Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Johnny Divinity

Net Neutrality - This effects us all

10 posts in this topic

I'm not normally one for politics but this this does impact everyone, especially people in this industry.

 

FCC Comment expression for a free and open internet

For reference: This was air on the Last week tonight with Jon Oliver.

 

In a nut shell: ISPs (comcast, AT&T, verizon) can slow speeds down speeds(sites and services 'NETFLIX') for competitors ( google vs bing)  without oversight. This is a mjor issue that effects everyone who uses the internet.

 

That link takes you to

 

www.gofccyourself.com which is a link directly to the FCC site for expressing concerns about this issue.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, in reality, none of this means what people think it means.  <Summoning my professional side>

No normal ISP will deliberately slow traffic, that's bad business.  What they will do is prioritize (Quality of Service type rules) traffic.  As an example, Verizon will prioritize their own video service traffic over other types of traffic, but they won't go out of their way to de-prioritize Netflix for example, because they'd lose subscribers if it is found out that they do that. 

Most ISPs, because of the fear of the politics behind this, won't make any changes at all for fear of bad publicity.  After all, who in their right mind would use an ISP where Netflix doesn't work, when Netflix accounts for something like 48% of all internet traffic now?

What is happening with this story:  Political interests are trying to make the internet work like a public utility, opening it up to complete government control.  In order to garner support for this, they are pushing through the media stories like this to get everyone worked up.  This story, like most, are 99% propaganda.

Does anyone think that more government control would in any way mean "a free an open internet?"

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, FuriousWeasel said:

Now, in reality, none of this means what people think it means.  <Summoning my professional side>

No normal ISP will deliberately slow traffic, that's bad business.  What they will do is prioritize (Quality of Service type rules) traffic.  As an example, Verizon will prioritize their own video service traffic over other types of traffic, but they won't go out of their way to de-prioritize Netflix for example, because they'd lose subscribers if it is found out that they do that. 

Most ISPs, because of the fear of the politics behind this, won't make any changes at all for fear of bad publicity.  After all, who in their right mind would use an ISP where Netflix doesn't work, when Netflix accounts for something like 48% of all internet traffic now?

What is happening with this story:  Political interests are trying to make the internet work like a public utility, opening it up to complete government control.  In order to garner support for this, they are pushing through the media stories like this to get everyone worked up.  This story, like most, are 99% propaganda.

Does anyone think that more government control would in any way mean "a free an open internet?"

I think limiting the power of YUGE ISPs is a more fair internet, "free and open" is up for interpretation.

The John Oliver bit was a little bit more in depth than just ISPs throttling speed. It was also about what a tool Ajit Pai is too and how he wants to repeal Title II. Oliver's argument wasn't for more government control it was for government to maintain the control it already has under Title II. It was a fuck you to Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile etc...

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Title I and Title II are the topics at hand. Jon Oliver did a pretty good of high level overview and its way more complicated and convoluted that a segment in a TV show, but any exposure to the issue is a good one  I suppose.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll need to view the Jon Oliver piece in the coming days (it's on my DVR), but guessing the Title I and II referenced by Johnny Divinity probably references the regulations that are in place re: weird regulated vs unregulated rules of cable, telecoms in place. Lots of stories out there where depending on what is going on, the companies can plead being a public utility, so exempt from some thing and getting government money/beaks, but at same time, say they are not a public utility, so should not be bound to other regs. For example, I recall some recent stories where Verizon got government money/breaks in NY (city, state, both?) to get broadband in place in underserved areas: basically, did not get anything in place for the underserved areas, put in good service to people with money and already had service.

For cable, you get the additional bugaboo where some states/municipalities have enacted laws where the incumbent provider is the only only allowed. Condos/apartments that have an incumbent, not allowed to have anyone else.  Against state law for municipalities to implement their own internet services. And so on and so on.

I can see the argument people will make re: "that's the rules, and the companies are using the rules as can stipulated as best for their business". But as someone that is on the getting pooped on end of things and no real viable options other than Comcast, count me in on regulating internet more like a utility. Make it an even playing field, no issue with removing net neutrality, but get rid of rules where I am stuck with the incumbent, truly open competition in towns.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2017 at 3:49 PM, Admiral C said:

Free, open, secure....Santa, Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny

Oh, and don't forget the "fuck you" that the average person that pays good money to access the internet is about to get because the very smart and all seeing Donald who is going to make things better for all of the big business. The Trailer Trash has spoken and Donald was the answer. God help us all.

Ok... Rant is done, sorry to have offended or shocked anyone. But anyone who might be paying a bit of attention is probably not surprised I'm thinking!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, sparkey600 said:

Oh, and don't forget the "fuck you" that the average person that pays good money to access the internet is about to get because the very smart and all seeing Donald who is going to make things better for all of the big business. The Trailer Trash has spoken and Donald was the answer. God help us all.

Ok... Rant is done, sorry to have offended or shocked anyone. But anyone who might be paying a bit of attention is probably not surprised I'm thinking!

  zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2017 at 11:26 AM, FuriousWeasel said:

Now, in reality, none of this means what people think it means.  <Summoning my professional side>

No normal ISP will deliberately slow traffic, that's bad business.  What they will do is prioritize (Quality of Service type rules) traffic.  As an example, Verizon will prioritize their own video service traffic over other types of traffic, but they won't go out of their way to de-prioritize Netflix for example, because they'd lose subscribers if it is found out that they do that. 

Most ISPs, because of the fear of the politics behind this, won't make any changes at all for fear of bad publicity.  After all, who in their right mind would use an ISP where Netflix doesn't work, when Netflix accounts for something like 48% of all internet traffic now?

What is happening with this story:  Political interests are trying to make the internet work like a public utility, opening it up to complete government control.  In order to garner support for this, they are pushing through the media stories like this to get everyone worked up.  This story, like most, are 99% propaganda.

Does anyone think that more government control would in any way mean "a free an open internet?"

What ISP fears bad publicity? Verizon? Comcast? Centurylink? 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For now, using a VPN, Tor and maybe GPS masking makes the ISP work for their money.  Throttling speed is just something to adjust to if your plan with an ISP renders that option for them. Especially fir watching TeeVee.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0