FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see and use

originally posted by: Tempter
So, again, NN has only been around for less than 1000 days.

The other ~8600 days since 1991 (modern Internet) the ISP's were acting altruistically but now without NN they will turn on their customers?

I'm not buying it.



I liken this to Ron Paul's comments regarding heroine where he makes a joke that if not for the law he'd run and go do heroine right away.


How amazing some you are just clinging to government intrusion!

How much of the world's economy was based on the internet in the 90's or the early 2000's compared to now? Even the early 2010's were less dependent on the internet. It is now the single largest source of everybody's data and information.

Places without net neutrality have already began selling the internet in tiers. Just look at Portugal which has been posted about a few times in thia thread already.

If you ever used the internet in the 90's it was like that. You had to pay everytime you logged on and for every page you went to. It really #ing sucked. Personally I don't want to go back to that and anyone that thinks profit driven companies wouldn't love to go back to that model if given a chance hasn't paid attention to anything large profit driven companies have done for the last 100 years.

I've thought about it a lot and see pros from both sides.

Yeah, neutrality would make all traffic equal and probably slow with starts and stops to buffer information. There is no incentive for corporations to do anything to make it better because for a lot of folks there is no other service other than a reseller of the local telco.

On the other hand, for a few dollars more you get somewhat guaranteed speed and data flow with very few starts and stops to buffer information. It truly becomes tiered service. There will still be a problem for a lot of folks again because there is no other service other than a reseller of the local telco. There is more market pressure to build out infrastructure so folks can access their favorite sites. And you pay fairly for what you consume.

But then again, when they broke up Ma Bell it was a mess for a while. Before we had a single point of contact and repair, now is it the carrier, the wires, the switch, phones or configuration; and you need a separate technician for each but they don't usually talk to each other. I still remember the stupid interface you needed to connect a foreign switch to Ma Bell. And everyone argues where the demark really is. Throw in a few dozens suppliers of service and equipment to make it more interesting.

I sometimes think monopolies are good for somethings. Why do you need a bunch of electric companies selling you the same electricity with just a different meter for a few pennies difference?

Well, maybe a well regulated monopoly with codified infrastructure targets and limits on share holder returns.

So people with more money get more internet, people with less get less. Just like the rest of America.

I hope people have to watch 3 minutes of commercials for every page load.

originally posted by: Tempter
So, again, NN has only been around for less than 1000 days.

The other ~8600 days since 1991 (modern Internet) the ISP's were acting altruistically but now without NN they will turn on their customers?

I'm not buying it.



I liken this to Ron Paul's comments regarding heroine where he makes a joke that if not for the law he'd run and go do heroine right away.


How amazing some you are just clinging to government intrusion!

You're not buying it because you've got your facts wrong. Net Neutrality existed since the start of the internet, what has been in place for 1000 days is title 2 classification. What the FCC is pushing is not just reverting to the previous position but reversing Net Neutrality entirely.

As far as internet service goes in the US, that pushes ground that we've never covered as a nation, because the concept is quite frankly ridiculous.

a reply to: Tempter

So, again, NN has only been around for less than 1000 days.

False , net neutrality principles were around since the inception of the Internet.

The other ~8600 days since 1991 (modern Internet) the ISP's were acting altruistically

False.

Again net neutrality principles existed since the inception of the Internet.

However several years ago for a quick short time frame NN was overruled, and Verizon immediately used the overruling to extort money from netflix by holding their own verizon customers hostage and not giving them what they were paying for.

In the beginning the ISP were making enough money and held the key to the kingdom , So they thought anyways.

Then came yahoo,google,netflix,amazon and guess who is not getting a piece of the biggest pie of all. Thats right the ISP . The ISP tried to create their own netflix,google,amazon and failed miserably.

Fast forward to the present and ISP as corporations have to continue the unrealistic expectation of infinite profit margin growth.

So what is the ISP solution to getting that big PIE and continue with the unrealistic expectation of infinite profit margin growth. They want to become the gate keepers but to do that they have to kill net neutrality.

but now without NN they will turn on their customers? I'm not buying it.

Well you better buy it because it already happened.
A few years ago after verizon won the initial decision to do away with NN verizon immediately started to purposely slow down traffic to netflix customers.

The end result CUSTOMER that WERE PAYING for fast Internet got their netflix PURPOSELY slowed down by verizon, until Verizon successfully extorted additional money from netflix.
This led to the title 2 classification FCC ruling.

How amazing some you are just clinging to government intrusion!

You already have gov't and lobbyist intrusion. Undoing net neutrality, just opens the doors wide open for complete govt and lobbyists intrusion.

The gov't and the lobbyist will now be able to dictate what website you visit and who you do business online with. This is why they have been trying for over a decade to sneak by and kill net neutrality . This is the key to the last kingdom where the little guy can have not only a voice as large as the corporations and gov;t but actually louder.

originally posted by: jonnywhite
Well maybe with too little regulation they'll make it so basic unlimited unrestrained access is only given to those people who'll pay hundreds of dollars per month? I mean, some of the consumers have lots of money. They're whales--about 10% of the population. They could pay a large sum of the needs of the company. Why don't the ISP's invent reasons to block services unless you're rich? This allows them to "milk" the richest customers.

Nope. Without Net Neutrality, even with unlimited funds you cannot have unrestrained access. What you pay for with your ISP is a maximum speed they'll give you. The speed that's actually delivered to you on any given website will be determined by that websites contract with their host, and with your ISP. They'll also have to pay for a maximum speed, but then pay again for your specific ISP to accept their content at a particular speed or priority.

No matter how much you pay, you cannot get around the absolute mess of hosting contracts each web host will have to negotiate in order for their content to be delivered to you.

originally posted by: Bramble Iceshimmer
On the other hand, for a few dollars more you get somewhat guaranteed speed and data flow with very few starts and stops to buffer information. It truly becomes tiered service. There will still be a problem for a lot of folks again because there is no other service other than a reseller of the local telco. There is more market pressure to build out infrastructure so folks can access their favorite sites. And you pay fairly for what you consume.

You already have that with speed agreements with your ISP. That has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. Let me explain it like this: You're in a store with a long checkout line on Black Friday. Each person has a varying amount of product they're paying for. Some people are buying many things, some are buying few. The line however is processed in a first in, first out order.

When referring to speed with Net Neutrality it has nothing to do with how many goods you're buying. It has to do with when you're processed. Removing NN is giving someone a special privilege to be moved to the front of the line because they paid some money. That's not all though, because it's not just the ability to move to the front. It also gives them the ability to send someone else who has been patiently waiting to the back of the line. You're still buying the same goods, but your experience is degraded. And if you say you'll go somewhere else... where else are you going to go? You're shopping in literally the only store in town. Competition isn't possible because building competing networks is too expensive and all the distributors have signed exclusivity agreements with the megastore.

originally posted by: interupt42
Then came yahoo,google,netflix,amazon and guess who is not getting a piece of the biggest pie of all. Thats right the ISP . The ISP tried to create their own netflix,google,amazon and failed miserably.

They're still trying with streaming content. Virtually daily now, shows are being pulled off of the big networks while every single content producer out there is convinced they're going to be able to make an exclusive portal for their shows... at full price.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: interupt42
Then came yahoo,google,netflix,amazon and guess who is not getting a piece of the biggest pie of all. Thats right the ISP . The ISP tried to create their own netflix,google,amazon and failed miserably.

They're still trying with streaming content. Virtually daily now, shows are being pulled off of the big networks while every single content producer out there is convinced they're going to be able to make an exclusive portal for their shows... at full price.

Absolutely and they have no desires to compete just like with fast internet access. There business model is to FORCE the customers to buy their services.

That is why these ISP companies year after year get voted by their customer base as the most hated companies in the world , yet they still stay in business and continue to grow. That only happens in a monopolistic market. They make sure to make sure they are the only game in town.

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: Tempter
So, again, NN has only been around for less than 1000 days.

The other ~8600 days since 1991 (modern Internet) the ISP's were acting altruistically but now without NN they will turn on their customers?

I'm not buying it.



I liken this to Ron Paul's comments regarding heroine where he makes a joke that if not for the law he'd run and go do heroine right away.


How amazing some you are just clinging to government intrusion!

How much of the world's economy was based on the internet in the 90's or the early 2000's compared to now? Even the early 2010's were less dependent on the internet. It is now the single largest source of everybody's data and information.

Places without net neutrality have already began selling the internet in tiers. Just look at Portugal which has been posted about a few times in thia thread already.

If you ever used the internet in the 90's it was like that. You had to pay everytime you logged on and for every page you went to. It really #ing sucked. Personally I don't want to go back to that and anyone that thinks profit driven companies wouldn't love to go back to that model if given a chance hasn't paid attention to anything large profit driven companies have done for the last 100 years.

Of course you want to go back to dial up! Once cable companies distributed access via broadband that pricing model became obsolete.

You are all scaremongers.

Again, this wasn't a problem before NN was implemented. Why should it become one this time?


And for those who think that the ISP's have essentially followed a NN model since 2006, doesn't that prove they will do it without laws in place?

Every Single Thing the government touches it phucks up.

originally posted by: interupt42

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: interupt42
Then came yahoo,google,netflix,amazon and guess who is not getting a piece of the biggest pie of all. Thats right the ISP . The ISP tried to create their own netflix,google,amazon and failed miserably.

They're still trying with streaming content. Virtually daily now, shows are being pulled off of the big networks while every single content producer out there is convinced they're going to be able to make an exclusive portal for their shows... at full price.

Absolutely and they have no desires to compete just like with fast internet access. There business model is to FORCE the customers to buy their services.

That is why these ISP companies year after year get voted by their customer base as the most hated companies in the world , yet they still stay in business and continue to grow. That only happens in a monopolistic market. They make sure to make sure they are the only game in town.

And who ALLOWS them to be the only game in town? THE GOVERNMENT! !!!

FFS, wake up!

originally posted by: Tempter
Of course you want to go back to dial up! Once cable companies distributed access via broadband that pricing model became obsolete.

Dial up operated on a fundamentally different model. The phone companies owned the lines, but ISP's offered servers to call over those lines which would then route data. The owners of the network weren't the people providing the content on the network.

With broadband that all changed, now the owners of the network also manage the service over that network. It would be like giving the auto sellers ownership of the roads and traffic laws.

You are all scaremongers.

Again, this wasn't a problem before NN was implemented. Why should it become one this time?

Net Neutrality has always existed. Even when it existed there were issues with the telecoms violating it, but those issues were always defeated in court.
www.freepress.net...

MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.

COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.

TELUS: In 2005, Canada’s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.

AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.

WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.

MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.

PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites.

AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.

EUROPE: A 2012 report from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications found that violations of Net Neutrality affected at least one in five users in Europe. The report found that blocked or slowed connections to services like VOIP, peer-to-peer technologies, gaming applications and email were commonplace.

VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.

AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.

VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.

This is just a few of them, there have been MANY smaller examples as well, such as when certain ISP's used to block torrents.

originally posted by: Tempter
And who ALLOWS them to be the only game in town? THE GOVERNMENT! !!!

FFS, wake up!

No. They're the only game in town because of the economics of building a competing network. The current network was built by the government and GIVEN (not even sold, outright given) to the ISP's. A competing network would cost $1 trillion in capital, and need to be in use for a good 50 years to recoup the investment. That's for a single competitor. Every additional competitor would lengthen the time for an ROI.

We were able to have competition without duplicating the phone network back in the dial up days because the phone companies weren't in the business of providing internet service. They let anyone onto the phone lines that was willing to purchase a phone number.

That is not the model today. There are a handful of ISP's, and each one controls TV, Phone, and Internet. They own the wires, they own access, and they own data routing. In this model, someone trying to be a competing ISP cannot set up some servers, buy some bandwidth, and offer service.

We need to break these companies up. But that has nothing to do with what Net Neutrality is, it's merely a requirement to have a functional system without Net Neutrality if we were to go down that road.

Fact sheet released today. Here's an article on it
www.techdirt.com...< br />
Here's the 210 page FCC plan
apps.fcc.gov...

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: interupt42

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: interupt42
Then came yahoo,google,netflix,amazon and guess who is not getting a piece of the biggest pie of all. Thats right the ISP . The ISP tried to create their own netflix,google,amazon and failed miserably.

They're still trying with streaming content. Virtually daily now, shows are being pulled off of the big networks while every single content producer out there is convinced they're going to be able to make an exclusive portal for their shows... at full price.

Absolutely and they have no desires to compete just like with fast internet access. There business model is to FORCE the customers to buy their services.

That is why these ISP companies year after year get voted by their customer base as the most hated companies in the world , yet they still stay in business and continue to grow. That only happens in a monopolistic market. They make sure to make sure they are the only game in town.

And who ALLOWS them to be the only game in town? THE GOVERNMENT! !!!

FFS, wake up!

LOL so you think the gov't controls the corporations not the other way around ,huh.
Yes please do FFS, wake up.


Govt is a tool of the biggest corporation with the biggest pockets.

net Neutraility principles got overlooked by both the gov't and corporations , because they were both to fat ,dumb, and happy with the amount of money they were racking in, that they didn't see the power of net Neutraility principles. Nor did they fear the little guy or competition.

Now both govt and ISP corporations figured it out and want it back. neither the gov't or the ISP want net neutrality. That should tell you something.

a reply to: interupt42

To be fair to the government here, I think they could be convinced. They don't know any better though because it's a really boring topic to cover, so they lose interest and just listen to corporate lobbyists.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: interupt42

To be fair to the government here, I think they could be convinced. They don't know any better though because it's a really boring topic to cover, so they lose interest and just listen to corporate lobbyists.

the only reason the gov't ruled with the title 2 was because of the amount of backslash from the people and the amount of money that GOOGLE,amazon,netflix, and all the other online powerhouses spent to lobby congress.

Keep in mind that GOOGLE,amazon,netflix did not fight for the people nor did they did it out of the kindness of their heart. they did it out of their own survival. They would have been at the mercy of the ISP. We the people were just lucky at that time that the ONLINE oligarch survival , indirectly benefited us people.

However, here is what worries me now. I think there may have been some type of agreement now reached between the ISP and the online powerhouses.

I recall last time around the NN issue was at the forefront,the online oligarch made sure every user in America was aware what was on the table as soon as they logged into the internet.

It was a very in your face campaign by the Online Oligarch , This time around I don't see the same amount of effort by the online oligarch. Even google is winding down their google fiber business.

I wonder if the ISP oligarch and the online Oligarch have come to an agreement where they will not compete with each other.

In other words Comcast won't go into the streaming business, search business , social media business, merchant business as long as Netflix,google,facebook,twitter, and Amazon pay them a percentage.In return comcast will throttle the existing Oline Oligarch competition.

Its a win for both the ISP and now the Online Oligarch. the end result doesn't change the consumers get Fd and now will be at the mercy of both the ISP oligarch and the Online Oligarch.

originally posted by: interupt42
In other words Comcast won't go into the streaming business, search business , merchant business as long as Netflix,google,and Amazon pay them a percentage in return comcast also throttles competition.

I have the same suspicions. The corporate protesting is much quieter this time. I wonder if they plan to fight it in the courtroom instead.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: interupt42
In other words Comcast won't go into the streaming business, search business , merchant business as long as Netflix,google,and Amazon pay them a percentage in return comcast also throttles competition.

I have the same suspicions. The corporate protesting is much quieter this time. I wonder if they plan to fight it in the courtroom instead.

I don't think it looks good for us , this time around.

I think we are seeing the creation of one of the biggest Oligarch alliance in the making . Even google is winding down their google fiber efforts. Heck they even got rid of their do no evil slogan ,lol

If the ISP and existing Online Oligarch join forces, they will completely dominate a GLOBAL market and its a WIN WIN WIN for EXISTING ISP , govt , and ONLINE Oligarch.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Tempter
Of course you want to go back to dial up! Once cable companies distributed access via broadband that pricing model became obsolete.

Dial up operated on a fundamentally different model. The phone companies owned the lines, but ISP's offered servers to call over those lines which would then route data. The owners of the network weren't the people providing the content on the network.

With broadband that all changed, now the owners of the network also manage the service over that network. It would be like giving the auto sellers ownership of the roads and traffic laws.

You are all scaremongers.

Again, this wasn't a problem before NN was implemented. Why should it become one this time?

Net Neutrality has always existed. Even when it existed there were issues with the telecoms violating it, but those issues were always defeated in court.


This is just a few of them, there have been MANY smaller examples as well, such as when certain ISP's used to block torrents.

Literally EVERY single example you list is a representation of an emerging technology which was handled in the manner it needed to be.

Netflix - Netflix traffic consumes more traffic on the Internet than any other website, mostly because the UDP protocol is non-socket. It presented a MAJOR problem for ISP's because all of the sudden their capacity models were instantly destroyed. No one could've seen that explosion of traffic coming and ISP's tried to deal with it the best they could as their infrastructure struggled to keep up with the new Netflix demand on NOPS WHILE maintaining an SLA to its regular, non-Netflix traffic. The infrastructure wasn't there to handle it and ISP's were caught with their pants down and had to invest in new hardware to keep up. We're talking extremely expensive core switches and routers.

P2P - Again, same thing. An anomaly just like Netflix in terms of traffic that shook ISP's and forced them to upgrade hardware. This takes time people! And in the meantime all other traffic suffers.

VOIP - This was a combination of collusion with AT&T and, phucking AND, hardware limitations as VOIP again put a strain on limited hardware.


I could go on but my point remains clear. Every case you list is just an example of an emerging or explosive traffic ANOMOLY which ISP'so had to deal with somehow until their infrastructure coukd be refreshed or the traffic mitigated.

These new sites or use cases also exist as a reminder that yes, new traffic spikes WILL occur. However, the ISP's aren't going to blow up their overhead costs and just have hardware sitting around WAITING for the next spike to happen and for anyone who thinks NN doesn't have an effect on ISP's in this manner is ridiculous.


As far as some companies doing shifty things once in a while to their customers, yeah. Of course that happens and nothing will change that. In those cases where litigation was warranted I consider that as an example of the kaws working as intended.