FCC Passes Net Neutrality

[wizards8507]

What in the hell are you talking about?

I believe he's talking about the fundamental similarities between content delivered via the internet and content delivered via cable television. It's a small step from "net neutrality" to "TV neutrality," as articulated most recently by Mark Cuban.

Either that or he's conflating net neutrality with the fairness doctrine.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

All that is fine and dandy when it comes to streaming your Netflix, but it completely ignores everything else on the Internet OTHER THAN Netflix. Now that Netflix has a free pass to "clog the pipes," and as web-based video content continues to grow, every single other thing you do on the internet BESIDES Netflix will be slowed down. Net neutrality prevents Comcast from screwing Netflix by ensuring that Netflix has the ability to screw everyone else.

One thing, you apparently have no knowlege or understanding of modern technology.

I believe he's talking about the fundamental similarities between content delivered via the internet and content delivered via cable television. It's a small step from "net neutrality" to "TV neutrality," as articulated most recently by Mark Cuban.

Either that or he's conflating net neutrality with the fairness doctrine.

Triple word score for using conflating in a post and in the correct context! May the words be with you!

 

[wizards8507]

One thing, you apparently have no knowlege or understanding of modern technology.

"Bandwidth" isn't that difficult a concept. Netflix has the power to, essentially, cause the entire Internet to buffer.

House of Cards caused a massive hole in total internet bandwidth - Business Insider

 

[woolybug25]

"Bandwidth" isn't that difficult a concept. Netflix has the power to, essentially, cause the entire Internet to buffer.

House of Cards caused a massive hole in total internet bandwidth - Business Insider

and you would rather give up the free use of public domain to a corporation so they can choose who, how and for what cost they offer the internet.

God forbid companies themselves have to pay for their own technology to deliver the product they want to bring to the market. Haven't we done enough for the Comcast's of the world by providing their entire infrastructure through our tax dollars (I know that is new to you since our last conversation)?

Just because Comcast feels Netflix is using too much bandwidth doesn't give them the right to control the entire access to the web.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

"Bandwidth" isn't that difficult a concept. Netflix has the power to, essentially, cause the entire Internet to buffer.

House of Cards caused a massive hole in total internet bandwidth - Business Insider

We agree on one thing. The internet is not being managed by anyone more perfect than ourselves!

I could tell you tech stories from my day, before and into the rapid growth of the first decade of the internet. Stories about the best and brightest, engineering in single points of failure, creating bottle necks, and using the least effective equipment, made by companies with the most effective sales pitch, and hot female sales "associates."

And about bandwidth; just because my kid is in the middle of a massive growth spurt, eats like a horse, and often takes a dump like one, (or maybe even an elephant), doesn't mean I feel the need to go out and increase the size of my sewer plumbing. That is the essence of a "clogged bandwidth" argument.

The problems with this are as follows; technology is still increasing at a blistering rate. First example. Neighbors built a house across the street in 2001. He was a VP with the Glass Worker's Union. They moved "Fats" up from Shreveport, LA, to handle negotiations and oversee mothballing every fiber-optics facility in America. Why?

In the length of time it took investors to build factories to produce fiber-optic cable, sending and receiving technology increased so fast that 100k to 1M more transmissions could be made on the same fiber. Turns out, by the time these productions facilities hit high gear, we had a two hundred year supply of cable, due to rapid increases in technology. So where the "clogged" argument first fails is that internet traffic shares the same "constant mass/volume" feature as sewage. It does not. The smell test should be your first indicator that an analogy between the two may not be true.

Secondly, though the internet and components are designed by rocket scientists, the implementation, maintenance and etc., is not. We could talk about a hundred conversations that could yield empirical data that pieces of our networks are run by the lowest cost solution. And the cost of that sacrifice is the dynamism and robust nature that could be the internet. The savings is a couple of dollars more for people that own yachts and summer homes already.

The most interesting piece of this is the history of the generational improvements to what is called Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol. It is a study of something that could have been opened to save gazillions of dollars and provide a faster, more robust internet, but has been throttled at every turn by the big-money decider's.

 

[Rizzophil]

Comcast is owned by NBC. NBC is the lapdog / doctrine pusher for the liberal agenda. They get what they want.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Oh and the graph showing the Comcast squeze is exactly what I am talking about, and pretty complementary to my point.

 

[wizards8507]

and you would rather give up the free use of public domain to a corporation so they can choose who, how and for what cost they offer the internet.

God forbid companies themselves have to pay for their own technology to deliver the product they want to bring to the market. Haven't we done enough for the Comcast's of the world by providing their entire infrastructure through our tax dollars (I know that is new to you since our last conversation)?

Just because Comcast feels Netflix is using too much bandwidth doesn't give them the right to control the entire access to the web.

Comcast wouldn't be controlling access to the web. They'd be controlling the access-to-the-web-VIA-Comcast. Comcast can't stop me from going to Verizon or Time Warner or whoever else if I'm not happy with what they charge. If I have a fuel oil delivery company with a policy that I charge double to deliver outside of a 10-mile radius, I'm not controlling access to fuel oil. I'm just controlling who gets fuel oil FROM ME. I'm not the only provider of fuel oil. Just because Comcast CAN charge whatever they want, doesn't mean A) they will, or B) people will pay it. Competition and the free market will take care of that.

I don't see how us subsidizing their infrastructure plays into the current discussion. That's a sunk cost and rational actors do not consider sunk costs. I can't believe I need such a juvenile argument here but it's as simple as "two wrongs don't make a right." Obviously, if I had it my way, we would have never paid those subsidies in the first place.

Yes, Comcast should have to pay for their own infrastructure and then they should be able to charge whatever they want to whomever they want for the use thereof. If companies can't lay down their own infrastructure and stay profitable, then the obvious answer is that we're below the equilibrium price for Internet service.

 

[pkt77242]

Comcast is owned by NBC. NBC is the lapdog / doctrine pusher for the liberal agenda. They get what they want.

LOL. I suggest you actually learn something about the topic before posting. Comcast did not want net neutrality, so they did not get what they wanted but you can go along believing whatever you want.

 

[IrishLion]

Comcast wouldn't be controlling access to the web. They'd be controlling the access-to-the-web-VIA-Comcast. Comcast can't stop me from going to Verizon or Time Warner or whoever else if I'm not happy with what they charge. If I have a fuel oil delivery company with a policy that I charge double to deliver outside of a 10-mile radius, I'm not controlling access to fuel oil. I'm just controlling who gets fuel oil FROM ME. I'm not the only provider of fuel oil. Just because Comcast CAN charge whatever they want, doesn't mean A) they will, or B) people will pay it. Competition and the free market will take care of that.

That's a big part of the problem, though, right? There are many, many areas in the country where people only have one option if they want cable/internet.

Or am I misunderstanding something badly?

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

We agree on one thing. The internet is not being managed by anyone more perfect than ourselves!

I could tell you tech stories from my day, before and into the rapid growth of the first decade of the internet. Stories about the best and brightest, engineering in single points of failure, creating bottle necks, and using the least effective equipment, made by companies with the most effective sales pitch, and hot female sales "associates."

And about bandwidth; just because my kid is in the middle of a massive growth spurt, eats like a horse, and often takes a dump like one, (or maybe even an elephant), doesn't mean I feel the need to go out and increase the size of my sewer plumbing. That is the essence of a "clogged bandwidth" argument.

The problems with this are as follows; technology is still increasing at a blistering rate. First example. Neighbors built a house across the street in 2001. He was a VP with the Glass Worker's Union. They moved "Fats" up from Shreveport, LA, to handle negotiations and oversee mothballing every fiber-optics facility in America. Why?

In the length of time it took investors to build factories to produce fiber-optic cable, sending and receiving technology increased so fast that 100k to 1M more transmissions could be made on the same fiber. Turns out, by the time these productions facilities hit high gear, we had a two hundred year supply of cable, due to rapid increases in technology. So where the "clogged" argument first fails is that internet traffic shares the same "constant mass/volume" feature as sewage. It does not. The smell test should be your first indicator that an analogy between the two may not be true.

Secondly, though the internet and components are designed by rocket scientists, the implementation, maintenance and etc., is not. We could talk about a hundred conversations that could yield empirical data that pieces of our networks are run by the lowest cost solution. And the cost of that sacrifice is the dynamism and robust nature that could be the internet. The savings is a couple of dollars more for people that own yachts and summer homes already.

The most interesting piece of this is the history of the generational improvements to what is called Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol. It is a study of something that could have been opened to save gazillions of dollars and provide a faster, more robust internet, but has been throttled at every turn by the big-money decider's.

Oh and the graph showing the Comcast squeze is exactly what I am talking about, and pretty complementary to my point.

Boom, boggy dropping knowledge and it's VDP approved

 

[IrishLion]

In all seriousness, how is this any different than IrishEnvy providing higher quality service to those of us who paid to be Varsity Club members?

IrishEnvy is IrishEnvy, and that charge affects just IrishEnvy.

Comcast is Comcast. Comcast is not the internet. It shouldn't hold sway over total internet usage.

 

[wizards8507]

That's a big part of the problem, though, right? There are many, many areas in the country where people only have one option if they want cable/internet.

Or am I misunderstanding something badly?

Nope, that's exactly the problem and net neutrality does nothing to fix it. I'd be completely open to plans that tore down the regional monopolies of the telecom companies. Net neutrality does not.

In all reality, this entire argument is obsolete once the mobile networks develop and roll out the 5G network (whatever that looks like).

 

[IrishLion]

Nope, that's exactly the problem and net neutrality does nothing to fix it. I'd be completely open to plans that tore down the regional monopolies of the telecom companies. Net neutrality does not.

Okay, so while searching for a "solution," cable companies would essentially be able to charge whatever they want for whatever services they want, and you think that's a good alternative?

 

[IrishLion]

By the way, I truly am out of my depth here. I don't have nearly the amount of political/economic/etc. knowledge that many of you have.

So in my efforts to question things, if I'm sounding like a truly ignorant moron, someone PM me and let me know in a gentle way.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Nope, that's exactly the problem and net neutrality does nothing to fix it. I'd be completely open to plans that tore down the regional monopolies of the telecom companies. Net neutrality does not.

In all reality, this entire argument is obsolete once the mobile networks develop and roll out the 5G network (whatever that looks like).

Thank you for adding to my "technology" trumps current limitations argument!

Please see more about the future of technology, including addressing and protocal. About TCP/IP.

 

[GoIrish41]

Yes, I really believe it's bad, and it's not a pragmatic argument about whether I like Comcast or that they got subsidies. It's a principled argument that says we ought not allow regulators to tell a business how to run itself unless absolutely necessary.

In all seriousness, how is this any different than IrishEnvy providing higher quality service to those of us who paid to be Varsity Club members?

Irish Envy is not the public utility that access to the Internet has become. How would you feel about paying higher costs to have cleaner watercome out of your tap than your neighbors?

 

[wizards8507]

Okay, so while searching for a "solution," cable companies would essentially be able to charge whatever they want for whatever services they want, and you think that's a good alternative?

They can STILL charge whatever they want even with net neutrality, just as long as they screw everyone equally.

Without net neutrality: Power users pay more to be power users
With net neutrality: EVERYONE pays more to subsidize power users

Irish Envy is not the public utility that access to the Internet has become. How would you feel about paying higher costs to have cleaner watercome out of your tap than your neighbors?

Not buying it. Internet is not drinking water, nor heat, nor electricity, nor sewage.

 

[GoIrish41]

They can STILL charge whatever they want even with net neutrality, just as long as they screw everyone equally.

Without net neutrality: Power users pay more to be power users
With net neutrality: EVERYONE pays more to subsidize power users

You described Netflix as such a "power user" in previous posts. However, Netflix only offers the services and individual consumers access their content. Are you suggesting that those individual consumers are also "power users?" Where does it end? Everything on the Internet could become almost a fee-for-service proposition, and the big winners are those who control the "pipes."

 

[wizards8507]

You described Netflix as such a "power user" in previous posts. However, Netflix only offers the services and individual consumers access their content. Are you suggesting that those individual consumers are also "power users?" Where does it end? Everything on the Internet could become almost a fee-for-service proposition, and the big winners are those who control the "pipes."

What's more fair than fee-for-service? Net neutrality is the equivalent of calling gasoline a public utility and charging everyone $200 per month for unlimited fuel, regardless of whether you're an 18-wheeler that fills up twice a day or a grandma's Prius that fills up twice per month.

 

[Rizzophil]

LOL. I suggest you actually learn something about the topic before posting. Comcast did not want net neutrality, so they did not get what they wanted but you can go along believing whatever you want.

Correction. Comcast was against the net rules

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

What's more fair than fee-for-service? Net neutrality is the equivalent of calling gasoline a public utility and charging everyone $200 per month for unlimited fuel, regardless of whether you're an 18-wheeler that fills up twice a day or a grandma's Prius that fills up twice per month.

Your allegories conflate the end user with the content provider. Net neutrality would apply to refineries in that hypothetical.

Anyhow, what's the lesson in the broadband overload from Netflix? Comcast was faced with an issue of overloaded traffic due to users accessing a specific content provider. Prior to net neutrality Comcast had the option of slowing access to Netflix to favor their customers not using Netflix. Instead they decided to extract money from Netflix and leave the status quo of overloaded broadband. They had the opportunity to use their authority to balance access. Instead they decided to extract money in exchange for doing nothing.

What did we lose here? Comcast only had leverage over Netflix because of their vast market share. That's protecting the profitability of monopoly.

 

[GoIrish41]

They can STILL charge whatever they want even with net neutrality, just as long as they screw everyone equally.

Without net neutrality: Power users pay more to be power users
With net neutrality: EVERYONE pays more to subsidize power users


Not buying it. Internet is not drinking water, nor heat, nor electricity, nor sewage.

The world has been changed by the Internet. We could pretend that didn't happen or we could adapt to the changes it has made to our society and how it has fundamentally changed our lives. Like water, heat, electricity, and sewage, the Internet is critical to living in our modern society. In previous decades, people got their water from wells, their heat from burning wood. Electricity was not harnessed to become the critical power supply and light was provided by burning kerosine in lanterns. Individual septic systems have made way for modern sewage systems. Point is that none of these things were utilities in the past, but they have become indispensible in modern society. The same is true of access to the Internet. So, whether you are buying it or not, our society continues to evolve and as it does, we organize these essential services into utilities to provide fair and equal access to everyone. Welcome to the 21st Century.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

This is a degradation of the language. Rights come from Nature and from God, not from Government. It's a dangerous game to "label" something a right. If government decides what's a right, government can also decide what's NOT a right (i.e. if they gives it, they can takes it away).

So then are you saying the internet came from the Government, not Nature or God?

Are you saying that the Internet is its own thing. Separate from anything else? Or is it an extension of our ability to speak freely, voice our own opinion, or create a public gathering, safe from inclement weather?

Most people I know, see the Internet as an extension of human rights, and a facilitator of said franchise. As things change, a robust debate is needed, because all of those things that are created, that are essential to providing a basic right can themselves be considered a right.

Take a look at cruel and unusual punishment. It was considered good form to hang a man for stealing a horse until about a century after our Founding Fathers first identified our basic human rights within documents we so cherish.

Likewise, Separation of Church and State. The Founding Fathers intended it, Thomas Jefferson banished the most repressive Penal Laws passed upon this continent, (from the earliest days of the charter of the Va. Commonwealth.)

Now we name these things. What about clean drinking water in Detroit, or elsewhere? Is it a right? Or was our country founded on a principle of creating a great infrastructure that provided an unparalleled quality of life, but would be limited to those only that would or could pay for it on a monthly basis?

Be careful with all of this. Logical points could win out, one right after another, to the cost of us losing our own humanity.

 

[Woneone]

What's more fair than fee-for-service? Net neutrality is the equivalent of calling gasoline a public utility and charging everyone $200 per month for unlimited fuel, regardless of whether you're an 18-wheeler that fills up twice a day or a grandma's Prius that fills up twice per month.

You have this backwards.

Netflix and content providers arn't the 18-wheelers. I am. You are. Customers are. And you know what? I DO pay more for my internet than you do. Or at least, I pay for better internet. I'm sure of it (I pay more than most for higher rates).

Using your analogy, I paid the price of an 18-wheeler. You paid for your Hyundai Sonata. Now, do you also get to charge my destination for the price of gas? No, you don't. You don't get to double-dip.

Netflix is delivering content (via their CDN's) to ISP customers. IF, for example, a Netflix CDN, oh, let's say Level3, uses a, let's go with Comcast network to deliver Verizon customers content, then they should be able to charge more. This is called basically peering, and they already do this. But this isn't what we're discussing. We're discussing the delivery of content to THEIR OWN CUSTOMERS.

As Level3 said at the time, Comcast is putting up a toll-booth to deliver content to their customers, when their customers already paid the toll.

But they bill me, a customer, who pays my bill for an agreed upon service, and then the content provider whom I've requested content from, using my agreed upon service. That's double-dipping, and it's wrong.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

"Regulation bad! Market forces good!" is no less idiotically dogmatic than "Corporations bad! Government good!"

So then are you saying the internet came from the Government, not Nature or God?

It came from Al Gore, didn't it? Also, pants. He may have invented pants, too.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Simple question for you all.

If Netflix represents a disproportionate amount of content, and the growth of said content is forcing expansion of networks to ensure speed of delivery remains constant, why should Comcast shoulder the burden of that cost (which, really is the users of Comcast, not the company since it will just raise fees on the end user)?

I liken it to a housing development (at least the way it worked for me and my house). When sewers and water lines need expanded to reach a new property, the developer will pay for those costs and pass them along to the homebuyers. Comcast was doing just that. As content grew, it went to those who were supplying said content and told them they need to pay for the expansion. Under the new rules, everyone will pay for it. So back to the housing analogy, it's not just the new homebuyers who pay for it, but the entire municipality. Does that sound good to you?

 

[GoIrish41]

Be more specific.

Free and fair access to elections: Good
Anti-discrimination laws for public institutions: Good
Anti-discrimination laws for private institutions: Bad

ETA: Specifically federal anti-discrimination laws. Individual communities can do a fine job setting standards for themselves.

Yes, just look at Ferguson, MO, as an example of how well this can work.

 

[wizards8507]

Yes, just look at Ferguson, MO, as an example of how well this can work.

That would be discrimination by public institutions (the police), of which I support laws preventing.

Things that PRIVATE entities could be forced to do by anti-discrimination laws:

• Jewish deli forced to cater for neo-Nazi event
• Catholic Church forced to ordain female priests
• Christian baker forced to make cake for gay wedding
• Gay bar owner forced to admit patron wearing "I hate fags" t-shirt
• Black-owned restaurant forced to cater Klan banquet

 

[connor_in]

"Regulation bad! Market forces good!" is no less idiotically dogmatic than "Corporations bad! Government good!"



It came from Al Gore, didn't it? Also, pants. He may have invented pants, too.