Net Neutrality

[Demosthenes]

I'm not sure how much folks around here pay attention to this sort of thing, but there is a large protest across the internet today seeking to protect Net Neutrality. The current head of the FCC is attempting to roll back protections which prevent internet service providers (ISPs) like Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner, from slowing down, censoring, charging extra, or blocking different websites. Imagine a world in which you have to buy your internet like you buy your cable: paying extra and upgrading to larger packages so you can access all of the websites you use every day. Want to watch Netflix? That will be an extra $20 per month on your Verizon bill. Want to read news sources that disagree with the CEO's personal political views? Sorry, those websites are blacked out. This would also affect small websites like Simply in that ISPs would be able to charge the forum extra in order for it to be available through that service. Imagine website creators having to pay dues to each and every ISP in order for their site to be available on that network. This will stifle creativity and innovation, and turn the internet into something totally unrecognizable. No one in this country (or the world really) thinks this is a good idea except for people who are on the payroll for the cable companies - and you can include a lot of our stellar politicians on that list. The current head of the FCC who is proposing all of this deregulation, Ajit Pai, used to be a lawyer for Verizon.

If you want to do something about this, the FCC is still taking comments. Tell them to throw out their "Restoring Internet Freedom" act, and to preserve Title II classification of Internet Service Providers.
https://advocacy.mozilla.org/en-US/net-neutrality-comments/?sample_rate=0.01&snippet_name=6856&param=optimizelycontrol&param=optimizelycontrol&param=optimizelycontrol&param=optimizelycontrol

[Clawhammer]

Thanks Kesley, this is an important issue that many overlook because it seems complex or boring, but could have a big impact on people's lives and wallets.

[Second Hand Pat]

I know Al created a thread on this a while back http://forum.simplydiscus.com/showthread.php?116774-Do-You-Understand-Net-Neutrality-at-all-Do-you-use-the-Internet&highlight=internet. Good explanation and resource links.
Pat

[dillct]

What we don't need is the government regulating the internet...which is pretty much what "net neutrality" is. If you don't like the price/service your ISP provides, this is America and you are free to find another provider. It's not in the best interest of an ISP to screw over consumers. There is a lot of fear mongering going around in regards to this topic, most of it unwarranted.

[Clawhammer]

What we don't need is the government regulating the internet...which is pretty much what "net neutrality" is. If you don't like the price/service your ISP provides, this is America and you are free to find another provider. It's not in the best interest of an ISP to screw over consumers. There is a lot of fear mongering going around in regards to this topic, most of it unwarranted.

In most localities there is only one ISP, usually Time Warner / Comcast. The internet is a utility and necessity and should be regulated as such to assure all Americans fair access.

Net neutrality "government regulation" is the status quo

[dillct]

Regulation kills competition and drives up prices, which is likely why you're stuck with one ISP. We've seen what the "status quo" has gotten us with healthcare. What do you mean by "fair access"?

[Clawhammer]

There is only one ISP in many locations because like power the infrastructure to deliver internet access is very expensive to build, not because of regulation.

What I mean by unfair access, well let me lay out a scenario. Net Neutrality goes away, Time Warner buys Hulu. Time Warner has 100% market share in my former hometown of Cincinnati. Time Warner decides if you want to use netflix, it will cost you $50 more a month, but guess what, Hulu is free. So now if anyone from Cincinnati wants to watch Orange is the New Black, they have to pay up to TWC. This same thing will happen across the internet in many different ways, stifling innovation and putting the consumer at a terrible disadvantage.

Lets take ideology out of this and look at the facts.

[nc0gnet0]

Regulation kills competition and drives up prices, which is likely why you're stuck with one ISP. We've seen what the "status quo" has gotten us with healthcare. What do you mean by "fair access"?

I really don't think you grasp how ISP's are allowed to serve a particular region exclusively.

[nc0gnet0]

While slightly off-topic, I read an article today that estimates the 52% of all internet traffic was by BOT's, and that it will continue to climb.

[dillct]

I really don't think you grasp how ISP's are allowed to serve a particular region exclusively.

And who exactly allows an ISP to serve a particular region?

[brewmaster15]

What we don't need is the government regulating the internet...which is pretty much what "net neutrality" is. If you don't like the price/service your ISP provides, this is America and you are free to find another provider. It's not in the best interest of an ISP to screw over consumers. There is a lot of fear mongering going around in regards to this topic, most of it unwarranted.

I'm sorry, but this is a falsehood thats perpetuated by the large corporations that currently control the internet and want to tighten that control and increase profits. The Line, "this is America and you are free to find another provider " sounds great. I have my Red White and Blue Flying high here too, but unfortunately, It doesn't fit the problem. You can not find another one because they are all monopolies. The problem isn't that people don't want another choice, its a problem because our system failed miserably by not regulating these big telecoms better using existing monopoly laws. You may be entitled to change ISPs, but your choice would be in effect, accept the one you have or go without. If you think thats a choice, we differ dramatically on what "choice" means.

I strongly advise any one looking for more information on Net Neutrality, Read here....https://www.eff.org/

We have already concentrated way too much power into the hands of the Internet Giants. Net Neutrality is there to counter that control and prevent these Big businesses from doing things that alter the way the internet works. The threat is not over blown and the fear mongering is actually coming from the Telecom giants and their mouth pieces in Congress.

If you liked the way the internet worked where everyone had equal access, your usage wasn't throttled, and your content wasn't dictated to you by giant corporations like Comcast you should support Net Neutrality. I am a die-hard proponent of Net Neutrality and the about face the FCC is taking is not in our best interests. The head of the FCC is too tied to Verizon to even be slightly unbiased.



I'm not sure how much folks around here pay attention to this sort of thing, but there is a large protest across the internet today seeking to protect Net Neutrality. The current head of the FCC is attempting to roll back protections which prevent internet service providers (ISPs) like Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner, from slowing down, censoring, charging extra, or blocking different websites. Imagine a world in which you have to buy your internet like you buy your cable: paying extra and upgrading to larger packages so you can access all of the websites you use every day. Want to watch Netflix? That will be an extra $20 per month on your Verizon bill. Want to read news sources that disagree with the CEO's personal political views? Sorry, those websites are blacked out. This would also affect small websites like Simply in that ISPs would be able to charge the forum extra in order for it to be available through that service. Imagine website creators having to pay dues to each and every ISP in order for their site to be available on that network. This will stifle creativity and innovation, and turn the internet into something totally unrecognizable. No one in this country (or the world really) thinks this is a good idea except for people who are on the payroll for the cable companies - and you can include a lot of our stellar politicians on that list. The current head of the FCC who is proposing all of this deregulation, Ajit Pai, used to be a lawyer for Verizon.

If you want to do something about this, the FCC is still taking comments. Tell them to throw out their "Restoring Internet Freedom" act, and to preserve Title II classification of Internet Service Providers.
https://advocacy.mozilla.org/en-US/n...imizelycontrol
Kesley is 1000% correct here... and I agree fully.



I also want to comment on this...

It's not in the best interest of an ISP to screw over consumers
That may be true, but when the customer has no where to go... screw the customer is what they do.. Have a look at how well they treat their customers... https://www.google.com/search?q=Comcast++customer+ratings


al

[Discus-n00b]

Agreed Al and others, I'm fighting the fight now. My internet speeds are constantly throttled up and down depending on what the carrier thinks I and others in the area are doing on the internet. It's ridiculous. I pay for a certain speed, yet they can change that speed whenever they deem it necessary. Tired of it. I'm actually about to switch carriers, I wish I didn't have to. Like said above, I don't want another choice. I don't want to just bounce around carriers when service gets bad.

I am 100% behind this, been for a while.

[nc0gnet0]

It's really a very complicated issue, one in which I admit I don't totally understand. There are a some incorrect assertions on both side of the fence so far. For one, "throttling" has always happened, it's a necessity. To play the devil's advocate here, Al, let's say your next store neighbor decides to host a start up streaming company, and all of a sudden, he sucks out 98% of all the bandwidth available to your neighborhood. What then?

Honestly, and something that has not been addressed, is that local and state municipalities are as much to blame for the current lack of competition as anyone. This has to do with right of ways, access permits, etc, that they feel are perfectly justified as revenue streams, making it nearly impossible for new comers to enter into a geographic location.

[brewmaster15]

It's really a very complicated issue, one in which I admit I don't totally understand. There are a some incorrect assertions on both side of the fence so far. For one, "throttling" has always happened, it's a necessity. To play the devil's advocate here, Al, let's say your next store neighbor decides to host a start up streaming company, and all of a sudden, he sucks out 98% of all the bandwidth available to your neighborhood. What then?

Honestly, and something that has not been addressed, is that local and state municipalities are as much to blame for the current lack of competition as anyone. This has to do with right of ways, access permits, etc, that they feel are perfectly justified as revenue streams, making it nearly impossible for new comers to enter into a geographic location.

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

al

[pitdogg2]

It's only going to get worse for the throttling as UHD movies will suck up huge amounts of bandwidth. The FCC sucks it is nothing more than a mouthpeice now for who ever is in the white house. Look at it this way @dillct the electric company comes by and shuts down your electricity because you have used more than your alloted amount for the month.
Basically what this is about. I have 2 choices in my neck of the woods Comcast or Verizon. They are letting a new company in but it will be 3 yrs before they are up and running. Our hospitals and college's coughed up their own cash to bypass both verizon and comcast because of cost. Verizon's fios was born here where i live yet they choose to drop it out east then all but abandoned it from what i understand. We never ever had fios around here just dsl or cable.
Oh the new company bet they never get any clients we have had several in the past years that suddenly went out of business bought out by you guessed it COMCAST

[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-you-need-to-know-about-the-fccs-net-neutrality-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-formally-rules-comcasts-throttling-of-bittorrent-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/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-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.

[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-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-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.

[Clawhammer]

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.

Definitely at that point, have a great weekend everyone :)

[nc0gnet0]

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?

No, I have been playing Devil's advocate. I don't "support" ISP's, but I do realize NN does relatively nothing to fix the problems we face, and in some instances would/could make matters worse. THAT is the point I am trying to make. IN a nutshell, NN is a regulation that says the owner of ones own equipment is not allowed to regulate usage on said equipment. ***** all you want about poor service, etc, but one cannot deny that we have come along way since 56k dialup, and downloading 50 meg files overnight (for those of us that remember those days). Doing so took billions upon billions of dollars of infrastructure investment, and that's a fact. Telling a company it will not be able to manage its own hardware is not going to encourage investment and continued upgrading, it will stifle it, it simple business. So, if you want TRUE NEUTRALITY, I am fine with that, but be prepared to pay for it, and pay alot. This idea that government has invested billions of dollars is myth number one, it's a figured derived from Incentives to big cable for mutually agreed upon investment by big cable, not government handing out checks from your tax dollars.

It's business 101, it a company has "x" amount of dollars to invest, it is going to do so where it gets the highest rate of return on investment, You or I would do no different. If you want true competition, true neutrality, again I am ok with it. Don't get suckered in by the shills that think what we have (or are trying to "save") is anything even close to that. And I am not buying the "it's better than nothing" argument, so don't trot that out either, because in reality, it really isn't, and that is what I have been pointing out, at the risk of sounding like an advocate for ISP's.

If you want reform, look no further than your local government. They are the ones that laid the groundwork that stifled competition. They are the ones that were faced with hard dilemma's, and choose the easy way out. They are largely responsible for the mess we are in today. It's easy to look and see a company doing well, and point your finger at them, but it is their job to make money, that is what capitalism is all about. However, it is government job to make sure that all companies are on the same footing and have equal chances to succeed or fail, and at that they failed miserably.

How did that happen you ask, and why is it still happening? It's quite easy. It all stems from licensing, right of ways, and legally binding "sweetheart" deals already in place. Hardly any Large City, medium sized town, small town, etc owns it own fiber optic network. What they do own are rights of way. Essentially conduits or utility poles that any provider has to pay for to use. For instance, utility poles are self explanatory, but conduits, which are essentially buried underground cement pipes, are the means in which the fiber optic (or copper in some cases) are run through. Each municipality then has it's own fee structure in place for a cable provider to run "IT"S OWN" cable through. So, local government doesn't own the network, they own the pathways, in which the ISP's have to pay fees to use (like renting an apartment for sake of argument). So that dispels myth number two (government owns the cable).

So what happened is back in the first big wave of the INTERNET, everyone was clamoring for, and demanding faster and faster internet. Heck, they still are. In an effort to lure ISP's to service their location, local government would entice these ISP's by offering lower or no access fees in exchange for commitment to invest and service their area. Many of the deals included exclusivity (in many cases at the time exclusivity was necessary for the endeavor to become profitable), or free government access, or an agreement to service rural areas that would need to be operated at a loss. There are literally 10's of thousands (if not more) of these such contracts. It got people what they wanted, at a much faster rate, but it left a mess behind in it's wake.

NN is essentially government stepping into FORD and telling them, hey, we need you to let GM use part of your production facility to produce GM cars. Or hey, thank you for building this nice network, but did we tell you, were not going to let you manage it the way you see fit, sorry. Not to mention it's wording is such a convoluted piece of cr**, to date only one law suit has been brought to court. And it has never been challenged in front of the supreme court (it did hold up in district court however), mainly to do the "look the other way" policies of the FCC (it was just not monetarily justifiable for big cable to challenge it, because why? it wasn't being enforced and was ambiguous to begin with).

In a nutshell, if you want real change, you need to start from the ground up. You need to abolish the practices of local government that entered into these deals and REALLY open things up to true competition. Good luck with that though, as it has become a revenue stream for them. You want to tell big cable what they can and can't do, I'm ok with that, but telling them that can't manage their own equipment is short sighted, and quite honestly, dangerous. It's not exactly an atmosphere that encourages them to invest more money now is it?

Throttling is always going to happen, it's a fact of life. It has been happening since the very beginning and will be happening 30 years from now. It's a term most don't understand. If a network is faced with a situation in which it has more traffic than it can handle, it happens automatically. What people are up in arms about is there have been a few instances in which an ISP held a stake in one content provider and throttled another content provider that it did not own an interest in. I'm not going to say it hasn't happened, but the rate of which it does happen is greatly exaggerated. However, with an ever demanding tax on the infrastructure, what ISP's want to do is have the right to reserve portions of their networks (in exchange for a fee) for the delivery of content such as netfilx, hulu, etc. Is that ethical? That's another discussion. Someones going to pay for it, that is for sure.

So what do we do? For starters, lets use monopoly laws to prohibit ISP's from becoming shareholders in Content providers. Let's remove any financial incentive they have to manage their own equipment in such a way that it benefits company A over company B. I'm ok with them making huge profits, as long as we mandate that an agreed upon portion of these profits continue to go into improved service. And lets watch that like a hawk. Let's abolish local governments unfair business practices that don't give equal footing to all ISP's, big and small.

Net neutrality isn't better than nothing, because it is nothing, and in some cases, worse than nothing. That doesn't mean I am against regulation, not at all.....


-Rick

[brewmaster15]

Rick, whether you are are right or not on the long term solutions and whether they are even practical or possible given the current mess... you and I and everyone out there isn't being asked that.

The FCC is taking comments on whether to keep net neutrality rules or trash them and roll back the protections it afforded that people wanted the last time. Do you agree to roll them back or do you want it as is? Thats the question and the whole point of this thread. Its A or B at this point in time whether you like it or not. Just because you don't like the question doesn't mean you should re-write it according to Rick.:) You can chose not to pick a side, but doing so is a default nod to the FCC that you either don't care or agree to the proposed change.

I know you keep talking about how everyone is wrong on this issue here and only you seem to be only one that can fathom the big picture. You are not . The Difference is they are focused on the question at hand... You on the other hand are taking it from the angle that is a long term issue....which is really a whole other question and worthy of a whole other thread, and probably years of debate and discussion.

I think the Net Neutrality rule accomplish much that was needed.. You said it yourself.... ,
but it is their job to make money, that is what capitalism is all about. However, it is government job to make sure that all companies are on the same footing and have equal chances to succeed or fail, and at that they failed miserably.

Thats the reason the ISP's should not be incharge of the Internet....it is their job to make money, that is what capitalism is all about and if stepping on millions of individuals makes them money they will do. and yes as you said..it is government job to make sure that all companies are on the same footing and have equal chances to succeed or fail, and that is what Net Neutrality is trying to do.

I am not saying you are wrong with your long term analysis and suggestions for fixes.. I have a few myself... but you are talking potatoes , while the rest of us are answering the question of whether we want our favorite orange with our internet or the FCCs proposed lemon.


al

[nc0gnet0]

Rick, whether you are are right or not on the long term solutions and whether they are even practical or possible given the current mess... you and I and everyone out there isn't being asked that.

The FCC is taking comments on whether to keep net neutrality rules or trash them and roll back the protections it afforded that people wanted the last time. Do you agree to roll them back or do you want it as is? Thats the question and the whole point of this thread. Its A or B at this point in time whether you like it or not. Just because you don't like the question doesn't mean you should re-write it according to Rick.:) You can chose not to pick a side, but doing so is a default nod to the FCC that you either don't care or agree to the proposed change.

I know you keep talking about how everyone is wrong on this issue here and only you seem to be only one that can fathom the big picture. You are not . The Difference is they are focused on the question at hand... You on the other hand are taking it from the angle that is a long term issue....which is really a whole other question and worthy of a whole other thread, and probably years of debate and discussion.

I think the Net Neutrality rule accomplish much that was needed.. You said it yourself.... , Thats the reason the ISP's should not be incharge of the Internet....it is their job to make money, that is what capitalism is all about and if stepping on millions of individuals makes them money they will do. and yes as you said..it is government job to make sure that all companies are on the same footing and have equal chances to succeed or fail, and that is what Net Neutrality is trying to do.

I am not saying you are wrong with your long term analysis and suggestions for fixes.. I have a few myself... but you are talking potatoes , while the rest of us are answering the question of whether we want our favorite orange with our internet or the FCCs proposed lemon.


al

So, in essence, what your saying is when I am faced with two choices, like say Clinton or Trump, and I feel equally bad about either, I should leave all commentary to myself? :)

i don't disagree with what you say, that atm we have two choices, A or B. Ok fine, if forced to have to choose one, I pick no to NN, I will admit, when I first started commenting on this thread, I was leaning ever so slightly the other way. But suffice it to say, I don't feel real strongly about either choice.

Why do I feel that way, it's because at the moment, Big cable are the only ones investing in upgrading the infrastructure. If your going to place restrictions on how they manage said infrastructure, it will stifle continued investments. This is part of the "be careful what you ask for" argument.

[brewmaster15]

So, in essence, what your saying is when I am faced with two choices, like say Clinton or Trump, and I feel equally bad about either, I should leave all commentary to myself? :)

i don't disagree with what you say, that atm we have two choices, A or B. Ok fine, if forced to have to choose one, I pick no to NN, I will admit, when I first started commenting on this thread, I was leaning ever so slightly the other way. But suffice it to say, I don't feel real strongly about either choice.

Why do I feel that way, it's because at the moment, Big cable are the only ones investing in upgrading the infrastructure. If your going to place restrictions on how they manage said infrastructure, it will stifle continued investments. This is part of the "be careful what you ask for" argument.



Finally , The man takes a position on the actual question , even if he did backpedal,:evilgrin: and now I can agree to disagree and go enjoy the rest of the weekend.:) That was way too much work.

al

[Clawhammer]

[QUOTE=nc0gnet0;1268123Why do I feel that way, it's because at the moment, Big cable are the only ones investing in upgrading the infrastructure. If your going to place restrictions on how they manage said infrastructure, it will stifle continued investments. This is part of the "be careful what you ask for" argument.[/QUOTE]

It has been a frustrating experience discussing this with you because you dont seem to read the responses. You have been told that NN is the status quo at least 5 times and you constantly make statements like these that ignore that fact.

[nc0gnet0]

The INTERNET is not a true utility it is a title II telecommunications network, as designated by Net Neutrality laws.

Title II is a regulatory framework designed to regulate the Ma Bell telephone monopoly, not to encourage new entrants into the marketplace. And a regulatory framework designed for a monopoly will tend to push the marketplace toward a monopoly. Smaller, competitive broadband providers do not have the same resources as larger companies to cope with increased regulatory costs and have scaled back broadband deployment as a result of Title II.

Additional Fact: Title II was indeed created a long time ago in a different age — of course, you could say that about practically any law written more than 20 years ago. Laws are made to last for decades, even centuries, with the help of judicial interpretation (in this case, the Supreme Court supported Title II classification) and legislative amendment (in this case, the 1996 Telecommunications Act). It also already applies to many of the companies involved in some fashion; companies like AT&T and Verizon have built their mobile networks under Title II oversight and thrived. Also, as the 2015 order points out, very few sections of Title II are actually being applied. There is also an exemption for smaller ISPs with up to hundreds of thousands of subscribers to avoid exactly this outcome.*

https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/26/the-fccs-myths-vs-facts-sheet-defending-its-plan-to-reverse-net-neutrality-annotated/

Title II was included in the original Telecommunications Act of 1934 to address potential problems created by having one company, the “old” AT&T, being the monopoly provider of “telecommunications services”. So ask yourself, how well did it do in opening up competition? It had the opposite effect, and that is a proven fact.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/regulating_internet_access_public_utility_litan.pd f

[ventura]

I have to say this thread caught my eye as a lurker for a while. I dont agree with ncogneto at all. The comment about the telecoms not investing in infrastructure if they are regulated. Thats the same bs the current fcc is using to justify the change. They say theres been a 5% decline in infrastructure spending in the last 2 years .Thats like 3.6 billion according to Pai.Thats among the top 12 Isps. Thats chump change in the scheme of things. All the Isps revenue is sky rocketing. So much for net.netrality regulations stiffling them. As long as they can reap huge profits with what they have no need to invest in infrastructure. It has zip to do with being regulated.

Lou

[nc0gnet0]

I have to say this thread caught my eye as a lurker for a while. I dont agree with ncogneto at all. The comment about the telecoms not investing in infrastructure if they are regulated. Thats the same bs the current fcc is using to justify the change. They say theres been a 5% decline in infrastructure spending in the last 2 years .Thats like 3.6 billion according to Pai.Thats among the top 12 Isps. Thats chump change in the scheme of things. All the Isps revenue is sky rocketing. So much for net.netrality regulations stiffling them. As long as they can reap huge profits with what they have no need to invest in infrastructure. It has zip to do with being regulated.

Lou

Ma bell, 'nuff said.

[ventura]

Ma bell, 'nuff said.

Realize I am new here but thats the worst copout answer I have seen.

How do you explain all their massive profits right now including in their internet sectors if they are being so harmed by net neutrality?
Lou

[nc0gnet0]

Realize I am new here but thats the worst copout answer I have seen.

How do you explain all their massive profits right now including in their internet sectors if they are being so harmed by net neutrality?
Lou

Really? I put as much thought into as you did your response, because you obviously only read bits and parts or my arguments, and really don't understand my position on the matter.

I am for the CONCEPT of net neutrality.

I am against the legislation that claims it will usher in Net Neutrality, because, it won't.

I never said I was against regulations, and if you read what I said, what I proposed was more far reaching than simply branding Internet as a Type II telecommunications industry, and making the same mistake over again (the very definition of insanity btw). If you want to fix the problem, you first have to identify the problem. If you just want to treat some of the symptoms, claim a moral victory, you have accomplished nothing.

[ventura]

Really? I put as much thought into as you did your response, because you obviously only read bits and parts or my arguments, and really don't understand my position on the matter.

I am for the CONCEPT of net neutrality.

I am against the legislation that claims it will usher in Net Neutrality, because, it won't.

I never said I was against regulations, and if you read what I said, what I proposed was more far reaching than simply branding Internet as a Type II telecommunications industry, and making the same mistake over again (the very definition of insanity btw). If you want to fix the problem, you first have to identify the problem. If you just want to treat some of the symptoms, claim a moral victory, you have accomplished nothing.


lol.. U are definitely something else. Do you normally come across this arrogant or did I catch you on a bad day? Doesnt matter I guess this forum has its share of internet experts that got their info from "I read an article.com"

For a guy that started off
It's really a very complicated issue, one in which I admit I don't totally understand. There are a some incorrect assertions on both side of the fence so far. to the net neutrality expert is pretty amazing. Maybe you missed your calling.

You do crack me up though. Got all the answers in a matter of days.Great job!

Have a great day! I think I will walk away from this topic before I get in trouble.
Lou

[brewmaster15]

Here we go..
Guys play nice... I had a feeling this would go down hill at some point. If it continues we will have to lock it and that would be a shame.


al

[Clawhammer]

Really? I put as much thought into as you did your response, because you obviously only read bits and parts or my arguments, and really don't understand my position on the matter.

I am for the CONCEPT of net neutrality.

I am against the legislation that claims it will usher in Net Neutrality, because, it won't.

I never said I was against regulations, and if you read what I said, what I proposed was more far reaching than simply branding Internet as a Type II telecommunications industry, and making the same mistake over again (the very definition of insanity btw). If you want to fix the problem, you first have to identify the problem. If you just want to treat some of the symptoms, claim a moral victory, you have accomplished nothing.

Hilarious. You have been told 6 times now that net neutrality is the STATUS QUO (current state) but you just don't seem to be able or willing to incorporate that fact into your thinking. You then ironically accuse others of not reading every letter of your massive posts. Now frustration with your approach is boiling over.

By the way, this is not legislation, this is an appointed member of the FCC with strong ISPs ties single-handedly dictating removal of the NN policy.

I have asked you twice to name one single benefit of REMOVING net neutrality for consumers and small business but you refuse to respond.

[nc0gnet0]

Hilarious. You have been told 6 times now that net neutrality is the STATUS QUO (current state) but you just don't seem to be able or willing to incorporate that fact into your thinking. You then ironically accuse others of not reading every letter of your massive posts. Now frustration with your approach is boiling over.

By the way, this is not legislation. this is an appointed member of the FCC with strong ISPs ties single-handedly dictating removal of the NN policy.

I have asked you twice to name one single benefit of REMOVING net neutrality for consumers and small business but you refuse to respond.

LOL, you better do a quick google search on the man that headed the FCC and put in place NN before you make comments like that...... (hint, he was a man with strong ISP ties as well, and went back to that same field). I never denied it was status quo, I said I don't support the legislation/law/title II classification, whatever is the right syntax. I have made numerous benefits of removing NN.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler

Thomas Edgar "Tom" Wheeler (born April 5, 1946)[1][2] is an American businessman and politician. He was the 31st Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission and a member of the Democratic Party.[3][4]

He was appointed by President Barack Obama and confirmed by the U.S. Senate in November 2013.[1] Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry,

[Dalfan039]

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-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/


https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/att-sues-louisville-to-stop-google-fiber-from-using-its-utility-poles/

Mines newer.

Theres another article that i used during my NN debate in Comp Sci Ethics course in school a few months ago im trying to find.

[Dalfan039]

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

https://arstechnica.com/business/2015/08/att-grudgingly-accepts-428-million-in-annual-government-funding/
Ill post some highlights.
AT&T grudgingly accepts $428 million in annual government funding
AT&T will get the money over six years with an option for a seventh, potentially bringing the total to about $3 billion

This is just AT&T. forget some of the smaller ISP.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/isps-reminded-to-not-use-government-money-for-alchohol-and-vacations/
Highlights
Since 2002, Sandwich Isles Communications [in Hawaii] has collected $242,489,940 from the federal Universal Service Fund to serve no more than 3,659 customers. During that same time, Albert Hee, the owner of Sandwich Isles’s parent company Waimana Enterprises and affiliate ClearCom, apparently used the company as his family’s personal piggy bank. For example, the companies apparently paid $96,000 so that Hee could receive two-hour massages twice a week; $119,909 for personal expenses, including family trips to Disney World, Tahiti, France, and Switzerland and a four-day family vacation at the Mauna Lani resort; $736,900 for college tuition and housing expenses for Hee’s three children; $1,300,000 for a home in Santa Clara, California for his children’s use as college housing; and $1,676,685 in wages and fringe benefits for his wife and three children.

[ventura]

Guys,Bringing this one back up..read an interesting article that shows why you cant trust telecom to run the show:


Verizon's always-on throttling is an affront to customers and net neutrality
Anyone who uses Verizon is now going to have a worse experience streaming video.

Nathan Ingraham
08.22.17 in Mobile
Well, it was nice while it lasted. Today Verizon (the biggest carrier in the US) announced it was doing away with its simple and fair unlimited wireless-data plan and complicating things by instead offering three plans. Two of those cost more, and all three come with compromise. Customers who pick the cheapest plan can have their data speeds throttled at any time. Video won't stream above 480p, and tethering data is limited to the ludicrously slow speed of 600Kbps. Meanwhile, opting for the more expensive plan limits you to 720p video on phones and 1080p video on tablets, and you'll only be throttled if the network is congested and you've used more than 22GB of data in one billing cycle. (The third plan is aimed at business customers.)

This is a big change from what Verizon announced in February, when it surprised just about everyone by bringing back unlimited data. As a reminder, the big US wireless carriers killed unlimited data back in 2011 and started moving customers to tiered plans, wherein you paid for what you used. But Verizon's new unlimited plan that came out earlier this year was blessedly simple: There was one plan, your data speeds were only throttled if you both went over 22GB and Verizon's network was congested at the time, and you got a full 10GB of LTE tethering data every month. It wasn't a cheap plan, but it probably was the most straightforward wireless option with the fewest compromises out there.

That's all gone now. And adding insult to injury, all Verizon customers will have streaming-video quality downgraded. Whether you have a tiered plan or the unlimited plan that came out in February, Verizon will cap streaming video at 720p. Tablet video and tethered video tops out at 1080p. There's nothing you can do about this, no money you can throw at this restriction. Verizon says that people won't notice the difference. Perhaps that's true, but most smartphones have screens with resolutions far higher than 720p. Why does Verizon care how we use our data? Why can't I watch 1080p video (or higher) on a Galaxy S8 and blow through my 22GB of pre-throttling data in the first week of the month? If I'm on a tiered plan, let me chug down data, blow through my caps and pay the ridiculous overages if that's what I want.

Ostensibly, this is about managing traffic and congestion on the network, which Verizon still claims is the best in the US. After six months with unlimited plans back on the menu, Verizon might be sensing a tipping point in quality that these plans will help head off. Indeed, as noted by The Verge, a recent OpenSignal report found that both Verizon and AT&T's data speeds have slowed since they brought back unlimited data plans.

Of course, that makes all the highfalutin language about how great Verizon is a bit hard to swallow. The reality of the matter is that, as of tomorrow, new customers will pay more money for lesser service and existing customers won't get what they've been paying for all along. It feels like a bait and switch -- get customers on board with the unlimited offering and then change up the terms of that agreement, with no recourse. Verizon telegraphed this move last month when some customers noticed YouTube and Netflix speeds being capped, but the carrier said that was only a temporary test.

It's worth noting that Verizon didn't actually start this terrible practice. T-Mobile has been screwing around with capping video-stream qualities for awhile now. That carrier has ended up restricting video to 480p unless you shell out an extra $10 per month per line for HD video. But your overall data speeds are only restricted if the network is congested and you've used more than 32GB of data in a month.

That's much more reasonable than both Verizon's and AT&T's plans. AT&T now has an entry-level "unlimited" plan that's cheap, at $60 per month, but video is capped at 480p and speeds are always limited to 3Mbps. That's unacceptable, and slower than what you could get back in 2011 on AT&T's pre-LTE, HSPA+ network. To actually get LTE-level speed, you'll need to shell out $90 per month for a single line. At least that gets you HD video streaming. Sprint's unlimited plan still offers HD video, but it caps music streaming at 1.5Mbps and gaming at 8Mbps.

It's unfortunately now looking like a true unlimited plan is a complete pipe dream. Instead of nickel-and-diming customers with data overages from their tiered plans, it looks like we're hurtling toward a world in which we pay more for better speed, whether that means not getting throttled or having the ability to play back high-speed video. It's not quite the same as what broadband internet providers sell, where you pay based on your upload and download speeds, but it's not hard to imagine that happening a year or two down the line. Or maybe every service we use will get throttled. Imagine your web browser speeds being capped or music limited to lousy, low-bandwidth streams -- unless we pay up for each one.

As someone who pays attention to the complicated and compromised plans the US wireless carriers foist upon their consumers, you'd think I wouldn't be so angry about what Verizon is doing. This is a classic move out of a playbook it's been using ever since unlimited data first went away, and even before that, if we're being honest. But I am angry. This is unfair to existing customers, and new customers will pay more for less. That's especially disappointing coming on the heels of the fair unlimited plan Verizon rolled out just six months ago. But Verizon can get away with it because the FCC isn't likely to care about companies violating the principles of net neutrality under Title II, which will probably be rolled back soon anyway.

I don't have anyone to blame but myself for being angry today. Given Verizon's love of milking customers to death and the realities around net neutrality, I should have seen this coming.

In the meantime, you can still sign up for Verizon's existing unlimited plan today (though streaming video will still be capped at 720p resolution). But you can get a better deal elsewhere. The other carriers all have their own downsides, but their plans are a little more reasonable -- and they aren't sticking it to you quite as obviously as Verizon.

Verizon did not respond to our request for comment.

Verizon owns Engadget's parent company, Oath (formerly AOL). Rest assured, Verizon has no control over our coverage. Engadget remains editorially independent from:
https://www.engadget.com/2017/08/22/verizon-video-throttling-net-neutrality-unfair-to-customers/

I'm sure those fans of trashing the current Net neutrality Rules will just shrug it off and blame it on inadequate infrastruction for the demand..yada yada. But really, its because they can do this that they did.Don't fool yourselves.They know the fcc is stacked in their favor and all the while your service goes down and you pay more. Sweet deal for Verizon and the other telecoms that will follow. Funny isnt it the Fcc chair is a former Verizon lackey?


People do yourselves a favor ,do not let the fcc change the rules to benefit corporate greed at our expense.Don't drink the kool aid anti net neutrality shills are pouring for you.


Lou