ya see those web ads blaming Obama for ending net reutrality

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Feb 15, 2015 12:52 pm

....well, they're BS
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/technolo ... ar-AA9mYLx

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Feb 15, 2015 2:29 pm

So you're pumping for more regulations on the Net eh?

"What Republicans really need to say here is that this debate is not really about net neutrality anymore. This is now about imposing 1934 regulations on the Internet.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/artic ... t-or-what-

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sun Feb 15, 2015 2:52 pm

It's about making sure companies like Comcast and Verizon can't bend us over a barrel and utterly destroy the principle of content-neutral data delivery which has driven the Internet since its origins. Do you really think it's a coincidence that the loudest voices in Congress against net neutrality happen to count those same massive telecom corporations among their biggest backers? This whole fight is keeping the Internet free of the same sort of multi-tiered bull★■◆● that's plagued cable TV from its inception. Woody, I'd expect someone like you who's been online for so long would actually understand what's at stake here, but I guess your hate-on for anything and everything Obama-related is too hard and throbbing to let actual common sense through.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sun Feb 15, 2015 3:12 pm

woodchip wrote:So you're pumping for more regulations on the Net eh?

I am, 100%. Right now we have a telecom oligarchy that is putting profits over progress and their greed is damaging the United States.* It's the perfect time and place for reclassification of our electronic communication infrastructure.

* Anecdote: Two years ago I was in South Korea for work. I had heard the Internet in that country is super fast. From my hotel room I connected to a game server in the Texas that was only a couple hundred miles from my house. The connection from Korea, thousands of miles away, was waaaay better than Time Warner in my home state. That's not an uncommon complaint. I've seen Australian players in US game servers with connections better than Americans. It's time we collectively stepped in to use governmental power to stop this crap, because we can no longer "fight with our dollars." It's time for legislation, for the benefit of the country's future.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sun Feb 15, 2015 4:04 pm

Yeah, the anti-net neutrality crowd are by and large a bunch of outright liars. The government is not taking over the internet, the general idea is they are simply saying that Comcast/Verizon/AT&T are also not allowed to take over the internet. I for one really don't want the internet to start looking like a cable TV package (complete with blackouts because of "retransmission" disputes), and without net neutrality rules, in our very much anti-competitive monopoly cornered market, such a thing will happen again (because it already has happened with Netflix last year).

Fun fact: cellular phone networks (voice only) are currently regulated under Title II and seem to be working just fine. Even more fun fact: Remember back in the late 90s before high speed internet was widespread and more or less everyone was on dialup, how if you looked around even a little there were dozens upon dozens of dialup ISPs available to you at extremely competitive rates...Do you know why there were so many competitors and rates were so cheap? Yep, it was because dial-up service was regulated under Title II.

They like to call it a 1934 law in order to lie and misdirect you from how amazingly effective it is TODAY. Also, most countries which score ahead of the US on internet speed/price/availability operate under rules basically the same as our Title II ones (many of them were actually copied straight out of our 1934 telecom act). Sadly, the FCC has promised to forbear one of the best parts of it which was largely responsible for dial-up internet service being so competitive (forced unbundling).

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Feb 15, 2015 4:35 pm

politicians have a lot of bad reputation to overcome when they start talking about protecting our privacy and freedoms in the communications technology realm. It makes the 'anti's' narrative sound more than plausible, it makes it sound downright likely that government will use it's controls/regulations against our best interests.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Feb 15, 2015 5:57 pm

so, Obama hate will make these fools support the Web being run like Cable TV. Nice. Thanks for the solid citizenship!

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Feb 15, 2015 8:33 pm

Stop trying to fix the internet, its not broken. I doubt the cable TV model is even possible on the web.

This has become just another stupid political debate where both sides take their cues and ideas from other people, just like the Keystone pipeline.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sun Feb 15, 2015 9:23 pm

Spidey wrote:Stop trying to fix the internet, its not broken. I doubt the cable TV model is even possible on the web.

Wow, you really haven't been paying attention, have you? The whole Netflix issue is proof that yes, the Internet is broken, and yes, they can create a cable TV model on the Internet. It is already happening. ISPs are throttling video streaming services left and right. Savy users were once able to get around the throttling by using VPNs, but now the telecom companies are starting to outright block VPNs. They 100% want to control the content and are well on their way to doing it.

This is not government encroachment. This is government doing what we elect them to do and I stand by it completely.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Feb 15, 2015 9:59 pm

Throttling video streaming services, is not the Cable TV model.

The Cable TV model is restricting access to channels by offering only bundles, that contain the channels they want to offer, and not letting you customize them.

That kind of model just won’t fly on the internet.

Are you trying to tell me that next week, I will be offered 3 or 4 bundles to choose from, and I will only be able to surf to those sites? Get real.

I guess I really don’t care about streaming services anyway because I have always considered that to be a misuse of the internet anyway…so no sympathy there.

When my provider starts blocking me from the sites I want to visit, that’s when I sue the provider because I am paying them for internet access, period.

And if that becomes their model…well sound’s like a suicide plan at best.

I can understand how some spoiled people are worried about content, but since I don't rely on the net for "content" I could care less.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sun Feb 15, 2015 11:43 pm

Spidey wrote:When my provider starts blocking me from the sites I want to visit, that’s when I sue the provider because I am paying them for internet access, period.

This is exactly what the Netflix issue is about. ISPs were literally making Netflix unwatchable as a way to extort money from them, which they eventually did. And now they block the VPNs that are used to avoid throttling. You won't be able to sue your provider because they are writing the laws right now. That's what the whole net neutrality issue is about.

Think they can't control the content you get? Think again buddy, and here is how it will happen: Your Internet bill will start to increase, rapidly. As the cost of Internet skyrockets out of your comfortable price range you will start to get promotions for tiered packages based on content. You will either pay your ISP more money or take a cheaper package, which will either exclude key sites or offer "light" versions of them. When you try to switch providers you will realize all of them are doing the same ★■◆●. And you know what is really scary? There isn't anything stopping them from doing this right now. That's why we need firm controls to protect our infrastructure.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Feb 15, 2015 11:59 pm

Let's see if those politicians can keep from trying to tamper with content they don't like when they write the laws that protect our interests.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 12:40 am

I’m sorry “buddy” but ISPs do not have the legal right to do this nonsense. An ISP is analogous to UPS they are hired to deliver packages from point A to point B they have absolutely no say in who can send or receive a package or what is in the “box”. (unless illegal or hazardous)

I do not hire my ISP to provide or control content, they are hired to move packets…period. On the other hand I do hire my cable provider to provide content, and they in turn must pay others to make that content, or license it from people in that business. The ISP is not in the content business.

What you are suggesting is like UPS saying, hey Spidey you are going to pay more for your deliveries from X company than from B company…just not legal. (or at the very least, not a viable business model)

But I’m afraid we will once again be at the mercy of uneducated consumers who don’t understand the system or what their rights are. (and inept government)

vision · Post by **vision** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:36 am

Spidey wrote:I do not hire my ISP to provide or control content, they are hired to move packets…period.

Seriously, have you been living under a rock for the past year? Do you really think the creators of the World Wide Web who also support net neutrality are just "stupid, no-nothing consumers?"

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:23 am

So you are just going to switch providers eh?

Your argument depends on there being competition, which means it fails right from the beginning.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:26 am

vision wrote:
Spidey wrote:I do not hire my ISP to provide or control content, they are hired to move packets…period.
Seriously, have you been living under a rock for the past year? Do you really think the creators of the World Wide Web who also support net neutrality are just "stupid, no-nothing consumers?"

Isn't this going against what you are saying? from your link:

"In America, the Federal Communications Commission has proposed new rules that might allow companies to pay for improved access to Internet pipelines, though a final decision is expected to be made by the end of the year."

Wouldn't this in turn affect what we get to see and use the internet for? And good thread so far. At least learning something .

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:37 am

Wheeler already abandoned that line of thinking after there were sizable protests outside his house against it.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:51 am

vision wrote:
Spidey wrote:I do not hire my ISP to provide or control content, they are hired to move packets…period.
Seriously, have you been living under a rock for the past year? Do you really think the creators of the World Wide Web who also support net neutrality are just "stupid, no-nothing consumers?"

No I’m not talking about those…I’m referring to the average consumer, that will take what they get, because they don’t know any better. You know…the ones that can actually pressure the ISPs.

There’s nothing stopping these companies from raising their prices now anyway, without all these terrible things.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:56 am

Krom wrote:So you are just going to switch providers eh?

Your argument depends on there being competition, which means it fails right from the beginning.

No, it relies on a working legal system. You can’t claim the right to control content, if you are not a content provider.

I never said anything about changing providers, that was vision putting words in my mouth. I said I would sue...not change providers...change to what...Comcast...I'd rather give up the internet.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 12:56 pm

for those who haven't noticed, the service providers and content providers have been actively merging. See Comcast/NBC/etc,etc, etc.

vision · Post by **vision** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:45 pm

Spidey wrote:There’s nothing stopping these companies from raising their prices now anyway...

They are raising their prices, all the time, with no added benefit. That's why Americans pay way more for Internet service and get way less speed and coverage than the rest of the developed world.

Spidey wrote:No, it relies on a working legal system. You can’t claim the right to control content, if you are not a content provider.

These guys are trying to change the laws. That's why we are having this whole debate. This is exactly why they are pushing for a tiered Internet and why they extorted money from Netflix. You say "stop trying to fix the Internet, its not broken." Well, these guys are trying to break it and we are trying to stop them.

Spidey wrote:I said I would sue...not change providers...change to what...Comcast...I'd rather give up the internet.

You going to file that lawsuit by yourself or will the "average consumer who takes what they can get and doesn't know any better" help you? Net Neutrality legislation will make it so you don't have to sue.

Spidey wrote:I’m referring to the average consumer, that will take what they get, because they don’t know any better.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 4:51 pm

Spidey wrote:No, it relies on a working legal system. You can’t claim the right to control content, if you are not a content provider.

Perhaps you should read the fine print on your terms of service agreement, you might discover that you actually can't sue your ISP. Your only option to address a grievance with your ISP is binding arbitration managed by an arbiter who is employed by your ISP. As you may imagine, most people have not had much success with that.

Also does your ISP sell television service? Then your ISP is a "content provider", even if you personally do not subscribe to their television service.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 6:39 pm

Your mincing words, yes Verizon sells TV services, but that has no bearing on my contract with them to provide internet service.

When I say they are not a content provider, it is in context to providing internet services only. As in they are not a content provider to me. If they provide content on a Verizon website or on fiber, that is not relevant.

They have every right to control the content they offer on their fiber network, but no right to control content as a pipeline provider. As I said before, they are being paid to deliver packets from A to B…period.

As for the suing thing…yes there is such a provision, but it only pertains to things such as lose of services and that sort of thing…not any anti-trust kind of thing.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 6:56 pm

a lot of Internet content is posted at the graces of the major television content providers(at least video based content).

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:08 pm

Yes, and they have every right to control that content as they see fit.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 10:42 pm

Spidey wrote:They have every right to control the content they offer on their fiber network, but no right to control content as a pipeline provider. As I said before, they are being paid to deliver packets from A to B…period.

...except that they're already controlling the content they deliver, and want to do far more of it. Are you really that ignorant as to what's at stake here?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 1:56 am

Yes...I'm well aware of all the doom and gloom scenarios.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 12:17 pm

...how is it "doom and gloom" when it's something that already happened? Or do you believe it's okay for ISPs to extort a certain content website until they pay up big bucks?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 2:57 pm

Bandwidth pigs should be forced to pay their fair share. That is not controlling “content” that is controlling a pricing structure.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 3:08 pm

Spidey wrote:Bandwidth pigs should be forced to pay their fair share. That is not controlling “content” that is controlling a pricing structure.

That would be akin to charging all commuters a bigger fee just to use the interstate, since commuters tend to clog up the highways at certain hours. Besides, if the internet pipes were anywhere NEAR built to support the capacity, we wouldn't HAVE bandwidth pigs in the first place. Right now, certain areas of the country have what amounts to dirt roads being used like major highways.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 3:36 pm

Opps...I misread your post...

vision · Post by **vision** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 3:56 pm

Spidey wrote:Bandwidth pigs should be forced to pay their fair share.

They already pay, and so do you. The "bandwidth pigs" argument is fallacious. It's called double-dipping. Consumers and content creators just want to use the bandwidth they already pay for. And if you notice, these extraneous charges for bandwidth only apply to companies like Google, Netflix, and others who have business models that conflict with the telecom oligarchy — not websites that host P2P data, FTP archives, and server mirrors with large files. There is tons of big data out there that ISPs give no shits about because those bits are not a threat to their business plan.

Also, it's been a pleasure educating you on this subject. Earlier when I asked if you were living under a rock I was joking, but it seems you really haven't been exposed to the problems of mega-corporations and the damage the are doing to the Internet (you know, the thing you are using right now that the US government created?).

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 4:33 pm

Makes a lot of sense...up to a point, because I have no cap on my downloads, therefore I can download all day and night if I so desired.

So yea, I guess I'm already paying for the transmission, but I doubt I pay nearly enough, if I did use the net to download 24 hours a day.

So either I pay more or they do...but yea, I will have to think about that.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 5:03 pm

Ok stop the presses…

I just realized the flaw in that argument…see I told you I would think about it.

The article said you (meaning me) are paying to send and receive, so therefore I am already paying for the traffic. (tricky tricky)

Ok. Well…Netflix is also paying to "send" and receive…correct. (note the send part, hence the flaw in the argument) In other words…the more you “send” and receive…the more you should pay.

The double dipping would have to be part of the paying for sending and receiving in the first place, not the just the examples given. Therefore the double dipping already exists. (the system is rigged from the beginning)

vision · Post by **vision** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 5:05 pm

Spidey wrote:So yea, I guess I'm already paying for the transmission, but I doubt I pay nearly enough, if I did use the net to download 24 hours a day.

You already overpay. All the "packages" that ISPs offer are just marketing BS. The price points are all artificial and based on how much they can get away with charging the average "uneducated consumer who don’t understand" technology — a technology infrastructure that for years has been subsidized by the government. In most cases you are literally paying a company to use something your tax dollars paid for. Talk about double-dipping. You pay your provider to transmit packets. You should be able to transmit as many as you want, from wherever you want, all day long. Data packets aren't like a natural resource that needs to be conservatively managed.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 5:19 pm

vision wrote:The "bandwidth pigs" argument is fallacious. It's called double-dipping.

Spidey wrote:The double dipping would have to be part of the paying for sending and receiving in the first place, not the just the examples given. Therefore the double dipping already exists. (the system is rigged from the beginning)

A decent analogy here would be phone service. Is it "double-dipping" for a phone company to charge both the caller and person being called for the same conversation?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 5:23 pm

I think I pay about 23 bucks for my connection, so I doubt I'm paying too much.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 5:25 pm

Foil wrote:
vision wrote:The "bandwidth pigs" argument is fallacious. It's called double-dipping.

Spidey wrote:The double dipping would have to be part of the paying for sending and receiving in the first place, not the just the examples given. Therefore the double dipping already exists. (the system is rigged from the beginning)
A decent analogy here would be phone service. Is it "double-dipping" for a phone company to charge both the caller and person being called for the same conversation?

If my memory serves me, back in the Bell days, the caller paid for the call. I was dumfounded when I learned I had to pay for receiving a text.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 5:46 pm

Spidey wrote:Ok. Well…Netflix is also paying to "send" and receive…correct. (note the send part, hence the flaw in the argument) In other words…the more you “send” and receive…the more you should pay.

Bandwidth pigs? So I see ISPs are trying to convince you that bandwidth on the internet is like your electric bill, which is completely wrong because bandwidth is nothing like electricity.

When you turn on your microwave, or a light bulb, or something like that, somewhere a generator has to work a little bit harder to generate the electricity that makes whatever you are doing work. Generating electricity requires a generator to consume some sort of fuel, this could be coal, natural gas, nuclear, etc, this fuel costs money to obtain because it is a finite resource. When a device you run increases your electric bill, it is because you used up more energy, meaning more fuel, your increased electric bill is paying not for the electric service, it is paying for the fuel you consume.

Bandwidth on your internet connection is sort of like voltage on your power utility, your electric company might charge different rates for different voltage services, but you can't use "too much voltage", you simply get the voltage you pay for. So then what are bandwidth hogs? If you go over some arbitrary measure of gigabytes per month you are a bandwidth hog? What exactly are you hogging then? It isn't like your downloading is consuming some sort of "data fuel" from the server at the other end (never mind that your ISP doesn't even own or operate that server). It is like your ISP is billing you for the air you breathe, only it is actually even worse than that because at least the atmosphere is a finite resource! The server can create as many copies of the data you download as it wants, data is an infinite resource so it is ridiculous and downright evil for your ISP to charge you more for downloading it!

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Feb 17, 2015 6:22 pm

Well gee…thanks for that little bit of the OBVIOUS.

Look I understand all of this…but the business needs some kind of model to base pricing on, and bandwidth is the obvious one.

Sure a simple service charge would be great, but I’m pretty sure that ship sailed long ago.