The end of Net Neutrality?

[connor_in]

Nationalize free netflix!

FIFY

 

[ulukinatme]

 

[ulukinatme]

 

[ACamp1900]

Lol

 

[ACamp1900]

I mean, I’d fuck him...

 

[irishog77]

I mean, I’d fuck him...

The end of net neutrality hasn't slowed ACamp's Grinder conquests one bit.

 

[ulukinatme]

I mean, I’d fuck him...

...And water is wet

I wouldn't touch him with Wooly's mom's strap on.

 

[ulukinatme]

Ha!

For reference: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...ount-liked-on-twitter-finds-huge-new-audience

 

[phgreek]

Holy hell...I had a long day...just sat down and started reading...

I was thinking...I bet folks on the neutrality side of this argument are exacerbated...

...scrolled to this...spit fresca on my keyboard. Timing is everything. Tried to rep...need to spread the love...funny though.

 

[Irish YJ]

The beauty of trickle down economics. End users get pissed on.

I wouldn't call this trickle down economics. I'd call up Lobby Up economics.

The Netflix customer SHOULD be charged.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

Horse shit. The carriers make plenty already not giving people what they sell them.

The price increase is going to get to us eventually either way. It's just a question of whether your broadband bill goes up or your Netflix bill goes up. It's the same difference.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

There is no need for a price increase. Creating a fast lane for select media only creates another line of revenue for carriers without them providing anything new, anything innovative, or anything better.

^ except you (the customer) don't actually pay for certain speeds. You pay for speeds "up to" certain speeds. I pay for Xfinity Blast, which is "up to" 200 Mbps. It's not a guarantee that I get it, and I never do.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

The "up to" line is nothing but small print BS. They don't tell you "up to" when they are selling you. They don't tell you "up to" when they are modeling your recommended speed. They don't tell you "up to" when you're in a neighborhood that's already maxed or taxing the local (neighborhood) boxes or COs. I paid for 50meg for over a year before I found I would never get more than 15meg because the neighborhood was already oversubscribed and there would never be a situation where I wasn't throttled down.

yes and no...I see it as a better scenario for the consumer if Netflix has to pay infrastructure costs to support/expand their business model because I can choose not to watch/subscribe...I cannot reasonably choose to forgo the "Utility". What should really happen is an SLA that prevents Comcast from selling me data rates "up to", and force them to maintain a floor of the service I pay for.

Businesses like Netflix for the most part pay for guaranteed/dedicated bandwidth, which is different than the "up to" model for consumers. The consumer network is the issues. Basically the carriers will sell fast lane prioritization through the consumer "up to" network which only slows all other traffic down. It's not like the carriers will build out anything new or better.

Exactly. Government intervention failed then, and actually made the problem worse.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

Worked for the largest carrier from 92-2008. Gov intervention had nothing to do with any failure. Some carriers made good choices, others did not. Regardless, they still lined their pockets. Killing NN will only allow them a new line of revenue for doing nothing.

The end of net neutrality hasn't slowed ACamp's Grinder conquests one bit.

Or Wiz's subscription to Disney-like anime porn.

 

[GATTACA!]

I agree with Ethan. The bigger issue no one is talking about is NUT neutrality.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5uXsCaakZD8" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Woneone]

I agree that the killing of NN is bad, but this over-the-top rhetoric by some is annoying.

I wonder, if you polled your everyday users, when they would guess "Net Neutrality" actually came into existence. My guess if answer D was "It was in place when the Internet first came into existence", 90% would answer D.

The Internet existed before (and flourished with thousands of new start-ups) and it will continue to do so.

It's just there was no real legitimate reason to repeal it. It fixed some issues, most of which end-users never even realized existed.

 

[Irish YJ]

I agree that the killing of NN is bad, but this over-the-top rhetoric by some is annoying.

I wonder, if you polled your everyday users, when they would guess "Net Neutrality" actually came into existence. My guess if answer D was "It was in place when the Internet first came into existence", 90% would answer D.

The Internet existed before (and flourished with thousands of new start-ups) and it will continue to do so.

It's just there was no real legitimate reason to repeal it. It fixed some issues, most of which end-users never even realized existed.

Most users are ignorant of it. I would however bet in 5 years, most users will know. Here are two reasons why....

1. The carriers are trying to get into the content (entertainment) business. You've seen this with Comcast and and AT&T going after Time Warner, AT&T launching their own TV station and shows, and a lot of other acquisitions and other ventures. Who cares right? Well now the carriers have more motive to slow down competition like Netflix or Amazon to encourage consumption of their own content. So now, Netflix is disadvantaged out of the gate, and will likely pay through the teeth to stream at speeds on par with the carrier's entertainment.

2. Streaming entertainment is obviously growing by leaps and bounds, and it's about ready to take a big jump as TV service over the internet matures and takes off. You already see it on a small scale with Sling, DirecTV Now, and many others. Even Comcast is going to allow TV via app shortly. When the choice and feature set catch up with TV over the internet, cable boxes and dishes will be no more. That means bandwidth usage will double or triple. As most consumer networks are already crap, throttling will be common place unless the carriers upgrade. Upgrade, even if it did happen would be slow, so prioritization or fast lane service is now almost a necessity. The carriers will be able to fast track their own media, or throttle down the competition without any oversight. And your consumer bandwidth will likely be crap because your normal internet traffic is now stuck in the slow lane with everyone else.

Bonus... Consumer VoIP/Communications like Vonage, Facetime, Sype and others will also take a hit and be vulnerable. Prior to NN, carriers actually blocked Vonage to kill off competition to their voice services..

Anyway you look at this, the Carriers win, and the consumer will end up paying more and suffering with lower speeds.

 

[SonofOahu]

I wouldn't call this trickle down economics. I'd call up Lobby Up economics.



Horse shit. The carriers make plenty already not giving people what they sell them.



There is no need for a price increase. Creating a fast lane for select media only creates another line of revenue for carriers without them providing anything new, anything innovative, or anything better.



The "up to" line is nothing but small print BS. They don't tell you "up to" when they are selling you. They don't tell you "up to" when they are modeling your recommended speed. They don't tell you "up to" when you're in a neighborhood that's already maxed or taxing the local (neighborhood) boxes or COs. I paid for 50meg for over a year before I found I would never get more than 15meg because the neighborhood was already oversubscribed and there would never be a situation where I wasn't throttled down.



Businesses like Netflix for the most part pay for guaranteed/dedicated bandwidth, which is different than the "up to" model for consumers. The consumer network is the issues. Basically the carriers will sell fast lane prioritization through the consumer "up to" network which only slows all other traffic down. It's not like the carriers will build out anything new or better.



Worked for the largest carrier from 92-2008. Gov intervention had nothing to do with any failure. Some carriers made good choices, others did not. Regardless, they still lined their pockets. Killing NN will only allow them a new line of revenue for doing nothing.



Or Wiz's subscription to Disney-like anime porn.

It's really weird being on the same side of an argument as you. It's almost like cats and dogs getting married.

 

[Irish YJ]

It's really weird being on the same side of an argument as you. It's almost like cats and dogs getting married.

Like I've said, I'm never going to make myself fit into any DC created party platform. I'm not left or right. I could be either depending on the issue. F DC and the party system. And F the politicians lining their pockets with carrier lobby money. And F Trump for putting that dick weed Pai in place. I don't care if they are Reps or Dems, they all suck.

BTW,,, my mom's dog and cats got along swimmingly. doesn't fit the narrative, does it

 

[Woneone]

Most users are ignorant of it. I would however bet in 5 years, most users will know. Here are two reasons why....

1. The carriers are trying to get into the content (entertainment) business. You've seen this with Comcast and and AT&T going after Time Warner, AT&T launching their own TV station and shows, and a lot of other acquisitions and other ventures. Who cares right? Well now the carriers have more motive to slow down competition like Netflix or Amazon to encourage consumption of their own content. So now, Netflix is disadvantaged out of the gate, and will likely pay through the teeth to stream at speeds on par with the carrier's entertainment.

2. Streaming entertainment is obviously growing by leaps and bounds, and it's about ready to take a big jump as TV service over the internet matures and takes off. You already see it on a small scale with Sling, DirecTV Now, and many others. Even Comcast is going to allow TV via app shortly. When the choice and feature set catch up with TV over the internet, cable boxes and dishes will be no more. That means bandwidth usage will double or triple. As most consumer networks are already crap, throttling will be common place unless the carriers upgrade. Upgrade, even if it did happen would be slow, so prioritization or fast lane service is now almost a necessity. The carriers will be able to fast track their own media, or throttle down the competition without any oversight. And your consumer bandwidth will likely be crap because your normal internet traffic is now stuck in the slow lane with everyone else.

Bonus... Consumer VoIP/Communications like Vonage, Facetime, Sype and others will also take a hit and be vulnerable. Prior to NN, carriers actually blocked Vonage to kill off competition to their voice services..

Anyway you look at this, the Carriers win, and the consumer will end up paying more and suffering with lower speeds.

In your examples, that falls under regulation, or lack there-of as it pertains to being under the FCC. The removal of net neutrality will end up bringing Telco companies in line with many others in this regard. For example, under the Utility designation, things like Anti-Trust wasn't feasible (from what I've read. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that when under a private regulator body like the FCC, Anti-Trust was very difficult to pursue). Now it is. Amazon, and it's recent questioning of anti-trust violations, is a rather obvious example from a big tech perspective. If that is your concern, the removal of Net Neutrality should end up being a good thing.

In some of your other examples, they are things that the market will correct. Disney was pulling it's property from other streaming services to create it's own. Was that because of NN? No. Did it hurt Netflix/Hulu? Yea. Netflix WAS a delivery mechanism for existing content creators, basically no more than a YouTube if we're being realistic. But what is it doing now? It's a creator of it's own content. Why? Because it had to be, even with Net Neutrality. Oh, and they raised their price this year.

Netflix, and Amazon (albeit different business models) will end up licensing their content to these new streaming services. In the 5 years you mentioned? Netflix won't pay to serve existing content to end-users, Streaming services will pay Netflix to license it's content. And the cycle continues.

But this is all hypothetical. In actuality, the data you access, the emails you read, the products you search for, the news youwant is already filtered and funneled to you. Facebook, Google, Amazon, Yahoo, Netflix and the like already do that. You think "AdSense" actually returns the most relevant results all the time, or the one willing to pay the most to Google? A "Fast Lane" if you will. Yahoo won't slow down news it doesn't approve of, it won't serve them in your results at all. Now they've just had the buzzer taken from them. It's only net neutrality if it's by the ISP's. For the other Tech Giants it's just business.

I mean, ever try to buy a ChromeCast on Amazon? Type it in. What's the first listing sent back? An Amazon Fire Stick. We are a bunch of suckers.

Edit: So I went back and read some of your previous posts, and they suggest that ISPs are already providing crap (which I completely agree with). THe existing infrastructure is crap and they make tons off it (If I remember correctly, I think the margin on an Internet User subscriber for Time Warner was like 97%). You are correct, bandwidth usage is going to go up in the future. How does NN solve that? By portioning out the crap? Is that the end goal, equal shares of poop? With the advent of NN, infrastructure spending has went down (I think it's due to greed, but giving the benefit of the doubt, maybe it was NN). Wouldn't that be a worth-wild test case? If the infrastructure improves with the removal of NN, is that a net gain?

 

[greyhammer90]

With the advent of NN, infrastructure spending has went down (I think it's due to greed, but giving the benefit of the doubt, maybe it was NN). Wouldn't that be a worth-wild test case? If the infrastructure improves with the removal of NN, is that a net gain?

This was said all the time by the FCC in their dismantling net neutrality and it's a meaningless soundbite designed to give them better footing in the inevitable law suit. The infrastructure spending was reportedly down 5.6% over the two year period. 5.6%. First, 5.6% was well within normal fluctuation for investment year by year before NN regulations existed. Second, a two year period is not statistically significant regardless. So infrastructure spending for all purposes remained equivalent after NN. Lastly there are some reports that the 5.6% figure is itself a fabrication by the FCC and is only possible if you ignore certain types of spending. It's a farce of a statement designed to give the FCC cover.

 

[Woneone]

This was said all the time by the FCC in their dismantling net neutrality and it's a meaningless soundbite designed to give them better footing in the inevitable law suit. The infrastructure spending was reportedly down 5.6% over the two year period. 5.6%. First, 5.6% was well within normal fluctuation for investment year by year before NN regulations existed. Second, a two year period is not statistically significant regardless. So infrastructure spending for all purposes remained equivalent after NN. Lastly there are some reports that the 5.6% figure is itself a fabrication by the FCC and is only possible if you ignore certain types of spending. It's a farce of a statement designed to give the FCC cover.

I suggest an article by Hal Singer, a Fellow at George Washington University on Public Policy: Here

It sounds as though the proponents of NN are the ones fibbing on their numbers a bit. In the numbers cited, for example the 5.6%, they are inclusive of expenditures that have nothing to do with infrastructure expenditure.

The most important aspect of the article:

So what happened to broadband investment under Title II? According to the latest data from USTelecom, the broadband industry trade association, broadband investment declined for the first time in 2015 since the economy emerged from the Great Recession. Even though the FCC’s reclassification order was not adopted until late February 2015, the industry understood that Title II would be the law as early as November 2014. Not only was investment less in 2015 than in the prior year (a useful benchmark for a world absent Title II), but aggregate investment took another drop in 2016 (a decline of roughly $3 billion or four percent compared to 2014 levels).


USTelecom’s historical collection of U.S. broadband data is considered by many to be the industry gold standard. It has been cited repeatedly by the FCC in its annual Broadband Progress Report. Indeed, Tom Wheeler, who headed the FCC during the Obama Administration, credited USTelecom’s data in his final speech at the Aspen Institute as FCC Chairman. (He claimed that broadband investment increased from 2013 to 2015 per USTelecom; while technically true, the statement is highly misleading, as it presumes that 2013 is a better benchmark for broadband investment absent Title II than is 2014.)

Proponents of Title II have questioned the integrity of USTelecom’s data, suggesting that the industry trade association has incentives to manipulate the data for regulatory ends, or that the association’s members have not reported their investments truthfully. This is malarkey: The survey draws from the ISPs’ financial filings before the Securities and Exchange Commission. And the same analyst at USTelecom has been employing the same standards for how and when to treat spending as broadband investment since the survey’s inception nearly a decade ago.

Other analysts, including PPI and your fearless blogger, independently detected a drop in ISP capex in 2015 and 2016, respectively. And last week CTIA, the industry trade association for wireless ISPs, reported an investment decline of 17.4 percent among its members in 2016, following on the heels of impressive growth of 18.9 and 10.1 percent in 2012 and 2013, respectively.

Not content with these results, proponents of common carriage have introduced alternative data. Senator Markey, the hero of the Tech Left, points to the ACES survey by Census, which shows an increase in 2015 investment levels for telecommunications providers. But this survey contains significant investment outside of the “core” of the Internet, including satellite television and radio investment, as well as spending on leased handsets.

Free Press, an advocate of government ownership and control of communications infrastructure, offers alternative data that incorrectly includes Sprint’s leased handsets (not “capitalized” until the fourth quarter of 2014) and AT&T’s investments via DIRECTV and a Mexican affiliate. Recall that the hypothesis being tested is whether Title II discouraged investment in the core of the network; a diversion of investment to non-core areas is not proof that Title II “is working,” as Free Press claims.

Other groups, such as the Internet Association, which represents Google and Facebook, have promised to generate alternative data more to their policy likings. That Google seeks to bar ISPs from prioritizing traffic while Google discriminates in favor of its own properties in search is the height of hypocrisy.

While not proof of causation by itself—we have detected a correlation between Title II and investment—this sudden and unusual drop in broadband investment demonstrated in USTelecom’s survey should raise questions. If not Title II, what else could have changed in 2015 that caused broadband investment to decline? I’ve seen a few interesting alternatives, such as the possibility that next-generation broadband networks do not require the same level of capital expenditure relative to operating expenditure, but no one to my knowledge has demonstrated the significance of 2015 to that story.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I wouldn't call this trickle down economics. I'd call up Lobby Up economics.



Horse shit. The carriers make plenty already not giving people what they sell them.



There is no need for a price increase. Creating a fast lane for select media only creates another line of revenue for carriers without them providing anything new, anything innovative, or anything better.



The "up to" line is nothing but small print BS. They don't tell you "up to" when they are selling you. They don't tell you "up to" when they are modeling your recommended speed. They don't tell you "up to" when you're in a neighborhood that's already maxed or taxing the local (neighborhood) boxes or COs. I paid for 50meg for over a year before I found I would never get more than 15meg because the neighborhood was already oversubscribed and there would never be a situation where I wasn't throttled down.



Businesses like Netflix for the most part pay for guaranteed/dedicated bandwidth, which is different than the "up to" model for consumers. The consumer network is the issues. Basically the carriers will sell fast lane prioritization through the consumer "up to" network which only slows all other traffic down. It's not like the carriers will build out anything new or better.



Worked for the largest carrier from 92-2008. Gov intervention had nothing to do with any failure. Some carriers made good choices, others did not. Regardless, they still lined their pockets. Killing NN will only allow them a new line of revenue for doing nothing.



Or Wiz's subscription to Disney-like anime porn.

 

[Irish YJ]

In your examples, that falls under regulation, or lack there-of as it pertains to being under the FCC. The removal of net neutrality will end up bringing Telco companies in line with many others in this regard. For example, under the Utility designation, things like Anti-Trust wasn't feasible (from what I've read. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that when under a private regulator body like the FCC, Anti-Trust was very difficult to pursue). Now it is. Amazon, and it's recent questioning of anti-trust violations, is a rather obvious example from a big tech perspective. If that is your concern, the removal of Net Neutrality should end up being a good thing.

In some of your other examples, they are things that the market will correct. Disney was pulling it's property from other streaming services to create it's own. Was that because of NN? No. Did it hurt Netflix/Hulu? Yea. Netflix WAS a delivery mechanism for existing content creators, basically no more than a YouTube if we're being realistic. But what is it doing now? It's a creator of it's own content. Why? Because it had to be, even with Net Neutrality. Oh, and they raised their price this year.

Netflix, and Amazon (albeit different business models) will end up licensing their content to these new streaming services. In the 5 years you mentioned? Netflix won't pay to serve existing content to end-users, Streaming services will pay Netflix to license it's content. And the cycle continues.

But this is all hypothetical. In actuality, the data you access, the emails you read, the products you search for, the news youwant is already filtered and funneled to you. Facebook, Google, Amazon, Yahoo, Netflix and the like already do that. You think "AdSense" actually returns the most relevant results all the time, or the one willing to pay the most to Google? A "Fast Lane" if you will. Yahoo won't slow down news it doesn't approve of, it won't serve them in your results at all. Now they've just had the buzzer taken from them. It's only net neutrality if it's by the ISP's. For the other Tech Giants it's just business.

I mean, ever try to buy a ChromeCast on Amazon? Type it in. What's the first listing sent back? An Amazon Fire Stick. We are a bunch of suckers.

Edit: So I went back and read some of your previous posts, and they suggest that ISPs are already providing crap (which I completely agree with). THe existing infrastructure is crap and they make tons off it (If I remember correctly, I think the margin on an Internet User subscriber for Time Warner was like 97%). You are correct, bandwidth usage is going to go up in the future. How does NN solve that? By portioning out the crap? Is that the end goal, equal shares of poop? With the advent of NN, infrastructure spending has went down (I think it's due to greed, but giving the benefit of the doubt, maybe it was NN). Wouldn't that be a worth-wild test case? If the infrastructure improves with the removal of NN, is that a net gain?

Carriers don't plan to upgrade the networks anymore than they have to, with or without NN. They were already trying to spend as little as possible on their existing infrastructure. And.... Ending NN actually discourages them from upgrading even more.

Take AT&T for example. They make most of their money in two places. Wireless, and Consumer (Cable TV mostly, and the internet). AT&T specifically is trying not to upgrade their Uverse platform. Instead they are pushing people to DirecTV so they don't have to. Installing a dish (wireless) negates the need for typical wired infrastructure. Problem is, their strategy is not proving out because most people don'd like dishes hanging off their houses, shitty reception when it snows or storms, and aren't happy about the lack of on-demand streaming choices with DirecTV compared to Comcast, and even their own crappy Uverse on-demand. TV over the internet will further screw up AT&T's plan. But now with NN ending, AT&T can prioritize their own shit, make content providers pay through the nose to be on or near the level of the carrier's content, and further throttle other traffice.

Amazon is an on-line store when it comes to Chromecast. Nothing more, and we have lots of choices. There's been an on-going war between Google and Amazon, but it's not killing competition or impacting what consumers pay. If you want a Chromecast you can easily go to another on-line seller. That's not the case with internet service. Most folks only have one option. FYI, that's why you also can't use PayPal (Ebay child) on Amazon.

In terms of the market correcting things.... the barrier to entry into markets is very very high for new ISPs. Most new ISPs have their own core, but the last mile (lines into your house) are still owned by the big guys. It's the same with business data. In short, it will be very very hard in a traditional wired architecture for the market to correct itself. There just isn't the competition nor will there be.

Wiz is right in one aspect, wireless will eventually take over. Will it happen soon, no. Will 5G solve everything, not anytime soon. But the inevitable jump to wireless is why carriers aren't investing in wired, and putting most of their money wireless infrastructure (which by the way still requires a level of wired infrastructure). I have Comcast right now. They have a hotspot in my neigborhood which I can jump on anytime I want with my service. It's not fast enough to connect my media streaming too, but works fast enough for surfing when my Comcast wired internet goes down.

Regarding filtered info and advertising. Not the same. If you choose to go to FB and get filtered info, you are making a choice. You can go anywhere you want for info. If the carrier filters your data or does not allow you go somewhere for info, you are not making a choice. Your choice is limited.

Back to your first paragraph... ending NN will not be a good thing. This won't end well, and unfortunately the standard user is to fat dumb and happy to understand what can/will happen. The fast lane / slow lane internet issue is only one of the problems it will create. There is much more.

 

[Irish YJ]

lol

 

[Woneone]

Carriers don't plan to upgrade the networks anymore than they have to, with or without NN. They were already trying to spend as little as possible on their existing infrastructure. And.... Ending NN actually discourages them from upgrading even more.

Take AT&T for example. They make most of their money in two places. Wireless, and Consumer (Cable TV mostly, and the internet). AT&T specifically is trying not to upgrade their Uverse platform. Instead they are pushing people to DirecTV so they don't have to. Installing a dish (wireless) negates the need for typical wired infrastructure. Problem is, their strategy is not proving out because most people don'd like dishes hanging off their houses, shitty reception when it snows or storms, and aren't happy about the lack of on-demand streaming choices with DirecTV compared to Comcast, and even their own crappy Uverse on-demand. TV over the internet will further screw up AT&T's plan. But now with NN ending, AT&T can prioritize their own shit, make content providers pay through the nose to be on or near the level of the carrier's content, and further throttle other traffice.

Amazon is an on-line store when it comes to Chromecast. Nothing more, and we have lots of choices. There's been an on-going war between Google and Amazon, but it's not killing competition or impacting what consumers pay. If you want a Chromecast you can easily go to another on-line seller. That's not the case with internet service. Most folks only have one option. FYI, that's why you also can't use PayPal (Ebay child) on Amazon.

In terms of the market correcting things.... the barrier to entry into markets is very very high for new ISPs. Most new ISPs have their own core, but the last mile (lines into your house) are still owned by the big guys. It's the same with business data. In short, it will be very very hard in a traditional wired architecture for the market to correct itself. There just isn't the competition nor will there be.

Wiz is right in one aspect, wireless will eventually take over. Will it happen soon, no. Will 5G solve everything, not anytime soon. But the inevitable jump to wireless is why carriers aren't investing in wired, and putting most of their money wireless infrastructure (which by the way still requires a level of wired infrastructure). I have Comcast right now. They have a hotspot in my neigborhood which I can jump on anytime I want with my service. It's not fast enough to connect my media streaming too, but works fast enough for surfing when my Comcast wired internet goes down.

Regarding filtered info and advertising. Not the same. If you choose to go to FB and get filtered info, you are making a choice. You can go anywhere you want for info. If the carrier filters your data or does not allow you go somewhere for info, you are not making a choice. Your choice is limited.

Back to your first paragraph... ending NN will not be a good thing. This won't end well, and unfortunately the standard user is to fat dumb and happy to understand what can/will happen. The fast lane / slow lane internet issue is only one of the problems it will create. There is much more.

5G will not fix everything. Not only that, but the elephant in the room is the massive infrastructure changes it takes. You've argued that they won't make infrastructure changes, but then argue that they have since abandoned wired upgrades and instead focus on wireless, which includes various wired access points. I'm not sure how to argue both sides.

The very architecture that 5G relies in itself, as I've said before, subjects itself to having "Fast" and "Slow" network splices. It will happen, the IoT will make sure of that.

Your posts are exactly my point on the hysteria. The end of Net Neutrality isn't the removal of any and all oversight. This isn't going to end with the only Content Delivery services being available are those specifically tied directly to your ISP. It isn't turning into the wild west.

What WILL happen is that the FTC will be able to oversee and consumer protection laws will aim to protect end-users. Case and Point, what happened to Time Warner/Spectrum in New York. They were sued not under NN, not under the FCC, but under Consumer Protection laws (if I read it correctly). Or you can look at how the FTC handled Intel and their "favoritism" of working with those computer vendors who would work directly with them, robbing users from selection of CPU's. Sound familiar? If you have more hypotheticals, I can probably find a case handled OUTSIDE of NN that proves the point of oversight still existing.

Here's a synopsis of another case. Note, the FCC, the great protector of Net Neutrality actually gave way to the FTC, who will be in charge going forward:

The 9th Circuit’s aforementioned AT&T Mobility LLC case illustrates how such enforcement actions can work in practice. Both the FCC and the FTC charged the company with unlawfully throttling users on its “unlimited” plans; the FCC relied on its 2010 Open Internet Order, and the FTC relied on its consumer protection authority in Section 5 of the FTC Act. In 2015, the FCC Enforcement Bureau charged AT&T Mobility with a violation of its 2010 Open Internet Order’s transparency rule, arguing that the practice of labeling a mobile data plan as “unlimited” was misleading and inaccurate because customers experienced speed reductions after passing a certain data threshold, and that AT&T did not provide sufficient disclosure of the practice.[32] As punishment, the FCC proposed to levy a $100 million fine.[33] The item was voted out 3-2 along party lines; then-Commissioner Ajit Pai dissented, saying that AT&T had engaged in the practice since 2007 and repeatedly made clear disclosures to customers.[34] AT&T challenged the action in court and the fine was never collected;[35] the FCC eventually bowed out to allow the FTC to pursue its parallel action on the same issue, which predated the FCC’s action.[36] The FTC’s enforcement action against AT&T began in 2014 with a unanimous 5-0 vote, charging that the company misled consumers with its “unlimited” plans beginning in 2011, which constituted a “deceptive” practice.[37] AT&T Mobility continues to fight that case, but only on jurisdictional grounds. Separately, the FTC also required AT&T to send $88 million in refunds to 2.7 million customers who were victims of “mobile cramming,” when unauthorized charges of third party fees were added to their mobile bills.[38]

If you want to argue that this isn't a great step in the right direction, I'll agree.

But we're not going to be buying a Time Warner TV to hook into a Time Warner Modem from our Time Warner ISP to watch Time Warner Movies while wearing a Time Warner hat and shirt eating a Time Warner frozen dinner.

 

[Irish YJ]

5G will not fix everything. Not only that, but the elephant in the room is the massive infrastructure changes it takes. You've argued that they won't make infrastructure changes, but then argue that they have since abandoned wired upgrades and instead focus on wireless. I'm not sure how to argue both sides.

The very architecture that 5G relies in itself, as I've said before, subjects itself to having "Fast" and "Slow" network splices. It will happen, the IoT will make sure of that.

Your posts are exactly my point on the hysteria. The end of Net Neutrality isn't the removal of any and all oversight. This isn't going to end with the only Content Delivery services being available are those specifically tied directly to your ISP. It isn't turning into the wild west.

What WILL happen is that the FTC will be able to oversee and consumer protection laws will aim to protect end-users. Case and Point, what happened to Time Warner/Spectrum in New York. They were sued not under NN, not under the FCC, but under Consumer Protection laws (if I read it correctly).

Here's a synopsis of another case. Note, the FCC, the great protector of Net Neutrality actually gave way to the FTC, who will be in charge going forward:



If you want to argue that this isn't a great step in the right direction, I'll agree.

But we're not going to be buying a Time Warner TV to hook into a Time Warner Modem from our Time Warner ISP to watch Time Warner Movies while wearing a Time Warner hat and shirt eating a Time Warner frozen dinner.

5G will not fix everything, but it will enable people to cut the cord (cable TV and wired internet). Folks already have wireless (4G) internet, and it's fine so long as you are not streaming everything. But that will not be the case for today's and future users.

4G typical average is 5-10meg when you are in a place that has great coverage. 5G will have something in the range of 100meg to 10gig. I'm guessing typical average will be somewhere in the 500meg to 1Gig range. That's huge. 5G also takes 1/10 of the power, is 99.99 reliable, and 5 times less latency.

So,,, 4G is really not an answer to cable internet, but 5G can be. If 100meg is low range, the whole fast lane / slow lane issue becomes a non issue.

And I'm very familiar with the AT&T case. They still haven't paid. I'll be surprised if they ever do. And if they do, they'll get it reduced to something laughable. The crappy misleading advertising still happens.



The end of NN doesn't end all oversight. But do some research on what went on before NN happened. Carriers blocked stuff, carriers slowed stuff down to benefit their own products and services, carriers held other business ransom..... I believe someone posted a graphic in this thread that showed some of the crap the NN ended. Also, only around 50% of the public have a choice when it comes to internet providers. Those that do have a choice, it's typically a choice between the dominant ISP and a 4G provider, which realy isn't a choice for a streaming household. I personally have a choice. Comcast who at most delivers 5-15meg depending on time of day (regardless of my plan), Uverse which is crap (neighbors are maxing out at less than 10meg even with 25+meg plans), and 4G. As people start to stream more and more, my service sucks more. Now allow the carriers to pick and choose what goes fast and what goes slow, and I'm F'd. I already buffer way to much early evenings and on weekends.

I've never said carriers weren't investing in wireless. Part of wireless infrastructure obviously includes wired infrastructure.

Not sure what your point about Time Warner is.

 

[Meatloaf]

One of the fake comments in favor of repealing Obama's regulations came from non other than Barrack himself:

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1051157755251

 

[Irish YJ]

One of the fake comments in favor of repealing Obama's regulations came from non other than Barrack himself:

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1051157755251

never really liked that guy. probably took some lobby dollars on the way out.

 

[Irish#1]

Most users are ignorant of it. I would however bet in 5 years, most users will know. Here are two reasons why....

1. The carriers are trying to get into the content (entertainment) business. You've seen this with Comcast and and AT&T going after Time Warner, AT&T launching their own TV station and shows, and a lot of other acquisitions and other ventures. Who cares right? Well now the carriers have more motive to slow down competition like Netflix or Amazon to encourage consumption of their own content. So now, Netflix is disadvantaged out of the gate, and will likely pay through the teeth to stream at speeds on par with the carrier's entertainment.

In a way, this reminds me of 1981 when Judge White made his ruling. AT&T tried to jump in and compete against IBM and got their tails whipped. IBM also tried to compete in the telco arena (mostly on the PBX side) and also got their tails whipped. I'll be curious to see if AT&T can really compete in the entertainment field. U-verse didn't quite cut it so they bought DirecTV, but services are limited with that being satellite.

Carriers don't plan to upgrade the networks anymore than they have to, with or without NN. They were already trying to spend as little as possible on their existing infrastructure. And.... Ending NN actually discourages them from upgrading even more.

Take AT&T for example. They make most of their money in two places. Wireless, and Consumer (Cable TV mostly, and the internet). AT&T specifically is trying not to upgrade their Uverse platform. Instead they are pushing people to DirecTV so they don't have to. Installing a dish (wireless) negates the need for typical wired infrastructure. Problem is, their strategy is not proving out because most people don'd like dishes hanging off their houses, shitty reception when it snows or storms, and aren't happy about the lack of on-demand streaming choices with DirecTV compared to Comcast, and even their own crappy Uverse on-demand. TV over the internet will further screw up AT&T's plan. But now with NN ending, AT&T can prioritize their own shit, make content providers pay through the nose to be on or near the level of the carrier's content, and further throttle other traffice.

No doubt.........I switched from Comcast to AT&T when Comcast didn't want to give me a decent rate for being a loyal customer for 5 years. I talk to AT&T and this rep tells me I will get 25MB speeds and my DirecTV will come over fiber instead of a dish. Well I get 12MB and the only programming I don't get via dish is if I want to stream something and they want to charge for it.

 

[Woneone]

5G will not fix everything, but it will enable people to cut the cord (cable TV and wired internet). Folks already have wireless (4G) internet, and it's fine so long as you are not streaming everything. But that will not be the case for today's and future users.

4G typical average is 5-10meg when you are in a place that has great coverage. 5G will have something in the range of 100meg to 10gig. I'm guessing typical average will be somewhere in the 500meg to 1Gig range. That's huge. 5G also takes 1/10 of the power, is 99.99 reliable, and 5 times less latency.

So,,, 4G is really not an answer to cable internet, but 5G can be. If 100meg is low range, the whole fast lane / slow lane issue becomes a non issue.

I'm not talking about speeds, I'm talking about the infrastructure and technology required for 5G. When it arrives to homes, wonderful. I am much more pessimistic about that than you, it seems. I have a feeling the economics are going to play out as such that access to 5G, for the foreseeable future will create it's own "Fast/Slow" lanes.

Since 5G isn't like it's predecessors as a replacement to the previous generation, I see many people/locations being stuck on 4G LTE/Traditional Wired connections for some time. Of course, that is unless you're willing to pay extra for the new 5G "fast lane".

And I'm very familiar with the AT&T case. They still haven't paid. I'll be surprised if they ever do. And if they do, they'll get it reduced to something laughable. The crappy misleading advertising still happens.

Part of that issue is because they were listed as Title II Common Carrier. The FTC, in their suit, basically had to go around the problems NN caused in litigation. That hurdle is no longer there.

The end of NN doesn't end all oversight. But do some research on what went on before NN happened. Carriers blocked stuff, carriers slowed stuff down to benefit their own products and services, carriers held other business ransom..... I believe someone posted a graphic in this thread that showed some of the crap the NN ended. Also, only around 50% of the public have a choice when it comes to internet providers. Those that do have a choice, it's typically a choice between the dominant ISP and a 4G provider, which realy isn't a choice for a streaming household. I personally have a choice. Comcast who at most delivers 5-15meg depending on time of day (regardless of my plan), Uverse which is crap (neighbors are maxing out at less than 10meg even with 25+meg plans), and 4G. As people start to stream more and more, my service sucks more. Now allow the carriers to pick and choose what goes fast and what goes slow, and I'm F'd. I already buffer way to much early evenings and on weekends.

I've never said carriers weren't investing in wireless. Part of wireless infrastructure obviously includes wired infrastructure.

Not sure what your point about Time Warner is.

I'm in the same boat as you. And I believe the list you're referring to is the one I actually posted a few pages back.

I don't think we actually disagree on much. I think carriers are basically greedy entities that don't have the end user in mind. But I don't see anything changing for me as an end user. With our without net neutrality, with the FCC or FTC in charge, it doesn't matter.

What needs to happen is Congress actually bringing a legislative solution to how the Internet is monitored. Having an FCC that changes hands every 4 years, and so does the rules, does no one any good.

Having the FTC in charge of everything, an office that doesn't have much bandwidth nor the experience in network engineering, does no one any good.

 

[Legacy]

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission is expected to publish its December order overturning Obama-era net neutrality rules on Thursday. The formal publication in the Federal Register means state attorneys general and advocacy groups will be able to sue in a bid to block the order from taking effect. Fifty senators have backed a Congressional Review Act resolution to preserve the rules — one vote shy of the 51 votes that measure needs to pass the Senate. Even if passed with 51 votes, the House is not expected to similarly pass the Act - or, even if, Trump could veto such legislation. In addition to four states who have taken final action o through executive orders issued by their governor, legislatures in twenty-seven US states have pending legislation that would enforce net neutrality.

To kill net neutrality, FCC might have to fight more than half of US states (Ars Technica)

 

[Henges24]

Could someone explain to me how killing net neutrality would benefit a consumer like ourselves? I don't see any positives in changing the way things are now.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Could someone explain to me how killing net neutrality would benefit a consumer like ourselves? I don't see any positives in changing the way things are now.

There are no positives. When someone defends Net Neutrality they announce that they are a corporatist or ignorant.