Net Neutrality - URGENT

[+Erik 1,731]

Well if you want them to make money we as consumers need choices to prevent a monopoly and anti trust issue. Right now in the US in most places like mine I have one choice for internet service and that's through the cable company. Where's the legality behind that?

[+Dave 2,318]

What is there not to see? I play many games online and they would charge me different than someone else who uses the internet to watch movies. How is that fair when its the SAME internet? Like its the same gas I use in my car and motorcycle. ATT is already getting sued for throttling back people who had unlimted data plans. Well I guess it wasn't truly unlimted. I was one of those people because my wife used Pandora at work. We have to use their services because they are the only ones who provide it. Yes of course they are in it to make money, but we don't have to be fucked in the ass by them either. They know this. If I didn't have to use their services I wouldn't but there isn't much choice out there. It like paying 8 bucks a beer at a ball game. If you dont pay their prices you don't drink and they know this because you can bring your own beer to the park.

It will lead to abuses by the ISP's Typhoid, you know it, I know it. They will not be honest, they want money and will bend over the customer to get it. I can see it now.

 

Sorry Mr Slavens, you used 50 gb of data this month for your online gaming. We are going to have to charge you more since you used so much. So why don't you go to this plan. If not we will have to throttle your bandwidth down to limit your usage.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Spot on Typhoid!

 

Thanks. Another one of us is Karl Denninger who runs, and programmed the forum software for, the Market Ticker website.

 

~> http://tickerforum.org/akcs-www

 

Lots of ex~miltary and airline pilots hang out there in the comments. Czech it out. Denninger poasts about this subject from time to time, in relation to the Netflix Fad.

 

---- --- -- -

 

I suppose this is mostly about Netflix, or appears to be, and our desire to watch unlimited high res full length movies...for free...on computers. Maybe instead of learning by reading html or, PDF.

 

You see, I used to do lots of computer programming, Fortran mainly, heavy teh maths simulation stuff, and when I wanted a mental break, I turn the stupid computer OFF and fire up an old fashioned TV with DVD player, and the pressure melts away.

 

Watch a movie on a flipping computer? I never have, and I never will. Wretchfest Maximus. Yea, I'd rather buy DVDs, but since I only buy the very few movies that are really good quality historically, its affordable.  Also, pawn shops are a great source of used gem DVDs for cheap.

 

I am amzed at the junk so many souls watch on their computers instead of going out into real life -- because its "free" essentially...Netlfix. Its disgusting. But I've done the same thing, but instead hid away from life behind my Fortran compiler. I do understand.

 

So Typhoid, is this like "mericans" naturally always voting for free stuff and in the end finding that the only thing free left is -- nothing. Literally, nothing is indeed free. Or maybe not lol. End times stuff there hehe.

 

 

As for cable companies being "bad" well dump the stupid cable, and network stuff as well. Dump it all.

 

All I do is watch a TV and DVDs. I have never watched a broadcast signal, not air, not sat, not cable, not internet, on my TV for about 6 years now.

But I did read the Nightwatch last nite. :)

[+Erik 1,731]

I don't even know what I just read right there. 

 

As for the Netflix thing. Comcast forced them into an agreement by throttling their customers use of their streaming. Ultimately the agreement came in the way of an agreement for an undisclosed amount to use Comcast exclusively for Netflix' upstream. If that wasn't enough Xfinity which is Comcast owns Netflix now. So is something as basic at net neutrality important, you bet. If you don't think so just sit back and not get involved believing the giants like Comcast are in business to serve your needs and provide cost effective access to their programming which by the way includes the internet because they use the FCC governed channels of broadcast to stream the internet to your home or business, same with all other providers. If you remember the passing of the analog system (antennas on your roof) the move to digital was designed to give companies like this greater ability to split the existing channels for uses such as internet.

 

But I'm not here to preach a position just to make you aware. How you decide to give your input on these ideas is up to you. Short of that if you're in a agreement, thank you. If not, it's your right to have your own educated opinion. No hard feelings. The discussion has been opened for all and that's the important part.

 

Good luck out there. :)

[FastCargo 412]

Lexx,

 

What if your electric company and told you that you only had a limited amount of electricity to use for your TV and DVDs?

 

Or, what if your favorite website, Nightwatch, was throttled by your ISP because it started getting a lot of hits because of some revelation?  Think about that...you could be cut off from that website because your ISP said so.  Period.

 

Like it or not, net neutrality even affects your analog self.

 

Also, I think there is some fundamental misunderstandings here.  Net Neutrality rules aren't necessarily a "one price for unlimited data" issue.  Rates are still rates, even in other Title II utilities such as the phone company, water, electricity, etc.  The difference is that those companies can not decide HOW you use the utility once it is inside your house.  If you want to phone your grandma long distance while lubing your electric drill powered sex toy with hot water, those utilities can't say you can't do that.  Right now, ISPs can do that...and because like Erik said, a lot of ISPs are functional monopolies, there isn't squat you can do about it.

Another analogy, is putting in a toll road, then putting speed bumps and traffic signals on the non toll roads.  Yes, ISPs can do this...and if they are the only game in town for you...nothing you can do about it.

 

FC

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Erik::

 

I don't even know what I just read right there.

 

I don't even know what I just wrote. I don't use much high bandwidth stuff, so its kinda off my screen, which could be my problem understanding you here. All I know is I most trust Karl Denninger at Market Ticker and he reads like Typhoid here.  Denninger is also tough as nails, and that reminds me of Dave here. They have to be related lol. srs.

 

[+Typhoid 231]

There are several internet options available in most places; phone company, ISP wired, radio, satellite, and multiple providers within those options. I have four options where I am.

 

If you don't like your provider, switch to another - while you still can...........

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

Typhoid you just don't like the POTUS because you think he is an Afro-Marxist, Mao Mao, Muslim.

[+Typhoid 231]

Nope. I really don't care what he is or isn't. Irrelevant. What I care about is what he does and how he does it.

 

I don't think this should be dictated without any legislative authority in defiance of a federal district court ruling. The court ruled that the FCC lacked the legislative authority to implement the proposed rules. Also of note, the FCC is an independent commission and the President lacks the authority over the FCC.

 

"How" is important.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Typhoid

[+Dave 2,318]

I didnt see the POTUS telling the FCC anything. He was urging them on. This is exactly why I am not a Democrat or Republican. If the POTUS said oxygen was good, the GOP would say it wasn't. This is total BS. The ISP's want to crush our nuts and nickel and dime us to death. Net Neutrality is about a level playing field for all. If it doesn't pass it won't be. B

[+Erik 1,731]

Net Neutrality just needs to remain as a protection for consumers and businesses, if it were to be reversed (which is what these provider giants want) that would be a huge blow to all of us. The FCC as a regulatory commission will have the final say but as the name implies Federal Communication Commission the guidance will most likely come from the federal side and not the public sector or private sector.

[JediMaster 451]

The problem is that no one wants to admit it's a Very Bad Thing when ANY organization has too much power.

Doesn't matter if it's the gov't or if it's a company, it's BAD. It's not "better" that it be a corporation like the GOP thinks, or "better" if it's the gov't like the Democrats think, it's equally BAD.

 

In The Beginning there were multiple ways for people to access the internet. Then companies started buying other companies to the point where it's down to like three and the gov't. Now there are no choices. Your choice is internet or no internet, not "do I go with cable or DSL or satellite?" when most people don't have access to all three.

 

Typhoid is one of like 5% of the population who have multiple practical avenues for internet access. Most of us get one practical one and one that's not but might work. When your choices are paying Ferrari rates for a Toyota, or Toyota rates for a Kia that actually is in the shop most of the time because it won't work, you don't have a choice. You get crap if you can't afford the Ferrari, and if you can then you're getting gouged.

 

The knee-jerk "all gov't regulation is bad" reaction makes me laugh, because without it we'd be living in smog worse than Beijing (where ironically EVERYTHING is heavily regulated) with carcinogen-filled water to drink and driving in death traps that may or may not keep us alive in an accident to a job that had little concern if we got injured or killed on the job because they'd just get another worker, likely another child in a coal mine forced to drop out of school.

 

The argument that a company that's not good to work for won't have any employees has been demonstrated false time and again over history. People need jobs, and if every company is almost equally bad to work for, is the whole country going to quit? Oh that's right, then we'd all be dependent on the state to provide for us!

 

The people who work for the gov't and the people who work for these companies are the SAME. They're both driven by self-interest, which in a company usually means to get more money for themselves via a raise by making more money for the company (and if it's by cutting corners, like GM, sure, do it!) and in the gov't means either giving favors to companies which donate to reelection campaigns and thus give more security to both the elected officials and their staffs or just being a bureaucrat whose job is just to keep on doing the same thing. They don't want more to do, they want less to do for more money and benefits. No one in the FCC wants to regulate the internet because they're already working 2-3 hrs of their 8 hr days, they don't want to work for 4! They get overpaid for doing as little possible, and they want that to continue ad infinitum. THAT is working for the gov't, which is the biggest welfare program this country has--millions of people paid six-figure salaries to do the amount of work that should make them minimum wage in a real job.

 

The idea that by working for one or the other suddenly you adopt anti-American views is ridiculous, they have the same views after they take the job that they had before--"what's in it for me?", which is pretty much the American Way.

The fallacy is in standing up for either the gov't against the corporations or the corporations against the gov't and thinking it's righteous. It's not. It's disgusting. It demonstrates a willingness to demonize the mistakes of the one side while ignoring the excesses of the other which is STUPID.

 

If you can easily rattle off 10 things wrong with gov't without being able to do the same for corporations, or vice versa, then you have a dangerously skewed perspective on the world. Neither is more or less evil than the other. They're two devils fighting for control and we're the pawns.

[+Typhoid 231]

Every single one of you has the option of going wired or satellite internet. Most of you have the option between the phone company Internet service and cable company Internet service.

 

There is competition for Internet service.

 

The idea of regulating the Internet as a utility with federal rate hearings is a very bad idea.

 

We will have to agree to disagree on this one, but take note of my comments and we'll review the results of the already court declared illegal actions a few years down the road.

 

Respectfully, out.

[+Erik 1,731]

Typhoid all due respect but no, just no.

 

Can you imagine our equipment on a satellite connection? You're just looking at this from the wrong perspective. Where do you think all these internet sites you visit connect their equipment? This isn't just about consumers it's about every aspect of the internet business from the consumer to the provider. It takes both to work and that's not mentioning the backbone carriers and every little end point that they connect to. Traffic can't be regulated, it's worked all these years as is and somehow you can justify changing it with judicial proceedings.

 

Net Neutrality needs to stay in place. That's the reality. Whatever windmill you're tilting at has no point in this discussion.

[+Typhoid 231]

"Traffic can't be regulated, it's worked all these years as is and somehow you can justify changing it with judicial proceedings."

 

Do you realize that you just agreed with me?

 

"Net Neutrality needs to stay in place."

 

It's not in place. This is a new regulatory regime that will change the incredible success of the Internet into a gov't run utility.

 

Does it not strike anyone as just a little ironic that the Elected Official (gov't) and Utility Board Director here doesn't think this is a good idea?

[+Dave 2,318]

But Typhoid it will lead to abuses by the IPS's. Point in case, I pay $228 a month for 2 turbo lines that my son and I use for gaming. TW is saying they will double that in my area just so people can play online because the amount of internet we use to play games if it doesn't pass. That's bullshit and it came right from the techs mouth. I wish he would of let me have a copy of the chart he was showing of what the rates will go up to if this doesn't pass. 

 

The internet as you know it will not be the same if this doesn't pass. I hear you about what you are saying about less government and I agree with you about it. But the outcome of this will be a disaster for the little person. For the record I have 2 choices of internet here and that is it.

[+Erik 1,731]

Typhoid you're mistaken.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

 

This is what is in place now that we are trying to protect. You stated you are in opposition of this which puts you on the side of regulation, throttling, discrimination of traffic etc.

 

You said you were in opposition of POTUS not me now you're trying to convince me that I'm fighting for what you stand for? Wow talk circular arguments.

 

I stand for net neutrality in all senses of the meaning as described above in the wikipedia write up. If you stand on the opposite side, good luck or retract what you said and lets agree this is what we both want.

 

Holy crikee

[FastCargo 412]

You can still have competition even with Title II utilities.  There are options for electricity and landline phones, both considered Title II utilities.  Making something a utility doesn't end competition and driving down prices.  What it does prevent the electric company that laid the wiring to your house from trying to screw you over because you went with another electric company for your actual electric needs.

 

And 'having a choice in ISPs' is ludicrous when one is a sailboat, one is a rowboat, and one is a powerboat.  You aren't going to use a sailboat or rowboat unless you are forced to, I don't care how much cheaper it would be.

 

Net neutrality is simple...it prevents an ISP from trying to shape where you get to go on the internet.  They can't block or throttle you.  If anything, this is having more freedom...not less.

 

FC

[+Dave 2,318]

Net neutrality is simple...it prevents an ISP from trying to shape where you get to go on the internet.  They can't block or throttle you.  If anything, this is having more freedom...not less.

 

FC

 

I am beginning to think Typhoid does not really understand what NN is. What FC said is correct, they can do the above to you. If I play online too much they can throttle it back, if I stream too much they can throttle it back and if I want to prevent the throttling back, they will want more money. That's crap man and you agree with that Typhoid? 

[Fubar512 1,350]

The cable companies are simply upset with the rise and popularity of streaming services, that provide a less-expensive alternative to their cable programing .  Quite a few people have "cut the cord", completely eliminating cable,  and get their television straight from these services. And soon, HBO will offer streaming subscriptions.

 

Since most people receive their internet service from their cable provider, it doesn't take a genius to see why the cable companies (Comcast & TW in particular) are going out of their way to throttle the bandwidth that one has already paid for. I am fortunate in that my cable/internet/telco provider doesn't subscribe to this draconian philosophy....at least not yet.  I see Net Neutrality as a way to keep them honest.

[+Typhoid 231]

Net Neutrality is not exactly my burning issue of the day, but I was about to cite the same wiki article in order to ensure we are on the same frequency. 

 

Erik, my comment that you are arguing my point was based on your para;

 

"This isn't just about consumers it's about every aspect of the internet business from the consumer to the provider. It takes both to work and that's not mentioning the backbone carriers and every little end point that they connect to. Traffic can't be regulated, it's worked all these years as is and somehow you can justify changing it with judicial proceedings."

 

that is just about the best argument there is for leaving the Internet alone.  Gov't didn't build the Internet, private, free-market enterprises built it. First ask yourself - what's broken?   

 

I very key point that I will emphasize here is the last part of that "..... and somehow you can justify changing it with judicial proceedings."

 

No!  The judicial proceedings blocked the FCC from implementing their regulations.  This is where your argument is on the other side.  The FCC proposed implementing what is being called "Net Neutrality" by regulation and Federal District Court blocked that because the FCC doesn't have the regulatory authority to implement what they proposed. They are rewriting their regs in order to comply with the court but the opponents are NOT the ones trying to change it through judicial proceedings. 

 

the President weighed in asking the FCC to reclassify Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from “information services,” their current classification under Title I of the Communications Act of 1934, to “telecommunications providers” under Title II – in essence, making the Internet a public utility.

 

What that means is very well described by the WSJ;

 

http://online.wsj.com/articles/obama-vs-the-internet-1415667174

 

which outlines the steps that any service provider would have to step through in order to set or change any rate.  From that article;

 

 “Like the telephone companies of old, broadband providers would be required to ‘file a tariff’ at the [Federal Communications] commission, meaning they would submit mountains of paperwork and ask the government to approve the prices they intend to charge for services. The bureaucrats would then consider whether the prices are fair. FCC bureaucrats would also hold sway over plans to expand or build digital networks.”

 

another very good summary is at;

 

"https://patriotpost.us/articles/30889

 

this will undermine the ability of the various service providers to provide those services and to be able to recover their costs.  That will lead to less service, not better service.

 

Dave, you shell out $228 a month?!!!  I shell out $46 for a set volume, and if I go over I shell out an additional $2 per 10 gbytes. and thanks to my grandkids who watch Netflix, I do that just about every month.  But the next step up costs more than I shell out in extra costs, although it comes with higher speeds and much more downloads.  But these volumes are just volumes, not by type of service.  Here is the key point - the ISP's have to build the capacity to meet the demand and gaming, video streaming and similar high volume services are driving the need to expand capacity.  It is appropriate for those who use those services to pay for those costs, that is a standard cost-of-service determination that utilities (electric, gas, water) do now.  Tiered rates allow that to happen.

 

Here is the key point, why should a low volume user like me subsidize your high volume?  

 

Some of the points being made to justify NN are based on what some people think the ISP's might do.  At the moment they are not doing that, or I certainly haven't seen it either here in practice nor in the franchise renewal agreements that I will vote to approve coming up here soon. 

 

"Net Neutrality needs to stay in place. That's the reality."  "This is what is in place now that we are trying to protect."

 

NO, that is not currently in place.  at least not here in the US nor in most countries around the world.  Those rules are what the FCC is proposing, in part, and what the Federal District Court blocked as exceeding the FCC's authority without legislation.  The President, also, has no authority over the FCC and cannot legally order them to implement any rules. 

 

"If I play online too much they can throttle it back, if I stream too much they can throttle it back and if I want to prevent the throttling back, they will want more money."

 

correct.  That is tiered rates which are legal today in utility services across the country (water, gas and electric) as well as Internet.  My ISP provides tiered rates for different levels of service.  If there is a flat rate, then the low end user (me) is subsidizing the high end user (you) and THAT, my friend, is the crap sandwich here. 

 

The rational for tiered rates is what I stated above, the ISP has to build the infrastructure and bandwidth to supply that, which costs more money.  Those who use that should be the ones who pay for that.  Not the small user.  That is why there are tiered rates and commercial rates.  You want the services, you should pay for the services. 

 

what is being sold as NN really isn't what it is being sold as. 

 

Respectfully yours. 

[+Dave 2,318]

 

You want the services, you should pay for the services.

 

I already pay for the services and now they will want to charge me more! And you do not think it will not lead to abuses? You and I damn well know company will fuck over a person to get more money. None of them have the user in mind. You really believe they do? You really believe there is an honest big business out there?

.....and yes I pay $228, and my line is so fast it will make your head spin. 

[+Typhoid 231]

I already pay for the services and now they will want to charge me more! And you do not think it will not lead to abuses? You and I damn well know company will fuck over a person to get more money. None of them have the user in mind. You really believe they do? You really believe there is an honest big business out there?

.....and yes I pay $228, and my line is so fast it will make your head spin. 

 

not saying they won't.  every business is in it for the money.  But rolling the entire Internet under the FCC regulatory authority as a utility isn't the answer.  Competition is.  Competition will keep the abuses down by giving people the option to shift from cable to phone or back again.  That is what keeps companies honest, the competitor who will take their customers away from them and put them out of business. 

 

Skybeam offered me a faster service with a higher price and higher volume.  But the current speed is fine for my current use.  I have no doubt that your service would water my eyes.  Just a question of my own use and priorities.  At the moment, I don't have time to use it.  My college sons would like the higher volume and speeds.  I asked them how much they wanted to contribute......................

 

This will just have to be one of those things we won't agree on. 

 

respectfully

Edited November 14, 2014 by Typhoid

[+Erik 1,731]

I support Net Neutrality and the Freedom of the internet.

I do not want cable companies or the federal government to regulate the internet. ALL traffic should be treated as equal.

 

If you believe the same go to http://fcc.gov/comments NOW and voice your opinion.

 

http://FCC.GOV/COMMENTS   The proceeding number 14-28

 

Speak your mind about the issue for or against. Let's all do this now and if you're confused about what Net Neutrality is watch this.

 

[+Typhoid 231]

"I do not want cable companies or the federal government to regulate the internet." we agree