do agree infrastructure needs to be updated or created though. It may not be David v Goliath, but it will affect David that is the problem which is why everyone cares or should care. You are correct, I don't want my personal stuff slowed down however I also want the tallest building in town, without tearing everyone else's down. The fact of the matter is, I shouldn't be penalized or charged differently for what I do on my internet service compared to what my neighbor does.

As someone said on Reddit, you can't charge more for water because it's used in a glass to drink vs when it's used to water your plants. Let's look at a Netflix vs Hulu example. Comcast owns NBC, who owns part of Hulu. Now watching Hulu and watching Netflix is about the same wear and tear on the system. It is a video streaming service. However in a world without Net Neutrality, since Comcast owns Hulu, they could charge customers more for Netflix streaming since it's an outside entity and then throttle the performance of that service on their networks while enticing you into buying their service Hulu with faster speeds. The postal service can't charge more for the contents of one letter vs another letter why should the ISPs be able to charge differently for the content on the internet? Heck, they could even block netflix completely for you if NN wasn't in place.

[brewmaster15]

Rick,
You make a good point on the throttling and infrastructure limitations as well as the need for the system to be run differently. For the future of the Internet I agree there whole heartedly.
For arguments let's say you are right this all boils down to infrastructure(which I don't agree with).Even if you had more infrastructure...10 times what we have today... you would have the same core issues because it's not about infrastructure. It's about control of the infrastructure. If we have the same huge companies controlling it you will have the same issues we have now.Companies will abuse the system.They have in the past when it adds to their bottom line. I get a kick out of people that actually trust corporations to be ethical and fair and not in need of regulations. History does not support that. What needs to happen is you break apart the giant corporations as these are truly what stifles competition. People can talk about competition bringing down costs all they want but does anyone really think the new startup "Acme Internet" can compete against the massive war chest a company like Comcast or Verizon has? Make more infrastructure and they will just buy it up. Have a new competitor, they buy will them out.. It's why we have laws about monopolies, but these are rarely used and really need to be used again. Then add infrastructure for growth, and if you want to classify it as a utility and create a whole new way to govern it.. go for it. But right now the band aid we have is called "Net Neutrality" and the Governing entity is the "FCC". To roll back the protections Cnet listed above would put that governing in the hands huge corporations. That is what this is about..

The's Corporations have already shown that they can't be trusted to not use the system to their advantage. In 2007 and 2008 Comcast got caught first lying that they weren't slowing services.
https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-formal...t-was-illegal/
they finally agreed they were and paid fines for it. Comcast was also intentionally slowing the services to Netflix in 2013... The reason for the slowing wasn't they couldnt handle traffic, they chose not to to bargain for money. They had the resources. It wasn't throttling per say...they let things bottle up at the peering ports but the effect was the same. https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/n...-end-slowdown/

For the last several months, Comcast Internet customers have complained about a drop in quality of the Netflix streams being delivered to their homes, and Netflix’s own data showed a massive decline in connection speeds starting in October. But today, the two companies announced they have reached a “mutually beneficial” agreement that will hopefully turn that trend around.

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.

Comcast used it's control of the system to its benefit over all those Netflix users...that is why you can not trust the private sector corporations to run the Internet without controls in place. The controls current Net Neutrality laws put in place are not perfect but they are certainly better than have Companies like Comcast do as they please .
Al

[nc0gnet0]

Rick,
You make a good point on the throttling and infrastructure limitations as well as the need for the system to be run differently. For the future of the Internet I agree there whole heartedly.
For arguments let's say you are right this all boils down to infrastructure(which I don't agree with).Even if you had more infrastructure...10 times what we have today... you would have the same core issues because it's not about infrastructure. It's about control of the infrastructure.

My point has always been it's about both. However, be wary of laws or regulations that manipulates packet priorities. Your being misled, Why? Because they can fool the gullible users into something that promises equality, then use that same framework over-time to grant special priority above and beyond anything that exists in theory today to benefit their interest. Net neutrality isn't about equality, it's about which entities will be allowed to abuse the system. And your wrong about infrastructure, just wait until 4k streaming becomes common place.

Much better to focus attention on something that will actually help consumers and content producers. Like telecom permits, right of way laws, etc.

If we have the same huge companies controlling it you will have the same issues we have now.Companies will abuse the system.

No arguments here, the battle is about which companies get to abuse it. Pick your poison, Comcast or Hulu, At&T or netflix.

They have in the past when it adds to their bottom line. I get a kick out of people that actually trust corporations to be ethical and fair and not in need of regulations. History does not support that. What needs to happen is you break apart the giant corporations as these are truly what stifles competition.

You will get no arguments from me there, it's why the whole system needs to be overhauled, from the ground up. What is preventing the breakup is the infrastructure and who owns it. For what your suggesting to happen would first require a massive seizure of property and assets of the individually owned sections of the network. Sweeping changes in contracts and permits that will vary with each municipality. I'm all for it, but this won't happen overnight, the legal challenges alone would be staggering.

People can talk about competition bringing down costs all they want but does anyone really think the new startup "Acme Internet" can compete against the massive war chest a company like Comcast or Verizon has? Make more infrastructure and they will just buy it up

.

That's just it. "acme internet" can't even begin to afford to build there own infastructure, not even on a small scale. The only other option is for the municipalities themselves to take ownership, then,Don't sell it. Own it. As I said before, the day and age is upon us in which Internet access is and should be a public utility.

It's why we have laws about monopolies, but these are rarely used and really need to be used again. Then add infrastructure for growth, and if you want to classify it as a utility and create a whole new way to govern it.. go for it. But right now the band aid we have is called "Net Neutrality" and the Governing entity is the "FCC". To roll back the protections Cnet listed above would put that governing in the hands huge corporations. That is what this is about..

Your putting the cart before the horse though. I'm never have been on record as stating I supported rolling back the regulations, nope nope nope. This is not a A or B argument. Neither is a good option.

The's Corporations have already shown that they can't be trusted to not use the system to their advantage. In 2007 and 2008 Comcast got caught first lying that they weren't slowing services to Netflix users...they finally agreed they were and paid fines for it.The reason for the slowing wasn't they couldnt handle traffic, they chose not to to bargain for money. They had the resources. It wasn't throttling per say...they let things bottle up but the effect was the same. Comcast used it's control of the system to its benefit over all those Netflix users...that is why you can not trust the private sector corporations to run the Internet without controls in place. The controls current Net Neutrality laws put in place are not perfect but they are certainly better than have Companies like Comcast do as they please .
Al

But your saying you trust that netflix and Hulu et all won't use up a significant portion of the available bandwidth and abuse the system as well? If you think that your fooling yourself. As I said in the past, this is Goliath vs Goliath. Playing the devil's advocate here, if Streaming services begin (and they will, much fast than you think), gobbling up all the bandwidth that is available, bringing Internet speeds to a screeching halt, are the ISP's supposed to foot the bill for improvements to infrastructure with no recourse to recoup any costs from the worst offenders (aka HULU, Netflix, et all)? this would eventually then unfairly pass costs on to all of the ISP's clients, whether they used those services or not.

[brewmaster15]

Rick what I am saying is in an ideological world you are mostly right.... but in this reality, we have limited real world options. Pick your poison. For me, the choice is clear. Net Neutrality rules addressed not just a perceived problem but a factual one. Abuses on the part of ISP.... If abuses occur on the part of the users like netfix, then regulations would be needed there as well.

My problem isnt that Netflix had to agree to pay comcast for faster better service to its customers. Its that users were the ones held hostage in what was a money game between the ISP giant and Netflix. Comcast did this because it could..Period. That kind of behavior is why you can not trust Comcast and its telecom cronies to run the system. You need a governing body thats outside the system. Does there need to be a look at the otherside of the equation , yes. Especially as streaming continues to increase, but if you roll back the FCC Net neutrality regulations as proposed you are not dealing with either side of the equation. You are just giving the ISPs the unregulated ability to do what ever the heck they want. Power they have abused and will abuse again in the pursuit of profits and market control.

Rolling back the Net Neutrality rules is not going to Fix things... but it will make it worse. Thats why they were needed in the first place.. Ethically speaking, The current head of the FCC being so connected to Verizon should be a wakeup call for people to put the cool-aid down .


al

ps... I edited my previous post to include another example of comcast abusing its power.

[Clawhammer]

There is not one person on this planet who has had Comcast or Time Warner and still trusts them to do the right thing. I refuse to believe it.

[nc0gnet0]

Rick what I am saying is in an ideological world you are mostly right.... but in this reality, we have limited real world options. Pick your poison. For me, the choice is clear. Net Neutrality rules addressed not just a perceived problem but a factual one. Abuses on the part of ISP.... If abuses occur on the part of the users like netfix, then regulations would be needed there as well.

My problem isnt that Netflix had to agree to pay comcast for faster better service to its customers. Its that users were the ones held hostage in what was a money game between the ISP giant and Netflix. Comcast did this because it could..Period. That kind of behavior is why you can not trust Comcast and its telecom cronies to run the system. You need a governing body thats outside the system. Does there need to be a look at the otherside of the equation , yes. Especially as streaming continues to increase, but if you roll back the FCC Net neutrality regulations as proposed you are not dealing with either side of the equation. You are just giving the ISPs the unregulated ability to do what ever the heck they want. Power they have abused and will abuse again in the pursuit of profits and market control.

Rolling back the Net Neutrality rules is not going to Fix things... but it will make it worse. Thats why they were needed in the first place.. Ethically speaking, The current head of the FCC being so connected to Verizon should be a wakeup call for people to put the cool-aid down .


al

ps... I edited my previous post to include another example of comcast abusing its power.

First off, I will never EVER, try to defend Comcast and their ilk. That has NEVER been the point of my comments, even though at times I have played the devils advocate and appeared to be doing so, but that is just as a way to educate people that this whole thing is a lot more complicated than what most realize. And those people are being manipulated. Is NN better than a roll back? Depends, but IMO were gonna get screwed either way.

For instance with NN:

What incentive do content providers have to optimize and release better compressed data to save bandwidth? Is it fair that one site can have embeded videos with autoplay ads running in the background on a site you landed on through a web search for the written content that winds up being a 120mb visit, compared to a site that is just as effective for the data you eek but is under 1kb? Is it fair that the bloated site gets special protection to use just as much data as data-mindful sites?

Net Neutrailty sounds like a noble concept, and in theory it is. Be careful of falling for labeling though. It's not all that it appears to be.