Net Neutrality

[Clawhammer]

What incentive do content providers have to optimize and release better compressed data to save bandwidth?

Better performance for users with slow connections. Less data usage for users with limited data plans.

[brewmaster15]

Rick,
We both know that Sometimes you have to pick from only two options. Its A or B or someone makes the choice for you. The issue at hand right now, is A ..keep the current Net Neutrality Rules and the FCC role in them... or B. Roll back the protections of the Current System and diminish/remove the FCC from it thereby trusting the ISPs won't abuse the system...again. We can all go back and forth on whats the core problem, and ideological /hypothetical solutions and finger pointing at the causes. Makes for great discussions, But at the end of the day the question currently being asked is do we keep the current system in place with the Rules and protections afforded by the FCC or do we go back to the system before, where Isps had the control to do what they wanted with limited oversight and protections in place.

A or B...


There isn't a C, D or E option for this one, even if they may be better.


A tremendous number of people came out in favor of the original FCC Net Neutrality rules, more have come out in favor of Keeping them. What concerns me most is its probably all in Vain, The head of The FCC can ignore the people's input and probably will in favor of the ISPs he is connected to.

al

[nc0gnet0]

Rick,
We both know that Sometimes you have to pick from only two options. Its A or B or someone makes the choice for you. The issue at hand right now, is A ..keep the current Net Neutrality Rules and the FCC role in them... or B. Roll back the protections of the Current System and diminish/remove the FCC from it thereby trusting the ISPs won't abuse the system...again. We can all go back and forth on whats the core problem, and ideological /hypothetical solutions and finger pointing at the causes. Makes for great discussions, But at the end of the day the question currently being asked is do we keep the current system in place with the Rules and protections afforded by the FCC or do we go back to the system before, where Isps had the control to do what they wanted with limited oversight and protections in place.

A or B...


There isn't a C, D or E option for this one, even if they may be better.


A tremendous number of people came out in favor of the original FCC Net Neutrality rules, more have come out in favor of Keeping them. What concerns me

most is its probably all in Vain

, The head of The FCC can ignore the people's input and probably will in favor of the ISPs he is connected to.

al

Now your getting somewhere, truth of the matter is NN will fix nothing, it's a shill. Basically you have Libya at war with N. Korea, and your being asked to take a side, meanwhile the REAL problem isn't being addressed.

-Rick

[Clawhammer]

Now your getting somewhere, truth of the matter is NN will fix nothing, it's a shill. Basically you have Libya at war with N. Korea, and your being asked to take a side, meanwhile the REAL problem isn't being addressed.

-Rick

Net neutrality is the status quo, what we have today. I'm sorry but your Libya / N Korea analogy makes no sense. One option gives the power to the consumer, the other option give the power to the mega-corporation ISP providers. Its a clear choice for anyone that relies on the internet and doesn't own $100k + of Comcast stock.

[nc0gnet0]

Net neutrality is the status quo, what we have today. I'm sorry but your Libya / N Korea analogy makes no sense. One option gives the power to the consumer, the other option give the power to the mega-corporation ISP providers. Its a clear choice for anyone that relies on the internet and doesn't own $100k + of Comcast stock.

It makes perfect sense, and your buying into propaganda. I am no fan of ISP's, I just hold content providers with equal contempt.

Goliath vs Goliath, on one hand we have the Isp's (comcast, verizon, AT&T) vs Content providers (hulu, netflix, google, etc). Either way, John Q public is going to get screwed, sooner or later, pick your poison. If a particular neighborhood represents one node on a network, it's going to have a finite amount of bandwidth. With ever increasing demands on bandwidth, when this node exceeds capacity, then the **** hits the fan. NN prevents ISP's from throttling back the major offenders and bringing the node back in compliance.

Content providers that are the most vocal against this, just so happen to be the ones that will be the worst offenders.

Now, I understand that ISP's have been far from trustworthy, and when throttling, are most likely the throttle the offenders in which they do not have agreements with, or a shareholder stake in.

The question is, shouldn't that be the first thing that gets corrected, using current monopoly laws, make it illegal for ISP's to own stake in, or enter into financial agreements with ANY content provider?

[nc0gnet0]

It makes perfect sense, and your buying into propaganda. I am no fan of ISP's, I just hold content providers with equal contempt.

Goliath vs Goliath, on one hand we have the Isp's (comcast, verizon, AT&T) vs Content providers (hulu, netflix, google, etc). Either way, John Q public is going to get screwed, sooner or later, pick your poison. If a particular neighborhood represents one node on a network, it's going to have a finite amount of bandwidth. With ever increasing demands on bandwidth, when this node exceeds capacity, then the **** hits the fan. NN prevents ISP's from throttling back the major offenders and bringing the node back in compliance.

Content providers that are the most vocal against this, just so happen to be the ones that will be the worst offenders.

Now, I understand that ISP's have been far from trustworthy, and when throttling, are most likely the throttle the offenders in which they do not have agreements with, or a shareholder stake in.

The question is, shouldn't that be the first thing that gets corrected, using current monopoly laws, make it illegal for ISP's to own stake in, or enter into financial agreements with ANY content provider?

Even under the current net neutrailty rules, what happens in the above scenario? Lets say the node is over taxed. The ISP determines that by throttling netflix and hulu, they can bring the node back into compliance. Possibly, the ISP's owns a stake in either netfilx or Hulu, and as such throttles one(lets say hulu) at a more heavy handed rater than the other. Hulu then files a complaint with the FCC, who then levies a fine against the ISP, who then takes the matter to court. Who foots the bill? You and I do. This is NN in it's current form.

Now your essentially telling the ISP, although it essentially owns the network, the cables, the switches, etc that it doesn't have the right to manage the content that goes over its own network. Without commenting of the morality of it all, the legal ramifications are staggering.

[brewmaster15]

Even under the current net neutrailty rules, what happens in the above scenario? Lets say the node is over taxed. The ISP determines that by throttling netflix and hulu, they can bring the node back into compliance. Possibly, the ISP's owns a stake in either netfilx or Hulu, and as such throttles one(lets say hulu) at a more heavy handed rater than the other. Hulu then files a complaint with the FCC, who then levies a fine against the ISP, who then takes the matter to court. Who foots the bill? You and I do. This is NN in it's current form.

Now your essentially telling the ISP, although it essentially owns the network, the cables, the switches, etc that it doesn't have the right to manage the content that goes over its own network. Without commenting of the morality of it all, the legal ramifications are staggering.

Rick...
from my Cnet post

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.

[Clawhammer]

It makes perfect sense, and your buying into propaganda. I am no fan of ISP's, I just hold content providers with equal contempt.

Goliath vs Goliath, on one hand we have the Isp's (comcast, verizon, AT&T) vs Content providers (hulu, netflix, google, etc). Either way, John Q public is going to get screwed, sooner or later, pick your poison. If a particular neighborhood represents one node on a network, it's going to have a finite amount of bandwidth. With ever increasing demands on bandwidth, when this node exceeds capacity, then the **** hits the fan. NN prevents ISP's from throttling back the major offenders and bringing the node back in compliance.

Content providers that are the most vocal against this, just so happen to be the ones that will be the worst offenders.

Now, I understand that ISP's have been far from trustworthy, and when throttling, are most likely the throttle the offenders in which they do not have agreements with, or a shareholder stake in.

The question is, shouldn't that be the first thing that gets corrected, using current monopoly laws, make it illegal for ISP's to own stake in, or enter into financial agreements with ANY content provider?

I completely disagree with the false equivalency between ISPs and content providers. Content providers are not "offenders", they provide content and consumers consume that content. The consumer is the one that is determining their bandwidth usage, not content providers. ISPs are free to price bandwidth the way they see fit and NN does not prevent that. If ISPs need to address increasing bandwidth demand, that should be done through pricing and expansion, not restricting competition to create a further monopoly on content.

This is not at all, not one bit about preserving scarce bandwidth (like I said previously Europe and Asia are far ahead of the US in this), this is about the ISPs having the power to increase their profitability and ultimately stock price / dividends.. It is about how much freedom we give ISPs to abuse their customers who have no other option when buying this necessity.

[Dalfan039]

Even under the current net neutrailty rules, what happens in the above scenario? Lets say the node is over taxed. The ISP determines that by throttling netflix and hulu, they can bring the node back into compliance. Possibly, the ISP's owns a stake in either netfilx or Hulu, and as such throttles one(lets say hulu) at a more heavy handed rater than the other. Hulu then files a complaint with the FCC, who then levies a fine against the ISP, who then takes the matter to court. Who foots the bill? You and I do. This is NN in it's current form.

Now your essentially telling the ISP, although it essentially owns the network, the cables, the switches, etc that it doesn't have the right to manage the content that goes over its own network. Without commenting of the morality of it all, the legal ramifications are staggering.

This is not the case always, most places the lines are owned by the city or state. it's only end devices routers and switches that are owned by the ISP. The legal ramifications are not that serious since ISP were moved to the classification of a public service. In terms of legality private networks dont fall under the same laws due to the classification. Also since they fall under the same category as water and electric they are not allowed to discriminate between people buying service, either commercial or private, hence the current ruling. Unless the FCC reclassifies ISP as not a public service there shouldn't be an issue.

[Dalfan039]

I completely disagree with the false equivalency between ISPs and content providers. Content providers are not "offenders", they provide content and consumers consume that content. The consumer is the one that is determining their bandwidth usage, not content providers. ISPs are free to price bandwidth the way they see fit and NN does not prevent that. If ISPs need to address increasing bandwidth demand, that should be done through pricing and expansion, not restricting competition to create a further monopoly on content.

This is not at all, not one bit about preserving scare bandwidth (like I said previously Europe and Asia are far ahead of the US in this), this is about the ISPs having the power to increase their profitability and ultimately stock price / dividends.. It is about how much freedom we give ISPs to abuse their customers who have no other option when buying this necessity.

the issue with "Scarce Bandwidth" shouldn't exist the US govt has payed out billions to upgrade the dated infrastructure most companies pocketed the money. There have been several lawsuits but in the end when the US govt handed the money out they couldnt monitor it all and so it fell into the pockets of those at the top of the ISP's.

[nc0gnet0]

This is not the case always, most places the lines are owned by the city or state. it's only end devices routers and switches that are owned by the ISP. The legal ramifications are not that serious since ISP were moved to the classification of a public service. In terms of legality private networks dont fall under the same laws due to the classification. Also since they fall under the same category as water and electric they are not allowed to discriminate between people buying service, either commercial or private, hence the current ruling. Unless the FCC reclassifies ISP as not a public service there shouldn't be an issue.

No, your wrong on this. The city or state does not own the lines, they own the right of way passages in which the line runs through.

https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-nee...d-competition/

[nc0gnet0]

I completely disagree with the false equivalency between ISPs and content providers. Content providers are not "offenders", they provide content and consumers consume that content. The consumer is the one that is determining their bandwidth usage, not content providers. ISPs are free to price bandwidth the way they see fit and NN does not prevent that. If ISPs need to address increasing bandwidth demand, that should be done through pricing and expansion, not restricting competition to create a further monopoly on content.

This is not at all, not one bit about preserving scarce bandwidth (like I said previously Europe and Asia are far ahead of the US in this), this is about the ISPs having the power to increase their profitability and ultimately stock price / dividends.. It is about how much freedom we give ISPs to abuse their customers who have no other option when buying this necessity.

Say What? I'm not even quite sure what to say to this. Comcast laid cable to node A, in lets say 2005 and a cost of millions of dollars. It supports "x" amount of bandwidth. netfilix comes along and rolls out a streaming service (60fps at 4k resolution) that was not even thought of at the time of deployment. Now, Comcast had to upgrade the service to accommodate Netflix? At Comcasts expense? I seriously don't think many of you have any idea the literally billions of dollars of investment into the infrastructure. Now what is more fair, That all comcast users have to bear the cost of the upgrades (whether they use netfilx or not) or Netflix (and in turn their customers) bear the costs?

ISPs are free to price bandwidth the way they see fit

Not really, if that were the case ISP's could charge the content providers who in charge would have to charge their customers, instead you have a scenario were the ISP's much pass the cost along to all it's customers, not just the ones using Netflix. You can argue that the ISP's can monitor bandwidth usage but that doesn't address who is to cover the cost of the needed upgrades, and will lead to the thing that everyone complains the most about, throttling and the user level.

[nc0gnet0]

the issue with "Scarce Bandwidth" shouldn't exist the US govt has payed out billions to upgrade the dated infrastructure most companies pocketed the money. There have been several lawsuits but in the end when the US govt handed the money out they couldnt monitor it all and so it fell into the pockets of those at the top of the ISP's.

Even that is wrong and a misunderstood myth. Before you throw out your 200 billion dollar figure, do some research.

[Clawhammer]

Say What?....

Comcast made 9 billion dollars last year and you are spending your Friday afternoon arguing these corporate giants should be deregulated in order to allow them to further fleece their consumers. Nothing you said refuted the fact that ISPs set their prices and easily cover their costs (and the costs of their lobbyists who are the only ones pushing this). Why should they be allowed to charge content providers and discriminate against certain popular content providers if all the cost and bad ramifications (content restriction) will be passed to the customer? The investments they made in last mile delivery have paid off for them, but have delivered relatively slow internet to the nation and terrible customer service to their captive customer base.

You seem to try to argue that some ISP customers are getting fleeced because they don't use the same level of data as others but that makes no sense. Light internet users don't buy unlimited packages or high speed packages that cost more.

How about telling us one positive benefit ending NN would have for the consumer or for small business?

[RogueDiscus]

I've been enjoying this thread, and applaud those involved for arguing with perspective and facts. At some point you may have to agree to disagree.