Bye Bye, Net Neutrality...

I heard today that CA will introduce state laws for net neutrality January or February.  FCC has tried to stop states from enacting net neutrality, so it will end up in court. 

For some  real examples of Telecom companies violating net neutrality in the past:
https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

The list isn't worth much without all the info. The reports were all before the reg went into effect. How were they resolved? Did they continue in force until 2015 or were they resolved without net neutrality?

Aside from the warm fuzzy feeling that conservatives might get while they watch Obama-era consumer protections get repealed... Can any of you come up with an actual, concrete, tangible/quantifiable benefit to repealing net neutrality rules that doesn't rely on wild assumptions about the moral character of telecom CEOs?

I honestly want to know.

And you trust who, politicians and bureaucrats? China's internet is government controlled. Do you see that as the better?

Net neutrality is orthoganol to the debate of "government vs privately run infrastructure".  China heavily censors and blocks content on their networks, but a US company can do this too now.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

CAN do this. I hear a lot of fear over what MIGHT happen. Which would you rather have, a company or a government abusing you? If a company does abuse you, you can do business elsewhere. If the government abuses you where can you go? I hope you all realize that when you put the government in charge of the internet you put Trump in charge of your internet. If you want the government in charge of your business remember that the next guy they elect might not be the guy you want in charge of your business.

It *is* large corporations ruling the government already, the idea that being controlled by corporations is better than being controlled by the government is silly. It's the same thing.

Net Neutrality was something that benefits the people, not the government or corporation. It didn't put the government in charge of the internet any more than the First Amendment put the government in charge of what you can or can not say.

Aside from the warm fuzzy feeling that conservatives might get while they watch Obama-era consumer protections get repealed... Can any of you come up with an actual, concrete, tangible/quantifiable benefit to repealing net neutrality rules that doesn't rely on wild assumptions about the moral character of telecom CEOs?

I honestly want to know.

And you trust who, politicians and bureaucrats? China's internet is government controlled. Do you see that as the better?

Net neutrality is orthoganol to the debate of "government vs privately run infrastructure".  China heavily censors and blocks content on their networks, but a US company can do this too now.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

CAN do this. I hear a lot of fear over what MIGHT happen. Which would you rather have, a company or a government abusing you? If a company does abuse you, you can do business elsewhere. If the government abuses you where can you go? I hope you all realize that when you put the government in charge of the internet you put Trump in charge of your internet. If you want the government in charge of your business remember that the next guy they elect might not be the guy you want in charge of your business.

I think I get what you’re trying to say. You’re really worried about government overreach. That’s about where your arguement stops making sense to me. You frame this as if enacting net neutrality rules amounts to the government “abusing” me. I view it as the government PROTECTING what I see as my right to access all things on the internet at equal speeds and without any preferencial treatment for any content providers. I see this as the government PROTECTING MY FREEDOM to chose which content I want to consume, rather than allowing telecom corporations make that decision for me. This is pretty much the polar opposite of censorship, since it’s basically forcing all content to be treated equally.

Enacting net neutrality rules is not “putting trump in charge of the internet”. Thats just not how it works.

Aside from the warm fuzzy feeling that conservatives might get while they watch Obama-era consumer protections get repealed... Can any of you come up with an actual, concrete, tangible/quantifiable benefit to repealing net neutrality rules that doesn't rely on wild assumptions about the moral character of telecom CEOs?

I honestly want to know.

And you trust who, politicians and bureaucrats? China's internet is government controlled. Do you see that as the better?

Net neutrality is orthoganol to the debate of "government vs privately run infrastructure".  China heavily censors and blocks content on their networks, but a US company can do this too now.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

CAN do this. I hear a lot of fear over what MIGHT happen. Which would you rather have, a company or a government abusing you? If a company does abuse you, you can do business elsewhere. If the government abuses you where can you go? I hope you all realize that when you put the government in charge of the internet you put Trump in charge of your internet. If you want the government in charge of your business remember that the next guy they elect might not be the guy you want in charge of your business.

I understand your argument, the problem in this case is you need a competitive market of ISPs to choose from in order to find a better business.  If you go outside of the Bay area it's pretty common to have 1 maybe 2 provider choices, so you can't really choose a better company.  I experienced this in New Mexico where my choices were Comcast.... And Comcast.  The FCC looked at broadband in the US (see attached) and for 25mbps 30% of the population has 0 providers with 40+% having only 1.  The companies haven't stepped up because it's not profitable to them. 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Aside from the warm fuzzy feeling that conservatives might get while they watch Obama-era consumer protections get repealed... Can any of you come up with an actual, concrete, tangible/quantifiable benefit to repealing net neutrality rules that doesn't rely on wild assumptions about the moral character of telecom CEOs?

I honestly want to know.

And you trust who, politicians and bureaucrats? China's internet is government controlled. Do you see that as the better?

Net neutrality is orthoganol to the debate of "government vs privately run infrastructure".  China heavily censors and blocks content on their networks, but a US company can do this too now.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

CAN do this. I hear a lot of fear over what MIGHT happen. Which would you rather have, a company or a government abusing you? If a company does abuse you, you can do business elsewhere. If the government abuses you where can you go? I hope you all realize that when you put the government in charge of the internet you put Trump in charge of your internet. If you want the government in charge of your business remember that the next guy they elect might not be the guy you want in charge of your business.

The argument of Trump vs. Corporations controlling the media isn't as clear cut as you're making it though. Follow the money and you'll see that those deliniations are in name only. As much as this change MAY impact internet censorship, we're also seeing other media mergers right now that also potentially narrow the spectrum of available media like Disney/21st Century Fox (including Fox News). Rupert Murdoch, a close friend of Trump, stands to benefit greatly from this acquisition. Likewise, we're seeing the Trump administration get involved to block the ATT/Time Warner (including CNN) merger from taking place. This isn't an anti-Trump take either, it's simply illustrating how blurred some of these lines are becoming.

My point is, under the various iterations of net neutrality (not just since 2015, but the many small steps taken since the 1990's), the internet worked well for everyone. The ISPs were making money and consumers had equal access to fast internet. Aside from allowing ISP's to make even more money through tiered/packaged internet (see Portugal's internet system), how will this benefit the consumer ? This really feels like the current "top-down" tax debate going on -  hoping that corporations "do the right thing." For reference, shortly after the FCC vote, Comcast removed language from their website promising to treat all internet traffic equally.

It *is* large corporations ruling the government already, the idea that being controlled by corporations is better than being controlled by the government is silly. It's the same thing.

Net Neutrality was something that benefits the people, not the government or corporation. It didn't put the government in charge of the internet any more than the First Amendment put the government in charge of what you can or can not say.

^

To the first point, the end of NN is likely the only thing that the country can agree on today in large numbers. About 83% of Americans oppose the FCC's decision, but Verizon/ AT&T/ Comcast et al. ponied up around $26million just in the past 8 months or so in lobbying efforts to make it happen.

"But yeah, they are value added resellers of AT&T copper."
 
That's exactly what I was getting at. If AT&T decides they can make more money by cutting ties with Sonic, I have no doubt that's what they'll do.

Totally agree. I actually work for a value added reseller of AT&T (and Verizon/Frontier/Century Link/Telus/Bell Canada) copper. Emphasis on copper, something all telcos want to eliminate. The main thing keeping our doors open right now is the host of long-term contracts we negotiated while copper was king. I have no doubt that without those, they'd either pull our copper when the FCC allows it, or price us out of existence.

Actually, there's more to copper and the situation you describe:  By law, copper wire is required to be the 1st back on line after some sort of disaster and as such it also is THE standard for caller locational ID (that snappy feature that allows 1st responders to see exactly where your 911 call for help is coming from).  Much of the rationale behind this law is the fact that copper wire retains analog features/functionality which enable it to remain functional, at a reduced capacity, even during a power outage due to backup gensets at the central pix stations.  The telco's are required to keep this up because it is considered an integral part of our national infrastructure. 

Yes, the various wireless operators are pushing hard to have copper wire eliminated due to their sense of it being quasi-redundant and onerous to maintain, however, their digital wireless systems do not and will not have the capability to do what copper wire does, and therefore we should all be very interested in keeping it around for reasons of our own personal security.

Should we all have equal access to fast shipping? Should UPS and FedX be required to provide the same speed to all customers for the same monthly charge? Does Amazon pay the same mount to ship all of its packages as I do? Of course not. It uses more and pays more. If you want priority overnight shipping should you pay more for it? If you want your video data to get priority over email data should you pay more fore it?

It seems as though the arguments get to blame business for everything. Everything they do and everything the government does. After all business owns the government so the laws and regs are their fault.

Sure monopolies or limited competition is a problem. Big business uses government power to stifle competition. The more government is divested from regulating business the more competition is possible.

We get back to the question. Should private parties be allowed to control privately owned equipment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Notice it doesn't say that people or corporations shall not abridge the freedom of speech. That's because if the government does it you have no way around it. If a business does it you can take your business elsewhere. Do you have the right to go into a McDonald's and start preaching a sermon? Does the business have the right to limit your speech? Do they have the right to change ingredients or portion sizes without notice? The beauty of a free market (not government over regulated crony capitalism) is that you have the right to shop elsewhere. You shouldn't want government to force business to change to your liking. There is always the next election when the other guy is in charge and does the opposite.

If you really want net neutrality, the answer is a truly free market and an educated engaged consumer.

Kim Komando wrote this about net neutrality and I think it pretty much sums up the situation;

As you are no doubt aware, the FCC voted 3-2 on Thursday, to repeal the 2 1/2-year-old Net Neutrality rules. I’ll admit that the coined phrase, “Net Neutrality” certainly sounded good.

The words invoked images of a perfect world. You know, where there's a fair and free market and open internet. Where there's a neutral level playing field so that anyone anywhere could cook up an idea and run with it and no one could put up any barriers to get in their way.

The Washington name game

Like most legislation coming out of Washington, the name didn't really reflect what the law would have done. Here’s a case in point: Ask yourself, “Where was the internet 25 years ago in 1992?” For the most part, it did not exist!

OK, then ask yourself how in the world did it become the all-pervasive, everywhere at once, information, education, communications, entertainment, shopping and commerce giant that it is today? Was it because of early so-called Net Neutrality? Well, of course not. In fact, most agree that the internet is what it is precisely because the government did NOT interfere.

It did not regulate, oversee, act as traffic cop or playground teacher. For the government, it was strictly, HANDS OFF. And we created the freest and fair marketplace in history, allowing consumers to choose the winners and losers in a competitive marketplace.

This resulted in the best ideas, products and services rising to the top. The internet thrived, business competition soared. New business opportunities became possible, think eBay, VRBO, Amazon, the list is endless. Everyone benefitted because the playing field was level. Anyone could come. And everyone DID come.

The internet became a place where anyone could do virtually anything and make money. Free speech abounded. Every viewpoint was clamoring to be heard. Suddenly, people of both sides of the political fence began coming up with ways and ideas to silence those on the OTHER side of the fence. Lots of ideas were floated including an internet “use tax” or licensing websites the same way they license radio and TV stations.
What's the "Net Neutrality" fight really about?

A few years ago, someone cooked up a coined phrase “Net Neutrality.” Who couldn’t be for a neutral internet? It played especially well with recent college graduates, ahhh the Millennials, who were not around for the beginning of the internet to be firsthand witnesses of how its level playing field grew from nothing.

The fight over net neutrality was never about a level digital playing field, although that’s what its advocates continue to claim. Its real purpose was to prohibit something called “paid prioritization.” Paid prioritization is the technical term used to describe an agreement between a content provider and a network owner to allow the provider’s data to travel on less-congested routes in exchange for an agreed-upon fee.

When networks are clogged with data during high-traffic times, prioritization agreements allow consumers to receive requested data faster. Netflix and other high-volume content providers have already begun negotiating such deals. All kinds of data including emails, cat videos, that Instagram photo of your sandwich, travel over the internet but some data types are more tolerant of delays or temporary congestion.

For instance, the bits comprising an email don’t need to arrive at a recipient’s computer all in the same order they were sent. Other kinds of data, primarily video, are less tolerant of delays. Receiving the data bits in the wrong order or at the wrong time can cause distortions, stutters and other playback problems.
You get what you pay for

If they choose to do so, content companies like Hulu and Netflix can choose to pay ISPs a little bit extra to have their content bits delivered to consumers faster than some other company, such as Amazon. Very NOT neutral, but necessary.

To prohibit it harms consumers in the name of helping them. Lost in the translation is this inconvenient fact: We’ve always had to pay for faster service! If you wanted faster service, you had to buy more bandwidth. Net Neutrality’s real name was FCC 15-24, a radical departure from the market-oriented policies that have served us so well for the last two decades.

Did we have evidence that the internet is not open? No. Did we discover some problem with our prior interpretation of the law? No. What happened was that despite 25 years of working just fine, the former FCC wanted to help large content providers like Amazon, Google, Twitter and Netflix gain leverage against traditional cable companies. So-called net neutrality would have prevented upgrading for better service.

ISPs would have been forced to treat all data alike, ignoring the different needs of the various kinds of data traveling over the internet. It stuck your favorite Netflix stream on the same slow road as your least-favorite email from work.

It would have prevented the data you want from getting to you when you want it and how you want it. Under the benign-sounding “Net Neutrality” campaign, BIG TECH companies like Google, Amazon, Yahoo would be able to censor the internet to suit their ideological preferences, ridding the internet of conservative and libertarian content.
Google's role in it all

Google was especially vested, as the tech giant helped write the 2015 net neutrality rules and Google, YouTube, Amazon, Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook and the others were trying to assume a kind of moral high-ground, to control the flow of data.

“Net Neutrality” would have given the Federal Government and big tech the power to choose winners and losers online, in an egregiously partisan manner. “Net Neutrality” said nothing about neutrality and everything about governmental control and nepotistic picking of favorites, which is the very opposite of neutrality.

Actually, there's more to copper and the situation you describe:  By law, copper wire is required to be the 1st back on line after some sort of disaster and as such it also is THE standard for caller locational ID (that snappy feature that allows 1st responders to see exactly where your 911 call for help is coming from).  Much of the rationale behind this law is the fact that copper wire retains analog features/functionality which enable it to remain functional, at a reduced capacity, even during a power outage due to backup gensets at the central pix stations.  The telco's are required to keep this up because it is considered an integral part of our national infrastructure. 

Yes, the various wireless operators are pushing hard to have copper wire eliminated due to their sense of it being quasi-redundant and onerous to maintain, however, their digital wireless systems do not and will not have the capability to do what copper wire does, and therefore we should all be very interested in keeping it around for reasons of our own personal security.

Agreed, and thanks for mentioning this.

I'm actually bummed to have been priced out of a POTS line for my house by AT&T because of the reasons you cite (self-powered, address-specific 911 services, etc).

I love copper lines, both professionally and personally. Hell, I've got 1 pushbutton and 2 rotary phones live at home (via uverse).

I'll drop out of the thread as I'm way off topic.

Great inclusion, Jerry.  thanks.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Bushy

Yeah they’ll make you pay more for your porn. Could control your access to everything. It’s tooooootal bullshit.
Note: https://boingboing.net/2017/10/28/warning-taken-as-suggestion.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah they’ll make you pay more for your porn. Could control your access to everything. It’s tooooootal bullshit.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aaaaawwww hellll naaaaaaaaaa!!!!

Wait a minute you pay for porn! PM BigJim he knows all the free sites!

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Bushy

I read through almost all four pages and came away with a bit of understanding for both sides..then came upon this quote ....first time I have laughed all week...Thanks Bushy..I needed that !!