FCC Unveils Their Plan to Roll Back Net Neutrality

[DJR210]

Here we go again..

https://www.rt.com/document/5a14622ffc7e9389668b456a/amp/410552-fcc-net-neutrality-repeal

[leemajors]

In addition to ditching its own net neutrality rules, the Federal Communications Commission also plans to tell state and local governments that they cannot impose local laws regulating broadband service.

[DJR210]

It's gonna be SO FUCKING AWESOME having to choose a broadband plan that allows you to access social media sites, YouTube.. Hell, I wonder how much Spectrum will charge for the Spurstalk package..

[TimDunkem]

Why is no one discussing this? Well, relatively little discussion...On my own FB feed, no one has so much as brought up NN, let alone rallied against it....

At this point, has everyone just accepted greedy corporations control over their very existence?

[leemajors]

Why is no one discussing this? Well, relatively little discussion...On my own FB feed, no one has so much as brought up NN, let alone rallied against it....

At this point, has everyone just accepted greedy corporations control over their very existence?

It’s all over my fb feed, as well as most of the tech sites. They’re trying to sneak the release on a holiday week tbh. Pai is a piece of shit

[TimDunkem]

It’s all over my fb feed, as well as most of the tech sites. They’re trying to sneak the release on a holiday week tbh. Pai is a piece of shit

Maybe I just associate with too many morons. :lol I've definitely been trying to bring it to the attention of every person I can. Though it's mostly been falling on deaf ears unfortunately...

[baseline bum]

Fucking cable monopolies trying to make the internet as shitty and expensive as cable tv.

[Chris]

Here's a bigger question. Why do we allow the FFC to dictate what we see and hear in regards to radio,television, and the internet?

[leemajors]

Here's a bigger question. Why do we allow the FFC to dictate what we see and hear in regards to radio,television, and the internet?

Why is Trump in bed with big cable?

[monosylab1k]

Here's a bigger question. Why do we allow the FFC to dictate what we see and hear in regards to radio,television, and the internet?

:lmao what a shocker, you side with Team Trump here too.

[monosylab1k]

Why is no one discussing this? Well, relatively little discussion...On my own FB feed, no one has so much as brought up NN, let alone rallied against it....

At this point, has everyone just accepted greedy corporations control over their very existence?

Probably some level of fatigue with having to worry about this over and over and over. I mean, it’s come up before and will keep coming up. Even if another large scale campaign gets Pai to back off, he’ll just ramrod it through at some point in the future. It’s inevitable at this point.

[Trainwreck2100]

Here's a bigger question. Why do we allow the FFC to dictate what we see and hear in regards to radio,television, and the internet?

the fcc doesnt dictate what we see and hear on the internet

[TimDunkem]

Pai is such a piece of shit.

[Chris]

the fcc doesnt dictate what we see and hear on the internet

Not yet. They censored the radio and television. The final frontier awaits.

[Trainwreck2100]

Not yet. They censored the radio and television. The final frontier awaits.

how would they implement that?

[baseline bum]

Probably some level of fatigue with having to worry about this over and over and over. I mean, it’s come up before and will keep coming up. Even if another large scale campaign gets Pai to back off, he’ll just ramrod it through at some point in the future. It’s inevitable at this point.

Yeah this was sealed the moment that fat piece of shit got elected.

[monosylab1k]

Not yet. They censored the radio and television. The final frontier awaits.

Don’t worry, Chris. When net neutrality is gutted, you will still have your tranny porn. You’ll just have to purchase the Porn Package from Spectrum for the low low price of $24.99 a month!

[ElNono]

This is the kind of shit that makes Dems electable again...

[vander]

What is everying crying about? Having to pay for what you consume?
You want to pay the same for 500gb streaming as your neighbor does for checking facebook and email?

[ElNono]

What is everying crying about? Having to pay for what you consume?
You want to pay the same for 500gb streaming as your neighbor does for checking facebook and email?

This is the kind of retarded arguments you hear, smh.

Here's a better example: I don't want to pay $30 to Comcast to get the $12 Netflix 'tier'. I'm already paying Comcast for my interwebs, and that includes an artificial speed limit and artificial data cap.

And lmao @ conservatards defense of 'competition', when rules like this only serve monopolies, duopolies and entrenched big business.

[140]

This is the kind of retarded arguments you hear, smh.

Here's a better example: I don't want to pay $30 to Comcast to get the $12 Netflix 'tier'. I'm already paying Comcast for my interwebs, and that includes an artificial speed limit and artificial data cap.

And lmao @ conservatards defense of 'competition', when rules like this only serve monopolies, duopolies and entrenched big business.
Nono

[vander]

This is the kind of retarded arguments you hear, smh.

Here's a better example: I don't want to pay $30 to Comcast to get the $12 Netflix 'tier'. I'm already paying Comcast for my interwebs, and that includes an artificial speed limit and artificial data cap.

And lmao @ conservatards defense of 'competition', when rules like this only serve monopolies, duopolies and entrenched big business.

you think that example would actually happen? plenty of people would cancel Netflix and it would hurt both Comcast and Netflix, is Comcast your only choice for an ISP?

pretty naive for people to think that a government bureaucracy will improve the situation. Entrenched big business can still fail if they piss off the customers enough, government control is much more difficult to remove.

[DJR210]

This is the kind of shit that makes Dems electable again...

Exactly. You charge more for social media and/or porn you just pissed off basically the entire nation.. Too bad most won't know about the shit until after it goes into effect.

[leemajors]

you think that example would actually happen? plenty of people would cancel Netflix and it would hurt both Comcast and Netflix, is Comcast your only choice for an ISP?

pretty naive for people to think that a government bureaucracy will improve the situation. Entrenched big business can still fail if they piss off the customers enough, government control is much more difficult to remove.

In a lot of areas, there IS only one choice, and Comcast, Spectrum, et al are determined to keep it that way. They do not want competition, and do not want to keep improving their networks to retain customers if they do not have to.

[Joseph Kony]

Anyone who defends this is a complete tool. Thanks Trumpers, you stupid fucks. You wanted less government and now your cheeto faced toilet seat appointed head of the FCC is going to screw us all in the name of big business. this is your fault tbh.

[Capt Bringdown]

Somebody made this graphic in 2009 to show what might happen if Net Neutrality gets axed. We won't be paying 2009 prices I reckon:
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1567010/original.jpg



pretty naive for people to think that a government bureaucracy will improve the situation. Entrenched big business can still fail if they piss off the customers enough, government control is much more difficult to remove.
Monopoly power is the goal of capitalism, and such, monopoly power must be restrained and regulated by we the people.

[TimDunkem]

Vander outed himself as a complete moron. Good work, brah.

[Ed Lover]

ITT, people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about. The problem in this country is lack of competition and anti-trust issues, not NN. NN will do nothing to break up these behemoths. Everybody remember the internet before 2015? Me too. Very little of the hyperbolic, fear mongering being pushed now was taking place, and when it did, existing frameworks, courts, and/or consumer pressure defeated it. The reality is that America became the world leader in information technology under the previous framework, spawning endless awesome companies that have made all our lives better. Keeping the internet under outdated, draconian regulations designed for old telecoms will not help. Why the fuck do you think the telephone remained unchanged for 30 odd years? You fucking morons are fighting the battles for massive corporations such as Google, Amazon, and Facebook, all of whom dwarf the (admittedly terrible) ISPs in size and revenues, and have just as bad of a track record when it comes to anti-competitive practices. It's telling that my small ISP, which is awesome btw, is completely against NN and has significantly slowed its expansion of infrastructure since 2015. If NN was really a good thing, almost every tiny/small ISP would wholeheartedly support it. Almost none do, and small businesses are almost always the best indicator of whether regulation is good or bad.

[monosylab1k]

This is the kind of retarded arguments you hear, smh.

Here's a better example: I don't want to pay $30 to Comcast to get the $12 Netflix 'tier'. I'm already paying Comcast for my interwebs, and that includes an artificial speed limit and artificial data cap.

And lmao @ conservatards defense of 'competition', when rules like this only serve monopolies, duopolies and entrenched big business.
https://media1.tenor.com/images/5809cf4d61dc047ff129416fbfc13d66/tenor.gif?itemid=4763706

[monosylab1k]

ITT, people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about. The problem in this country is lack of competition and anti-trust issues, not NN. NN will do nothing to break up these behemoths. Everybody remember the internet before 2015? Me too. Very little of the hyperbolic, fear mongering being pushed now was taking place, and when it did, existing frameworks, courts, and/or consumer pressure defeated it. The reality is that America became the world leader in information technology under the previous framework, spawning endless awesome companies that have made all our lives better. Keeping the internet under outdated, draconian regulations designed for old telecoms will not help. Why the fuck do you think the telephone remained unchanged for 30 odd years? You fucking morons are fighting the battles for massive corporations such as Google, Amazon, and Facebook, all of whom dwarf the (admittedly terrible) ISPs in size and revenues, and have just as bad of a track record when it comes to anti-competitive practices. It's telling that my small ISP, which is awesome btw, is completely against NN and has significantly slowed its expansion of infrastructure since 2015. If NN was really a good thing, almost every tiny/small ISP would wholeheartedly support it. Almost none do, and small businesses are almost always the best indicator of whether regulation is good or bad.

:lmao Comcast employee w/stock options doing his copypasta duty.

[Ed Lover]

:lmao Comcast employee w/stock options doing his copypasta duty.

That isn't a rebuttal, faggot. If you wanna get mad, get mad at the parts of the Telecom act of 96' that allowed all these shitty ISPs to take one another over. Do you do anything other than virtue signal?

[leemajors]

ITT, people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about. The problem in this country is lack of competition and anti-trust issues, not NN. NN will do nothing to break up these behemoths. Everybody remember the internet before 2015? Me too. Very little of the hyperbolic, fear mongering being pushed now was taking place, and when it did, existing frameworks, courts, and/or consumer pressure defeated it. The reality is that America became the world leader in information technology under the previous framework, spawning endless awesome companies that have made all our lives better. Keeping the internet under outdated, draconian regulations designed for old telecoms will not help. Why the fuck do you think the telephone remained unchanged for 30 odd years? You fucking morons are fighting the battles for massive corporations such as Google, Amazon, and Facebook, all of whom dwarf the (admittedly terrible) ISPs in size and revenues, and have just as bad of a track record when it comes to anti-competitive practices. It's telling that my small ISP, which is awesome btw, is completely against NN and has significantly slowed its expansion of infrastructure since 2015. If NN was really a good thing, almost every tiny/small ISP would wholeheartedly support it. Almost none do, and small businesses are almost always the best indicator of whether regulation is good or bad.

What speeds do you get?

[DJR210]

Vander outed himself as a complete moron. Good work, brah.

Maybe he'll use this as a learning opportunity and change for the better

[DJR210]

Here are some links to voice your opinion against the proposed repeal:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/do-not-repeal-net-neutrality

https://www.battleforthenet.com/

http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/tell-congress-stand-free-and-open-internet-and-protect-net-neutrality/

https://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality

Share on your other social media platforms :tu

[DJR210]

:lmao Comcast employee w/stock options doing his copypasta duty.

That or a Russian bot..

https://nypost.com/2017/11/22/russian-bots-target-fcc-in-attempt-to-get-net-neutrality-repealed/

[ElNono]

you think that example would actually happen? plenty of people would cancel Netflix and it would hurt both Comcast and Netflix, is Comcast your only choice for an ISP?

pretty naive for people to think that a government bureaucracy will improve the situation. Entrenched big business can still fail if they piss off the customers enough, government control is much more difficult to remove.

You can't cancel Comcast if they're the only game in town. That's the point. It hurts Netflix, which actually benefits Comcast, coz now they can sell you their movie package.

[ElNono]

ITT, people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about. The problem in this country is lack of competition and anti-trust issues, not NN. NN will do nothing to break up these behemoths. Everybody remember the internet before 2015? Me too. Very little of the hyperbolic, fear mongering being pushed now was taking place, and when it did, existing frameworks, courts, and/or consumer pressure defeated it. The reality is that America became the world leader in information technology under the previous framework, spawning endless awesome companies that have made all our lives better. Keeping the internet under outdated, draconian regulations designed for old telecoms will not help. Why the fuck do you think the telephone remained unchanged for 30 odd years? You fucking morons are fighting the battles for massive corporations such as Google, Amazon, and Facebook, all of whom dwarf the (admittedly terrible) ISPs in size and revenues, and have just as bad of a track record when it comes to anti-competitive practices. It's telling that my small ISP, which is awesome btw, is completely against NN and has significantly slowed its expansion of infrastructure since 2015. If NN was really a good thing, almost every tiny/small ISP would wholeheartedly support it. Almost none do, and small businesses are almost always the best indicator of whether regulation is good or bad.

That's another problem, which gets exacerbated by these kind of rulings. Netflix, YouTube, Google, etc are competition to the cablecos and they thrived because cableco couldn't shut them down, or piggy back/act as a middle men on them.

These kind of rules stifle competition, and give providers the authority to pick winners and losers. It's not the free market or the consumers.

[Trainwreck2100]

we're still fucked guys, I'm sorry but we lost. Any one for this, (without any skin in the game) is an idiot.

[DJR210]

we're still fucked guys, I'm sorry but we lost. Any one for this, (without any skin in the game) is an idiot.

[ElNono]

nothing we can do, agreed. hopefully they can't do much damage in 2 years, tbh, but we'll see

[Trainwreck2100]

nothing we can do, agreed. hopefully they can't do much damage in 2 years, tbh, but we'll see

This trump regime is literally teflon. They'll do whatever the fuck they want get away with it because their supporters are idiots and "what about hillary"

[monosylab1k]

That isn't a rebuttal, faggot. If you wanna get mad, get mad at the parts of the Telecom act of 96' that allowed all these shitty ISPs to take one another over. Do you do anything other than virtue signal?

:tu this post sounds way more sincere than that talking points wall of text, which I’m sure is getting spammed elsewhere.

[Reck]

Somebody made this graphic in 2009 to show what might happen if Net Neutrality gets axed. We won't be paying 2009 prices I reckon:
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1567010/original.jpg


Monopoly power is the goal of capitalism, and such, monopoly power must be restrained and regulated by we the people.

Fuck, that chart is depressing.

It's like reliving the dial up aol days.

[DJR210]

nothing we can do, agreed. hopefully they can't do much damage in 2 years, tbh, but we'll see

I'm not even entirely convinced Trump won't win a second term.. All the young Americans, especially the minority groups who have an opinion on the Presidency are also too lazy to vote unless you gave them an option via their cell phones. Net Neutrality gets wiped away more than likely, but hopefully the ISP's themselves stay put and don't fuck everything up even though they have the option to legally.

[Capt Bringdown]

FCC explains why public support for net neutrality won’t stop repeal ---> (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/why-the-fcc-ignored-public-opinion-in-its-push-to-kill-net-neutrality/)
Americans who support net neutrality find that their voices don’t count for much.

A senior FCC official spoke with reporters about Pai's anti-net neutrality plan in a phone briefing yesterday and explained why the FCC is not swayed by public opinion on net neutrality.

The vast majority of comments consisted of form letters from both pro- and anti-net neutrality groups and generally did not introduce new facts into the record or make serious legal arguments, the official from Pai's office said. In general, the comments stated opinions or made assertions and did not have much bearing on Pai's decision, the official said. The official spoke with reporters on the condition that he not be named and that his comments can be paraphrased but not quoted directly.

The official noted that many of the comments are fraudulent. He said that there were 7.5 million identical comments that came from 45,000 unique names and addresses, apparently due to a scammer who repeatedly submitted the same comment under a series of different names.

[DJR210]

Det dictatorship

[monosylab1k]

933479390893162498

[Capt Bringdown]

It's Trump's fault, right? Not so fast, O-bots:



Ajit Pai, the FCC Commissioner leading the charge to rig the internet, was appointed by Obama.
Wikipedia:


He has served in various positions at the FCC since being appointed to the commission by President Barack Obama in May 2012, at the recommendation of Mitch McConnell. He was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate on May 7, 2012,[1] and was sworn in on May 14, 2012, for a five-year term.

Before his appointment to the FCC, Pai held positions with the Department of Justice, the United States Senate, the FCC’s Office of General Counsel, and Verizon Communications.

Another Flexian slithers through the revolving door. Obama no doubt asked McConnell for his very valuable opinion to maintain partisan balance among the FCC commissioners (one of those “norms” liberal Democrats are always yammering about). But actually:

Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party

In other words, Obama could have nominated a pro-Net Neutrality independent, and chose not to. When Trump was elected, he nominated Pai for FCC Chair, and that only happened because four Democrats — remember when Trump used to be a fascist? Good times — went along and helped him out

naked capitalism: Be Thankful for the Internet as You Know It, Because It May Not Exist Much Longer --> (https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/11/thankful-internet-know-may-not-exist-much-longer.html)

[Reck]

It's Trump's fault, right? Not so fast, O-bots:

Damn, that's true, isn't it? Fuck.

That's one thing that pissed me off about Obama. He took extra steps to get along with republicans. All they did was fuck him over and he still bended more times than not to please them.

[Capt Bringdown]

Damn, that's true, isn't it? Fuck.

That's one thing that pissed me off about Obama. He took extra steps to get along with republicans. All they did was fuck him over and he still bended more times than not to please them.

“There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat.”


― Gore Vidal

[Chris]

Ajit Pai, the FCC Commissioner leading the charge to rig the internet, was appointed by Obama.

mein neger :tu

[Reck]

mein neger :tu

LOL Chris.

[Chris]

LOL Chris.

The truth shall set us free.

[Reck]

The truth shall set us free.

No. It shall make us slower. And censored.

[ElNono]

It's Trump's fault, right? Not so fast, O-bots:

The composition of the FCC commission always has been, 3 of the ruling party and 2 of the opposition. That's why Barry appointed him, he had to pick somebody from the (R) side as recommended by the Rs.

Obviously, this might be news to people that don't know anything about the FCC, tbh...

He used to be a lawyer for Verizon too, IIRC...

[Capt Bringdown]

The composition of the FCC commission always has been, 3 of the ruling party and 2 of the opposition. That's why Barry appointed him, he had to pick somebody from the (R) side as recommended by the Rs.

Obviously, this might be news to people that don't know anything about the FCC, tbh...

He used to be a lawyer for Verizon too, IIRC...

Perhaps, you missed the point entirely. To wit:


Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party

In other words, Obama could have nominated a pro-Net Neutrality independent, and chose not to.

Instead, he:


He used to be a lawyer for Verizon too, IIRC...

And it gets even worse for the Democrats:


Politico: (https://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-tech/2017/10/03/facebook-ten-million-people-exposed-to-russia-linked-ads-222616)


DEMOCRATS FOR PAI? — FCC Chairman Ajit Pai locked down his reconfirmation Monday evening in a largely party-line 52-41 vote. But Pai did win votes from four of the six Democrats who voted in favor of last week’s procedural vote on his confirmation: Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.)….

— So why did these four buck Democratic colleagues? “I disagree with him on net neutrality, but the president has a right to the chairman because he won the election,” McCaskill told John. “I have worked with him closely on the Lifeline issues and found him to be easy to work with on those issues — and he’s qualified.” [credentialism!] Peters echoed her on Pai’s qualifications and also cited his interest in working with Pai to address the Lifeline program./p>

— The senators like his broadband views. “I just need a lot of help in West Virginia, and he’s been moving in that direction,” former Commerce Committee member Manchin said, lauding Pai’s work in “trying to get the rural broadband fund moving.” Pai is “working with us,” Manchin said. Peters also mentioned rural broadband, singling out Michigan’s Upper Peninsula as an area in need: “I found him very receptive to ways to expand broadband access.” But like McCaskill, Manchin is “still very concerned about net neutrality,” as is Peters, they told POLITICO. Pai’s move to roll back net neutrality regulations dominated the Democrats’ opposition on the floor in the last week. Peters said he “will hold him accountable” and try to ensure “the internet is free and open.”

Liberals appointing a militant anti net-neutrality advocate/ exVerizon lawyer and holding him accountable (LOL) by voting for his reconfirmation.

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8e5074454fcc.jpg

[ElNono]

:lol nobody is defending the senators or politicians in general... just dispelling the notion that Obama selecting a (R) was outside the norm for the FCC... much like (R) presidents have appointed (D) commission members...

There hasn't been an 'independent' (ie: not D or R) member of the FCC commission since 1947... again, people unfamiliar with the FCC political process would find this surprising, tbh, but it's more of the same...

[ElNono]

And Tom Wheeler, the previous commish that passed the net neutrality regulations, was voted in unanimously by the senate :lol

http://swampland.time.com/2013/10/29/tom-wheeler-is-the-new-fcc-chief/

I guess conservatards were for net neutrality before they weren't? How could it be? :dramaquee

[Xevious]

I have exactly two ISPs available to me (unless Google moves into the neighborhood in the coming months/years). I've not had a cable tv package in around three years because of the different, cheaper, streaming options available. Ditching net neutrality would give these two companies the option to effectively price streaming services out of reach for cord cutters like myself, forcing us to go back to their shitty cable tv packages. And that's just one example. It hands too much power over to these companies that already have a monopoly.

Regardless of your political affiliation, or who appointed who, everybody should be pissed about this.

[baseline bum]

I have exactly two ISPs available to me (unless Google moves into the neighborhood in the coming months/years). I've not had a cable tv package in around three years because of the different, cheaper, streaming options available. Ditching net neutrality would give these two companies the option to effectively price streaming services out of reach for cord cutters like myself, forcing us to go back to their shitty cable tv packages. And that's just one example. It hands too much power over to these companies that already have a monopoly.

Regardless of your political affiliation, or who appointed who, everybody should be pissed about this.

Meh like Obama said, elections have consequences. Anyone who voted for Trump has no room to complain, it was obvious this would happen under him.

[Xevious]

Meh like Obama said, elections have consequences. Anyone who voted for Trump has no room to complain, it was obvious this would happen under him.
I wish they'd complain a little more. This effects everybody. But all except the staunchest Trumpslurpers (who are defending this shit) are silent. Which means they don't know, don't care, or don't want to say anything negative about the Trump regime.

[TSA]

THE ISPs HAVE SOLVED IT.

First you need to understand how this is all connected. In general, there are 2 types of ISPs. "Last mile carriers" and "Backhaul carriers" This gets a bit muddy because some last mile carriers have backhaul networks, and some backhaul carriers have last mile networks, but for the sake of this discussion we'll keep them in two separate groups.

Last mile carriers are the ISPs that bring the cables (phone line, coax, fiber, wireless, whatever) from their core network to your house. This is the ISP that invoices you and you pay every month for your internet service. This Last mile carrier has something that's referred to as a "border" where they connect their core network with a backhaul carrier.

The backhaul carriers are the BIG companies that built this whole "Internet" thing. They did that by investing trillions of dollars running and continuing to run fiber optic cables EVERYWHERE. These backhaul carriers all got together and realized that they needed to come up with a fair and equitable method and price structure for freely and openly exchanging the information on their networks. Thus the Symmetric Peering Arrangement was born.

The Symmetric Peering Arrangement was basically this. "You have lots of data, and I have lots of data. Let us exchange this data equally, however much data you send me I will send you an equal amount of data and we'll all just agree to not charge each other any money for that exchange." But wait? What if they exchange an unequal amount of data? This is the Asymmetric Peering Arrangement, typically it's the same thing as the Symmetric Peering Arrangement except that the both parties agree to pay for the non-symmetric amounts of data. This is what lead to the internet. Basically all these carriers put all their interconnecting and cross connecting points in free and open spaces, called Internet Exchanges. Anyone who showed up and put a "point of presence" in the Exchange had the ability to talk to anyone else in the Exchange and negotiate peering arrangements or even just ask nicely to exchange traffic or whatever. Here's a guy who setup a peering point in an Internet Exchange and essentially became is own ISP for no other reason that he thought it would be fun.

Now comes Netflix. Remember ANYONE can have a presence at an Internet Exchange including hosting companies, data center providers, whoever the fuck wants to. So that's exactly what Netflix did, they set up POPs at various Internet Exchanges over dark fiber from their data centers (dark fiber is a service where you buy a fiber strand from point A to point B with no actual "service" on it, it's just the fiber and you put your own optical gear on either end.)

Basically when they did this, they talked to everyone there and explained what they were about, that they provide a streaming movie service that's legit and legal and made the case that the carriers downstream last mile ISPs and assorted home subscribers would probably love to have access to their content. They made a good case, and the carriers agreed that peering that content to their downstream customers was probably a good move. So they gave Netflix some 10Gbps and 40Gbps cross connects told them "hey this is on us, no charge" and called it a day. (This is extremely common, so common that there's an entire automated system in place run by the volunteers that operate the Exchanges to facilitate it)

Well, you can probably guess what happened, Netflix grew and became crazy popular and their traffic eventually started beating those cross connects like red headed stepchildren. We're talking 100% full ALL the time. As others have touched on, when a link is 100% full, bad shit happens as one poster described as "a bunch of drunk guys screaming at each other in a bar." The end result of this would be the rest of the Internet works just fine, but Netflix runs like TOTAL SHIT. Stuttering, jitter, buffering, garbled frames, all that stuff. When this happened, Netflix was like "OMG can we please get some additional cross connects?" The carriers (or in the first case of it happening, Verizon) responded with statements to the affect of "Wow, yeah you need some more cross connects, but that's a lot of asymmetric traffic, we're going to have to work out an asymmetric peering arrangement where you pay for the difference in traffic, just like we've done for decades with everyone else we do this with."

Now, you see what happened next was...Netflix didn't respond by saying "Oh ok, sure we'll sit down and work out the details" they responded by being pissed off and demanding that peering for FREE because having to pay for it like EVERYONE else had to do so up to that point was tantamount to an unfair business practice. Now the stories I've heard talking to people over at Verizon was that the business managers were kinda shocked and confused at the response, while the engineering teams nearly herniated themselves from laughing.

Now, looking at the situation, Verizon didn't "throttle" Netflix, they didn't demand payment for a "fast lane", they didn't stroke their bad guy mustache and say "Muhahahaha, we're going to use this situation give our own content delivery platform a market advantage!" It was literally just a standard negotiation for an asymmetric peering agreement with some minor middle manager's assistant in the sub-division handling administrative and sales tasks for that region that the Internet Exchange was in. All it was, was a pretty basic business arrangement between two companies, as Netflix' traffic utilization scaled up, so would the amount they paid to deliver it and the necessary upgrades needed would be funded.

Netflix wasn't having it. Not long after that, the CEO of Netflix did an interview with some trendy tech publication in Silicon Valley (I think it was Gizmodo, but I can't remember for sure) talking about how the big evil Verizon was "throttling" them and how we needed "Net Neutrality" to stop this.

Yes, that was their argument, that them saturating their free interconnects and being required to pay for more capacity was "throttling" and it needed to be "stopped" by the FCC (that's code for using the federal government to force Verizon to give them that capacity for free).

So the conclusion is that the carriers HAVE FIGURED IT OUT. They charged Netflix, and Netflix eventually paid. The Last mile carriers wound doing something similar by instituting data caps and charging extra to those who had high utilization. Then everyone started implementing traffic shaping and management methods and technology to get the Netflix utilization under control at the last mile.

Problem is now solved.

Here's where Net Neutrality comes back in. Netflix and Google and Facebook and whoever all still want it because they want to force peering arrangements beneficial to them. But the end result of Net Neutrality would be to remove the carriers solution of dealing with this problem, namely charging Netflix and Google for their upstream consumption at the peering level, and using traffic shaping and management technologies at the last mile level.

Let me state that again, NET NEUTRALITY WOULD REMOVE THE ALREADY EXITING SOLUTION. It would cut the revenue stream at the peering level, and it would remove the traffic shaping and management at the last mile level. This would INCREASE the strain on the carrier networks, AND reduce the spending on upgrading the carrier networks. It will LITERALLY make EVERYTHING worse.

THAT is why the carriers are against Net Neutrality.

[monosylab1k]

Oh TSA is on Trump’s side on this one? What a shock!

[Reck]

Oh TSA is on Trump’s side on this one? What a shock!

TSA is eager to be paying extra to get priority access to 4chan.

[TSA]

Oh TSA is on Trump’s side on this one? What a shock!



Net nuetrality as an idea is great, much like Obamacare. It was the implementation that sucked.


Excellent rebuttal by the way. You really took that down.

[ElNono]

It's also incorrect. Netflix had to pay for extra peering agreements because Verizon wouldn't flip a cable, something Netflix offered to do for them. Netflix pays for every penny of bandwidth they use, and it's customers do too.

Obviously, Verizon wants more of the pie than just transporting bits (which, again, are paid for), because they actually offer competing services (ie: On demand video, etc).

Plus, Verizon came clean on admitting they were indeed throttling Netflix, Youtube and other providers :https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/verizon-admits-to-throttling-data-speeds-from-netflix-and-other-video-content-providers

The moral of the story here is that there would be no Netflix if you get penalized for innovating and bringing a better product than Cable Co.

At the end of the day, Facebook, Google, Netflix, etc all pay for their bandwidth, and the users pay for their bandwidth too. If the ISP can't handle it, then they need to improve their networks, with the fees they collect.

Most of the non-last-mile providers (Level 3, et all) do exactly that, and are not bitching. The issue here are last-mile providers who have a captive audience and are largely monopolies and duopolies, which get to dictate terms.

[monosylab1k]

Net nuetrality as an idea is great, much like Obamacare. It was the implementation that sucked.


Excellent rebuttal by the way. You really took that down.

Yeah I’m not gonna take some random ar-15.com troll’s shitpost seriously.

[leemajors]

It's also incorrect. Netflix had to pay for extra peering agreements because Verizon wouldn't flip a cable, something Netflix offered to do for them. Netflix pays for every penny of bandwidth they use, and it's customers do too.

Obviously, Verizon wants more of the pie than just transporting bits (which, again, are paid for), because they actually offer competing services (ie: On demand video, etc).

Plus, Verizon came clean on admitting they were indeed throttling Netflix, Youtube and other providers :https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/verizon-admits-to-throttling-data-speeds-from-netflix-and-other-video-content-providers

The moral of the story here is that there would be no Netflix if you get penalized for innovating and bringing a better product than Cable Co.

At the end of the day, Facebook, Google, Netflix, etc all pay for their bandwidth, and the users pay for their bandwidth too. If the ISP can't handle it, then they need to improve their networks, with the fees they collect.

Most of the non-last-mile providers (Level 3, et all) do exactly that, and are not bitching. The issue here are last-mile providers who have a captive audience and are largely monopolies and duopolies, which get to dictate terms.

:tu

[TSA]

Yeah I’m not gonna take some random ar-15.com troll’s shitpost seriously.

But all you do is shitpost these days

[TSA]

It's also incorrect. Netflix had to pay for extra peering agreements because Verizon wouldn't flip a cable, something Netflix offered to do for them. Netflix pays for every penny of bandwidth they use, and it's customers do too.

Obviously, Verizon wants more of the pie than just transporting bits (which, again, are paid for), because they actually offer competing services (ie: On demand video, etc).

Plus, Verizon came clean on admitting they were indeed throttling Netflix, Youtube and other providers :https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/verizon-admits-to-throttling-data-speeds-from-netflix-and-other-video-content-providers

The moral of the story here is that there would be no Netflix if you get penalized for innovating and bringing a better product than Cable Co.

At the end of the day, Facebook, Google, Netflix, etc all pay for their bandwidth, and the users pay for their bandwidth too. If the ISP can't handle it, then they need to improve their networks, with the fees they collect.

Most of the non-last-mile providers (Level 3, et all) do exactly that, and are not bitching. The issue here are last-mile providers who have a captive audience and are largely monopolies and duopolies, which get to dictate terms.
Thank you for actually taking the time to respond with an informed opinion unlike gook pickle.

I think you hit on certain points and missed on others. Specific thoughts on this claim.

“It would cut the revenue stream at the peering level, and it would remove the traffic shaping and management at the last mile level. This would INCREASE the strain on the carrier networks, AND reduce the spending on upgrading the carrier networks. It will LITERALLY make EVERYTHING worse.”

[monosylab1k]

But all you do is shitpost these days

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view/75491/dog-vs-mirror-dog-o.gif

[ElNono]

Thank you for actually taking the time to respond with an informed opinion unlike gook pickle.

I think you hit on certain points and missed on others. Specific thoughts on this claim.

“It would cut the revenue stream at the peering level, and it would remove the traffic shaping and management at the last mile level. This would INCREASE the strain on the carrier networks, AND reduce the spending on upgrading the carrier networks. It will LITERALLY make EVERYTHING worse.”

That statement only makes sense if the carriers would be losing money or were technically not capable of upgrading their networks, neither being the case. The sole reason there's a 'strain' on carrier networks (artificial or not) is that the network operators didn't increase their capacity (spending their well earned money to do so) or they simply want to nickel and dime you to death with 'tiered plans' (artificial too).

You don't see the non-last-mile providers (who carry way more data) having their networks strained. So it's not a technical issue, and it's not a money issue. The real issue is that because they're monopolies or duopolies, they don't have to spend their money providing a better service, they have a captive audience. So they don't upgrade their networks, they pocket the difference, and then when their last-mile lines are overloaded, they don't have to give a shit because they're the only game in town. Since they're the last piece of the transport to the consumer, they wield major power.

It's also well documented that internet speeds in the US lag sharply with other 1st world countries, and internet service costs more.

Ultimately, you have to look at this with historical perspective. There's a reason the term 'common carrier' came to be. Unlike a 'contract carrier', which gets to decide who it delivers to, a common carrier delivers information important enough where they can't be exclusionary. And in this day and age, the interwebs, Spurstalk in particular, is simply essential. You can't even apply for a job these days without an internet connection.

Here's the contradiction: the government granted these guys monopolies because they deemed the internet important enough where they wanted them to build their networks even on remote areas where it might've not been profitable enough (like they did with phone companies, and this is a topic that's it's own can of worms), but then the internet is now not important enough to make them common carriers? It makes zero sense.

[ElNono]

I should add, expanding the network carries risks. It's an investment. You could 'over-provision'. From a shareholder perspective, you much rather get free money from Netflix than lay down fiber. But the only reason they can do that is because, again, they have a captive audience. If they had to compete, they'll be taking the risks. You can see that on the Wireless market, where prices have bottomed out for service and you get the latest 3G, 4G, LTE tech coming at the same price as the previous generation or cheaper.

[TSA]

I should add, expanding the network carries risks. It's an investment. You could 'over-provision'. From a shareholder perspective, you much rather get free money from Netflix than lay down fiber. But the only reason they can do that is because, again, they have a captive audience. If they had to compete, they'll be taking the risks. You can see that on the Wireless market, where prices have bottomed out for service and you get the latest 3G, 4G, LTE tech coming at the same price as the previous generation or cheaper.

Thoughts?

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=232617

[monosylab1k]

:lmao

“Thank you for dignifying my knuckle dragger bullshit with an actual response, unlike :cry gook pickle :cry”

[ElNono]

Thoughts?

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=232617

Already pointed it out on my previous reply. Under the assumptions made in that post, ISPs would be losing money left and right, or technologically capped, but neither is the case.

That's because while the article pretends that the cost of data to ISPs is some major expense, it actually is not, and has actually bottomed out (see here (https://broadbandnow.com/report/much-data-really-cost-isps/)), while the price of service from ISPs have gone up yearly above the inflation rate (see here (http://time.com/money/4227133/cable-price-four-times-inflation/)). Furthermore, a lot of these companies laid down the fiber for their TV services under Title II, for accounting reasons, so they already have infrastructure and have to support it.

So, again, this has nothing to do with money or technical capacity. Sure, they're likely not making a 97% profit margin as reported a while back, but they're not losing money either. On the technical side, when they moved to digital switched cable, they basically only stream what you watch, which opened up even more bandwidth for them. Whether they're streaming a Netflix movie or a Video on Demand movie, is the same bandwidth for them, what is not is who pockets the money. They just have zero reason to remove their artificial speed barriers, since for the most part they're the only game in town.

That's another salient point completely skipped from that writeup. These aren't companies madly competing for market, and wireless is not yet at a price point where it can be considered competition. Competition is very minor in the US and mostly on big metropolis, normally relegated to monopolies or duopolies. You can see it with Comcast, they would rather spend $45 billion to buy up TWC rather than spend those $45 billion competing against them. Business is good for them, but it's only good if there's no competition.

[monosylab1k]

Ajit Pai, in it for teh lulz!

The FCC wants to charge you $225 to review your complaints
https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/10/17556144/fcc-charge-225-review-complaints

[leemajors]

Ajit Pai, in it for teh lulz!

The FCC wants to charge you $225 to review your complaints
https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/10/17556144/fcc-charge-225-review-complaints

he's the worst. and so is that nominee for the court. net neutrality infringes on free speech for providers or something stupid.

[DJR210]

Ajit needs his ass kicked real good :lol

[baseline bum]

Ajit needs his ass raped real good :lol

fify

[DJR210]

:lol either way I'd be happy