This sums it up

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalz ... ad1fc54c68

As I’ve mentioned before elsewhere, the internet is a MASSIVE vehicle of free speech; a right and in the 1st constitutional amendment. To limit the proficiency of websites as a result of this would essentially be infringing on the 1st amendment (not prevent all free speech, but seriously limit it).

If this is a valid point, I wish someone with power would realize this and take it to the Supreme Court and hopefully vote in favor of keeping net neutrality, because the internet is a medium of (free) speech, just like money is also a form of speech....

Ok I admit, the internet is more than just a means of free speech, and the internet’s purpose isn’t only political, but that means we have more reason to keep the internet safe from unfettered big-money interests, as they are always troublesome and don’t have the general public in their best-interests..

CarlosSi wrote:

If this is a valid point, I wish someone with power would realize this and take it to the Supreme Court and hopefully vote in favor of keeping net neutrality, because the internet is a medium of (free) speech, just like money is also a form of speech....

If the FCC votes to repeal Title II regulations, it means we will return to the regulatory framework that existed in 2015. How is that a problem?

The net neutrality debate doesn't have anything to do with free speech or an open internet. It's about who pays for the expensive infrastructure to stream 4K video content. The Forbes author makes a grave logical error when he concludes that repealing Title II will relegate small content providers to slow-lanes and big content providers to fast-lanes. There won't be any fast-lanes if ISPs can't recuperate their investment. Everyone will be in the slow-lane.

DfwRevolution wrote:

CarlosSi wrote:

If this is a valid point, I wish someone with power would realize this and take it to the Supreme Court and hopefully vote in favor of keeping net neutrality, because the internet is a medium of (free) speech, just like money is also a form of speech....

If the FCC votes to repeal Title II regulations, it means we will return to the regulatory framework that existed in 2015. How is that a problem?

The net neutrality debate doesn't have anything to do with free speech or an open internet. It's about who pays for the expensive infrastructure to stream 4K video content. The Forbes author makes a grave logical error when he concludes that repealing Title II will relegate small content providers to slow-lanes and big content providers to fast-lanes. There won't be any fast-lanes if ISPs can't recuperate their investment. Everyone will be in the slow-lane.

This is disingenuous because Title II regulations were put in place once it became apparent ISPs were trying to violate the principle of Net Neutrality, and regulatory action is needed to enforce it. Net neutrality has always been the way the internet works but the regulation wasn't needed until recently.

Giving ISPs the right to determine the price points to view certain types of content sets a bad precedent and it's anti-consumer. ISPs are free to charge based on the connection speed, and more recently how much data is consumed through bandwidth caps and overage charges. These are legal now and are in fact already in place. Watch a lot of Netflix? Then you may pay an overage. The only reason ISPs want the right to treat packets from edge provider A differently than B is because they want to use these powers to make it harder to access some content in favor of other content.

Is it acceptable to have a marketplace where Comcast could zero-rate Hulu, which they own and competes against Netflix, while also charging customers a special $10 fee if they use Netflix? Seems like it's letting ISPs browbeat consumers into using their 'preferred' service. ISPs make a healthy profit and taxpayers have provided plenty of funding for them to expand but they've allocated poorly and are playing a victim after screwing up for decades.

DfwRevolution wrote:

CarlosSi wrote:

If this is a valid point, I wish someone with power would realize this and take it to the Supreme Court and hopefully vote in favor of keeping net neutrality, because the internet is a medium of (free) speech, just like money is also a form of speech....

If the FCC votes to repeal Title II regulations, it means we will return to the regulatory framework that existed in 2015. How is that a problem?

The net neutrality debate doesn't have anything to do with free speech or an open internet. It's about who pays for the expensive infrastructure to stream 4K video content. The Forbes author makes a grave logical error when he concludes that repealing Title II will relegate small content providers to slow-lanes and big content providers to fast-lanes. There won't be any fast-lanes if ISPs can't recuperate their investment. Everyone will be in the slow-lane.

N-DA answered a good amount.

It doesn’t have anything to do with free speech, but the internet does have to do with free speech in a way.. I admit I did stretch the extent to which the internet is a medium of free speech, but it’s still limiting our means of communication/entertainment/etc. to do without NN.

I was trying to find a means to which repealing NN would actually cause constitutional harm.

I don't recall the internet being any different 24 months ago when net neutrality passed. It was a solution in search of a problem. What's changed? Should a personal hobby weather monitor have equal access as a PS4 streaming 4K?

Jetsgo wrote:

I don't recall the internet being any different 24 months ago when net neutrality passed. It was a solution in search of a problem. What's changed? Should a personal hobby weather monitor have equal access as a PS4 streaming 4K?

People keep saying this, and I'm not sure if there are media outlets spreading or if if the fact that it's a 2015 policy that's confusing--net neutrality has always been there. ISPs respected it for 20+ years, then they didn't, and regulation was put in place to keep things the exact same as they always have been. Getting rid of net neutrality basically means your ISP can charge you to access specific content. Most people have only one option for residential broadband, and there will be no recourse.

This isn't like saying, "let's make a tollway because there are several other routes possible". This is like saying, "let's give the keys to raise and lower the only drawbridge around for hundreds of miles to this one guy, and he can lower it for people he likes!".

How about Myth vs. Fact. Q&A

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Release ... 7961A1.pdf

Lots of meaningless hysteria that needs to be dispelled.

The internet thrived pre-2015 and will do so again.

Why would anyone other than someone making money off of the advertisement industry be opposed to net neutrality???

LAXintl wrote:

How about Myth vs. Fact. Q&A

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Release ... 7961A1.pdf

Lots of meaningless hysteria that needs to be dispelled.

The internet thrived pre-2015 and will do so again.

Of course the "facts" are untruths and supposition. It is the Trump government, after all.

Most of the defense boils down to "well, it wasn't a problem before, so it won't be a problem again", which ignores the fact that the whole reason the Obama government made the change is that it was starting to become a problem. The examples of ISPs throttling content and trying to prevent people from accessing apps like Skype so that they'd be forced to use their own VOIP providers are well documented.

Throttling and exclusive access agreements are going to be cash cows for ISPs. It's folly to think that they're not going to go for them if given the opportunity. The end result is that the ISPs get a lot richer and we end up paying more for the same service. No thanks.

I am not sure why American friend here believe access and content cannot be differentiated, or oppose letting marketplace decide instead of forced government regulations. Is America after all not the land of capitalism and free market place?

In Europe we have nice packages that cover both data volumes and for types of content received from the internet companies. For example, if you are a high data user due to watching lots of Netflix or other video services, for example, you can purchase a video bundle since you consume so much specific data. Same goes for some websites whose access is free(often paid sponsorship for by content creators) and not counted towards usage totals while others are premium data charge.

To me this is the most honest and fair method is to pay for what consumes. Its quite clear and upfront method. As they say its 'pay for play' and choice is in consumer hands as to what they opt to utilize and pay for.

DfwRevolution wrote:

It's about who pays for the expensive infrastructure to stream 4K video content.

last time i checked i was paying my ISP for having the infrastructure and delivering data to me. Letting net neutrality go will either have no effect in the best case, or enable them to sell bandwidth twice, once to me and once to a content provider, and ultimately give a higher priority to the traffic of content providers that i may or may not visit.

Logistics is important too, having infrastructure is as well, but no one is suggesting that Amazon may pay a little more and get priority for its trucks on highways either.

best regards
Thomas

mercure1 wrote:

I am not sure why American friend here believe access and content cannot be differentiated, or oppose letting marketplace decide instead of forced government regulations. Is America after all not the land of capitalism and free market place?

In Europe we have nice packages that cover both data volumes and for types of content received from the internet companies. For example, if you are a high data user due to watching lots of Netflix or other video services, for example, you can purchase a video bundle since you consume so much specific data. Same goes for some websites whose access is free(often paid sponsorship for by content creators) and not counted towards usage totals while others are premium data charge.

To me this is the most honest and fair method is to pay for what consumes.

To me what you just described sounds like a recipe for manipulation and abuse. What business is it of my ISP whether I'm downloading data that displays as a movie or data that comes from news sites?

And as has been pointed out, not everyone has the option of changing ISPs if they don't like the deal they are presented with.

salttee wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

I am not sure why American friend here believe access and content cannot be differentiated, or oppose letting marketplace decide instead of forced government regulations. Is America after all not the land of capitalism and free market place?

In Europe we have nice packages that cover both data volumes and for types of content received from the internet companies. For example, if you are a high data user due to watching lots of Netflix or other video services, for example, you can purchase a video bundle since you consume so much specific data. Same goes for some websites whose access is free(often paid sponsorship for by content creators) and not counted towards usage totals while others are premium data charge.

To me this is the most honest and fair method is to pay for what consumes.

To me what you just described sounds like a recipe for manipulation and abuse. What business is it of my ISP whether I'm downloading data that displays as a movie or data that comes from news sites?

And as has been pointed out, not everyone has the option of changing ISPs if they don't like the deal they are presented with.

Plus it is apples and oranges, in his example the user is paying for getting more than his standard contract, with net neutrality I don't get to chose of my Netflix account becomes ultimately more expensive because they pay my provider money for something I already pay them for.

Best regards
Thomas

The point for me is that without net neutrality everything will become screwed! No I am not trying to over react, but a lot has changed over time. From education and research, to applications for a job or college, dealing with taxes. Even the non-important stuff like chilling watching YouTube videos or movies on Hulu, playing games online, to sharing some of your stories on Facebook or Twitter. With Net Neutrality, we have freedom to go anywhere on the internet without restrictions. Even with small businesses, it helps them to thrive and spread their goods and services around the world. And taking that away of course is not of anyway the end of the world, but it could be a hell hole for the mass majority of us if this law passed.

Companies can lose money, people can loose their jobs, and in general it can be hard to access it. If I would to order something on eBay, there is no way in hell I'd pay for a God forsaking package just to go on a site and shop for something that I want or need.

And what about social media? There's also no way in hell I'd pay money to get on my YouTube or Facebook just to share content or even my aviation videos I have.

And what about this site? Where all aviation enthusiast all around the world can see updates on airlines, aircrafts, manufactures, or even stuff like this? Would you pay extra money just to get on a website like this for everyone? HELL NO! I rather access this website for free and enjoy my hobby of aircrafts! And there's something wrong when a dumb rule like what the FCC is pulling off is self-centered and retarded!

It might not be serious to anyone, but it's serious to me and a whole heap of other people. Times has changed and technology has improved alot. But when you think about the FCC doing this, it's dumb. And I hope everyone can understand. I'm not here to bash anyone, your opinion is opinion. But this law that's about to be put out next week, is DUMB.

#SaveNetNeutrality

I think it is time for the "Internet"..in the US anyway, and the ISP's... to be treated like a utility. You use more...you pay more...not on the CONTENT of the packets, but the AMOUNT...just like trucks on the highways for heavier loads and the water and power one uses. Keep in mind that many folks use VoIP exclusively rather than POTs nowadays...The Internet and broadband are almost to the point of being required in one way or another to conduct day to day business now....

bhill wrote:

I think it is time for the "Internet"..in the US anyway, and the ISP's... to be treated like a utility. You use more...you pay more...not on the CONTENT of the packets, but the AMOUNT...just like trucks on the highways for heavier loads and the water and power one uses. Keep in mind that many folks use VoIP exclusively rather than POTs nowadays...The Internet and broadband are almost to the point of being required in one way or another to conduct day to day business now....

Don't we already do this? I know I have data limits on my phone and plans with more data cost more. This doesn't really have anything to do with net neutrality though.

cledaybuck wrote:

bhill wrote:

I think it is time for the "Internet"..in the US anyway, and the ISP's... to be treated like a utility. You use more...you pay more...not on the CONTENT of the packets, but the AMOUNT...just like trucks on the highways for heavier loads and the water and power one uses. Keep in mind that many folks use VoIP exclusively rather than POTs nowadays...The Internet and broadband are almost to the point of being required in one way or another to conduct day to day business now....

Don't we already do this? I know I have data limits on my phone and plans with more data cost more. This doesn't really have anything to do with net neutrality though.

Some do, some do not....Net "un-neutrality" would be like the phone company...cell or POT's.... charging you more for English vs any other language used in the conversation...again, charge for AMOUNT used rather than CONTENT....I would also like to know how the companies have any business knowing WHAT is in the packets I am consuming...

There need to be regulations to enforce net-neutrality. To say that the free market will take care of it,is pure bullshit.

The network protocol stacks in use between software/hw servers that are used to transfer data back and forth are designed and specified with headers that can be used to throttle,block and limit traffic.

Within that framework rules need to be enforced to prevent people from being blocked from access by arbitrary "free market" rules.
Having said that,

Title 2 of the communication act of 1934, is probably not the best way to define a common carrier. However until Congress does it's job and defines a more workable framework, it is obscene for the FCC to acquiesce to a request from the carriers to basically have free will in throttling traffic .

In this day and age where youtube, netflix, amazon prime and other services are streaming heavy bundles of streaming traffic, your voice calls and real time communications could get shafted by ISP's pushing their own service agendas.

Net neutrality sounds a lot like people who don't question why an airline still charges an arm and a leg to fly, making record profits, etc. That we had to trust that airlines would make the right call when their financial situation improved...and if we didn't like it, we could always take the train or drive.

Example: bags. Used to be included in your ticket. Now you pay to check it in, and up to a certain limit. In the meantime, airlines bank millions while making the onboard experience crappier.

Imagine an ISP throttling back service to Netflix and then asking you to pay extra to view it. And then a few months later, a fee increase again...and then later on, being limited by total data content (10Gs of streaming in total). All while the same infrastructure remains in place.

And yet we're supposed to believe that the free market will sort it out?

einsteinboricua wrote:

Imagine an ISP throttling back service to Netflix and then asking you to pay extra to view it. And then a few months later, a fee increase again...and then later on, being limited by total data content (10Gs of streaming in total). All while the same infrastructure remains in place.

And yet we're supposed to believe that the free market will sort it out?

In Germany a couple of ISPs tried to get a "fair use policy" into their contracts a few years back. The market did sort that out rather quickly, the market demands flatrates.

best regards
Thomas

And gone.

Someone going through the trouble - and the money - to create 2 million fake comments on the proposal? Not a concern.
ISP having prior history of throttling and outright blocking content? Not a concern.
Trolling critics and referring to them as trolls, while dancing around with a known Pizzagate conspiracy theorist? Evidently a concern.

CPH-R wrote:

And gone.

Someone going through the trouble - and the money - to create 2 million fake comments on the proposal? Not a concern.
ISP having prior history of throttling and outright blocking content? Not a concern.
Trolling critics and referring to them as trolls, while dancing around with a known Pizzagate conspiracy theorist? Evidently a concern.

Well the ex Verizon guy wanted to push the Verizon agenda, and that's all this admin listens to, so that's the end of that. I think the death of democracy/free speech is a bit overblown--it's just a way for companies like ATT to delivery even shittier service at higher prices. #blessed

casinterest wrote:

Title 2 of the communication act of 1934, is probably not the best way to define a common carrier. However until Congress does it's job and defines a more workable framework, it is obscene for the FCC to acquiesce to a request from the carriers to basically have free will in throttling traffic .

It was obscene for the FCC to re-classify it in the first place...to try and place something as dynamic and progressive in a Depression-era regulatory framework was always absurd, and the fact that all the internet giants ended lining up in favor of being regulated as a utility is telling. It basically freezes their dominance in the market place and assumes that the internet of today is and always will be the same, shielding them from future competition, which is terrible policy. Just consider your mobile phone alone...no one would have thought 10 years ago that today the majority of time spent online would be consumed through mobile technology.

The Title 2 reclassification was always a heavy-handed/anti-competitive solution to something that wasn't really a problem. In the entire history of the internet there have only been something like 12 documented cases of throttling...most of which were actually disproved in court. Regulatory reform should have instead been focused on increasing ISP competition by lowering regulatory barriers to entry and prohibiting monopolistic behavior...but then that wouldn't have been good for Verizon/Comcast, would it?

Good riddance, and unlike 2015 they actually used order and open due process this time.

Now lets let the companies innovate, be creative, come up with different ways to deliver to us. Ultimately market gets to pick what sticks or not. Treating 21st century tech as 1930s infrastructure was looking backward not forward.

MaverickM11 wrote:

CPH-R wrote:

Well the ex Verizon guy wanted to push the Verizon agenda, and that's all this admin listens to, so that's the end of that.

That ex Verizon guy was an Obama appointee.

Several states are gathering law suits to bring back net neutrality but California will try to go one step further and make it state law

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/1 ... eutrality/

But what does California know about tech?

janders wrote:

Good riddance, and unlike 2015 they actually used order and open due process this time.

Now lets let the companies innovate, be creative, come up with different ways to deliver to us. Ultimately market gets to pick what sticks or not. Treating 21st century tech as 1930s infrastructure was looking backward not forward.

MaverickM11 wrote:

CPH-R wrote:

Well the ex Verizon guy wanted to push the Verizon agenda, and that's all this admin listens to, so that's the end of that.

That ex Verizon guy was an Obama appointee.

And that changes anything...how? Who made him chairman?

bhill wrote:

I think it is time for the "Internet"..in the US anyway, and the ISP's... to be treated like a utility. You use more...you pay more...not on the CONTENT of the packets, but the AMOUNT...just like trucks on the highways for heavier loads and the water and power one uses. Keep in mind that many folks use VoIP exclusively rather than POTs nowadays...The Internet and broadband are almost to the point of being required in one way or another to conduct day to day business now....

Basically ISP's are seeking a cut of the revenues of competing services, websites as well as social media and to give preference to those they have investment in as well as profits from them. They won't use the additional income to improve or expand services.
While wireless services have tiered fees for data volume and 'throttle' high use at peak times, ISP's do charge more for commercial users and some have tried 'metered' bandwidth/volume service with backlash and all charge more for different speed levels. I think is is fair to for ISP's to charge more for those that use a lot of data, but not restrict the speed by the source. The potential of private commercial censorship will be unacceptable. Make sites for Democrats or 'liberal' or President Trump hating websites slower to get to or charge more ? Sorry, that is dead wrong and a violation of the 1st Amendment. I hope the pending lawsuits will put the FCC's vote on hold and eventually overturn this corrupt ruling. .

My grandson has been a Trump supporter, I think mostly to bust my chops. He is fourteen. Today when I picked him up at school, the first thing he said to me was, " that does it for me, Trump caused the end of Net Neutrality today". I had discussed it with him before, but he did not realize how it might affect him. They had discussed it at school among the kids during class. Reality set in and I said just wait, because that is what you will be doing on the internet and on your smart phone is wait and pay. Another Trump supporter has seen the light.

ltbewr wrote:

Make sites for Democrats or 'liberal' or President Trump hating websites slower to get to or charge more ? Sorry, that is dead wrong and a violation of the 1st Amendment.

No it isn't, because the first amendment starts "Congress shall make no law" - the first amendment doesn't apply to the actions of private companies. If that were a violation of the first amendment, then charging for internet access in the first place would also be a violation. Requiring people to pay their phone bills and turning their phone off if they dont would be a violation. Requiring people to pay their magazine and newspaper subscriptions. Pay walls. See where this goes?

I'm a net neutrality supporter, but I wish people would stop making arguments which have no foundations and cant be defended - net neutrality is quite simply argued for just by saying that companies sell internet access, and if it isnt internet access (some sites are blocked or interfered with) then selling that service as "internet access" should be a simple case of fraud.

There are always edge cases which muddy the waters - protecting the network against attackers etc for example, but those edge cases should be blindingly obvious as such and shouldnt ever be able to be mistaken for "normality".

I pay for a 1000Mbit pipe here in NZ, it costs me $120 NZ a month, it comes with no throttling, no capping, no limits, no blocked ports, a static IP and I can use any router I want.

Thats what an internet connection should be.

It is simply a step to further commercialize the net. Sent data from company A-D fastest and reduce speed to sites that do not pay the provider.

mercure1, what you describe "in Europe" is not that way at all in France. Here there is no limit on how much data you can consume, I should know I'm an extreme user. I now have a 4G* plan for my mobile phone that is also unlimited, even if I run P2P or newsgroup programs. Some people have passed the 1TB downloaded in a month using 4G.

The price is also very reasonable, to the point I'm considering subscribing to a third internet provider, through the cable (FTTLA, Fiber To The Last Amplifier) on top of ADSL and 4G.

French ISPs are clamoring for the same end to net neutrality as Trump is going to push through. When several multinational companies are asking for something, I know I don't want it !

* 4G in Europe = 5G in the US.

tommy1808 wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

Imagine an ISP throttling back service to Netflix and then asking you to pay extra to view it. And then a few months later, a fee increase again...and then later on, being limited by total data content (10Gs of streaming in total). All while the same infrastructure remains in place.

And yet we're supposed to believe that the free market will sort it out?

In Germany a couple of ISPs tried to get a "fair use policy" into their contracts a few years back. The market did sort that out rather quickly, the market demands flatrates.

best regards
Thomas

I don't know how it is in Europe, but in the US, ISPs are almost like utilities: you only get one per region. Right now, the only company in my region is MetroCast. If I want an alternate company I'll have to either move from the region or get a service like AT&T U-verse (which will likely be on par or worse). So if MetroCast decided to throttle down Netflix and have me pay extra for it, sure they'll get a backlash, but it's either a lower quality/higher priced service with another company, or no internet at all (assuming I refuse to pay a "Netflix supplement").

einsteinboricua wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

Imagine an ISP throttling back service to Netflix and then asking you to pay extra to view it. And then a few months later, a fee increase again...and then later on, being limited by total data content (10Gs of streaming in total). All while the same infrastructure remains in place.

And yet we're supposed to believe that the free market will sort it out?

In Germany a couple of ISPs tried to get a "fair use policy" into their contracts a few years back. The market did sort that out rather quickly, the market demands flatrates.

best regards
Thomas

I don't know how it is in Europe, but in the US, ISPs are almost like utilities: you only get one per region. .

In Germany you usually have multible choices with diffident technologies. In my place i can have fiber, VDSL or LTE based internet access. The dominant provider also has to rent out the last mile to other providers at regulated prices. For bitstream VDLS access, i.e. modem and such is also by the dominating provider, it costs them 18,56 EUR per month. My 100MBit fiber access costs me 44,99 per month. That includes 19% VAT.

In a sense you could say "net neutrality" here extends into the physical infrastructure.

best regards
Thomas

einsteinboricua wrote:

Right now, the only company in my region is MetroCast. If I want an alternate company I'll have to either move from the region or get a service like AT&T U-verse (which will likely be on par or worse).

So... MetroCast isn't the only company in your region. They compete with AT&T U-verse.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Net neutrality sounds a lot like people who don't question why an airline still charges an arm and a leg to fly, making record profits, etc. That we had to trust that airlines would make the right call when their financial situation improved...and if we didn't like it, we could always take the train or drive.

Commercial aviation doesn't make a great case for Title II advocates. Airline prices are way cheaper today than when the federal government regulated prices and networks.

casinterest wrote:

There need to be regulations to enforce net-neutrality. To say that the free market will take care of it,is pure bullshit.

It's remarkably telling that you think it's "bullshit" the free markets can't solve a problem that hadn't even manifest itself prior to the Title II reclassification in 2015.

flyguy89 wrote:

The Title 2 reclassification was always a heavy-handed/anti-competitive solution to something that wasn't really a problem

DfwRevolution wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

Right now, the only company in my region is MetroCast. If I want an alternate company I'll have to either move from the region or get a service like AT&T U-verse (which will likely be on par or worse).

So... MetroCast isn't the only company in your region. They compete with AT&T U-verse.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Net neutrality sounds a lot like people who don't question why an airline still charges an arm and a leg to fly, making record profits, etc. That we had to trust that airlines would make the right call when their financial situation improved...and if we didn't like it, we could always take the train or drive.

Commercial aviation doesn't make a great case for Title II advocates. Airline prices are way cheaper today than when the federal government regulated prices and networks.

casinterest wrote:

There need to be regulations to enforce net-neutrality. To say that the free market will take care of it,is pure bullshit.

It's remarkably telling that you think it's "bullshit" the free markets can't solve a problem that hadn't even manifest itself prior to the Title II reclassification in 2015.

Free markets can't always solve problems. Especially when interrtuptive Technology is involved. Sometimes they create them . Sometimes for decades. I present to you, Eli Whitney and the Cotton Gin. I'll let you decide what effect that immediately had in the "Free Markets". That I can say Bullshit to the Utopian idea of a "Free Market" fixing all things, indicates that I have an education. Not a lack of one.

DfwRevolution wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

The Title 2 reclassification was always a heavy-handed/anti-competitive solution to something that wasn't really a problem

But it was really a problem. Go read some history about a state called Texas that sued the Railroads for the leasing costs that they were being Exorbitantly charged for going within vs out of state.
It was a big problem at the times.

casinterest wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

The Title 2 reclassification was always a heavy-handed/anti-competitive solution to something that wasn't really a problem

But it was really a problem. Go read some history about a state called Texas that sued the Railroads for the leasing costs that they were being Exorbitantly charged for going within vs out of state.
It was a big problem at the times.

I was specifically referencing reclassifying the internet as a Title 2 utility. I'm OK with net neutrality as a principle (although I don't think it should be illegal for a company to offer an internet product optimized or throttled based on usage), but the Obama-era FCC unfortunately threw the baby out with the bathwater by implementing net neutrality via unilaterally force-fitting the internet under regulations designed for the telegraph. This basically gave the FCC the power to enforce all manner of regulations for the internet above and beyond net neutrality, which the FCC merely just "promised" they wouldn't use...just a huge and confusing curve-ball of uncertainty where entrepreneurs and businesses need clarity and predictability. Of course Verizon, Comcast and the like were all for this approach once they realized how it would shield them from future competition...

flyguy89 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

But it was really a problem. Go read some history about a state called Texas that sued the Railroads for the leasing costs that they were being Exorbitantly charged for going within vs out of state.
It was a big problem at the times.

I was specifically referencing reclassifying the internet as a Title 2 utility. I'm OK with net neutrality as a principle (although I don't think it should be illegal for a company to offer an internet product optimized or throttled based on usage), but the Obama-era FCC unfortunately threw the baby out with the bathwater by implementing net neutrality via unilaterally force-fitting the internet under regulations designed for the telegraph. This basically gave the FCC the power to enforce all manner of regulations for the internet above and beyond net neutrality, which the FCC merely just "promised" they wouldn't use...just a huge and confusing curve-ball of uncertainty where entrepreneurs and businesses need clarity and predictability. Of course Verizon, Comcast and the like were all for this approach once they realized how it would shield them from future competition...

Title 2 though, handled the critical issue of the carriers being able to throttle. This is the critical issue, and is one that a lot of folks don't grasp .
In the internet is designed with fields of bits that can prioritize traffic, and these bits can be ignored, honored or changed, by any router.

If you are a carrier, and you identify that the source address of a packet has an agreement with you, you may honor their packet or change it to match a setting that they paid for.
So if a Carrier in the free market has a choice, they can build a network to handle most of the traffic, most of the time at a certain priority without loss, but then they can surcharge for "peak times" to guarantee delivery to those that pay. Without Title 2, many sites will have their trarffic throttled. For Airliners.net... no big deal. it is a web page and not time sensitive. It also works on TCP and will get delivered eventually. For Netflix, Amazon, Youtube , Nintendo and Microsoft, there are other issues as they are now depending on a certain class of service to deliver you the streaming media, games, calls and conferences you want to take part in, as well as trying to funnel ads down the pipe for revenue. The removal of Net Neutrality allows these carriers to basically go for throttling to increase revenues. Thereby costing the consumers more.

casinterest wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

casinterest wrote:

There need to be regulations to enforce net-neutrality. To say that the free market will take care of it,is pure bullshit.

It's remarkably telling that you think it's "bullshit" the free markets can't solve a problem that hadn't even manifest itself prior to the Title II reclassification in 2015.

Free markets can't always solve problems. Especially when interrtuptive Technology is involved. Sometimes they create them . Sometimes for decades. I present to you, Eli Whitney and the Cotton Gin. I'll let you decide what effect that immediately had in the "Free Markets". That I can say Bullshit to the Utopian idea of a "Free Market" fixing all things, indicates that I have an education. Not a lack of one.

Strawman. I never claimed free markets "can always solve problems." Regulation is necessary and value-added when a market failure occurs.

However, your urge to regulate an industry before any market failure and before any chance at correction just shows your fetish to exercise the crude blunt force of the federal government

DfwRevolution wrote:

casinterest wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

It's remarkably telling that you think it's "bullshit" the free markets can't solve a problem that hadn't even manifest itself prior to the Title II reclassification in 2015.

Free markets can't always solve problems. Especially when interrtuptive Technology is involved. Sometimes they create them . Sometimes for decades. I present to you, Eli Whitney and the Cotton Gin. I'll let you decide what effect that immediately had in the "Free Markets". That I can say Bullshit to the Utopian idea of a "Free Market" fixing all things, indicates that I have an education. Not a lack of one.

Strawman. I never claimed free markets "can always solve problems." Regulation is necessary and value-added when a market failure occurs.

However, your urge to regulate an industry before any market failure and before any chance at correction just shows your fetish to exercise the crude blunt force of the federal government

Nope not a strawman. I work in the Industry, and the underlying protocols are designed for Throttling. It is how the internet works. By not regulating the carriage of certain media, you are allowing carriers to determine priority. Title 2 made them a bit wary of doing some of their Throttling. However without Title 2 , and a decent framework outside of it, there will be throttling. Especially as Service providers such as Disney or Google are much more easily able to afford the Tarrifs that will be imposed by the carriers. The entry to market for smaller content providers will be stifled.

And by the way, Title 2 was invoked when evidence of manipulation by carriers was occurring. How long till it happens again?


https://www.extremetech.com/computing/1 ... -bandwidth

casinterest wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

But it was really a problem. Go read some history about a state called Texas that sued the Railroads for the leasing costs that they were being Exorbitantly charged for going within vs out of state.
It was a big problem at the times.

I was specifically referencing reclassifying the internet as a Title 2 utility. I'm OK with net neutrality as a principle (although I don't think it should be illegal for a company to offer an internet product optimized or throttled based on usage), but the Obama-era FCC unfortunately threw the baby out with the bathwater by implementing net neutrality via unilaterally force-fitting the internet under regulations designed for the telegraph. This basically gave the FCC the power to enforce all manner of regulations for the internet above and beyond net neutrality, which the FCC merely just "promised" they wouldn't use...just a huge and confusing curve-ball of uncertainty where entrepreneurs and businesses need clarity and predictability. Of course Verizon, Comcast and the like were all for this approach once they realized how it would shield them from future competition...

Title 2 though, handled the critical issue of the carriers being able to throttle. This is the critical issue, and is one that a lot of folks don't grasp .
In the internet is designed with fields of bits that can prioritize traffic, and these bits can be ignored, honored or changed, by any router.

Sure, but unfortunately it brought with it a lot of regulatory baggage and uncertainty ill-suited for the internet which IMO were equally as much a threat to the internet as blocking/throttling.

flyguy89 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

I was specifically referencing reclassifying the internet as a Title 2 utility. I'm OK with net neutrality as a principle (although I don't think it should be illegal for a company to offer an internet product optimized or throttled based on usage), but the Obama-era FCC unfortunately threw the baby out with the bathwater by implementing net neutrality via unilaterally force-fitting the internet under regulations designed for the telegraph. This basically gave the FCC the power to enforce all manner of regulations for the internet above and beyond net neutrality, which the FCC merely just "promised" they wouldn't use...just a huge and confusing curve-ball of uncertainty where entrepreneurs and businesses need clarity and predictability. Of course Verizon, Comcast and the like were all for this approach once they realized how it would shield them from future competition...

Title 2 though, handled the critical issue of the carriers being able to throttle. This is the critical issue, and is one that a lot of folks don't grasp .
In the internet is designed with fields of bits that can prioritize traffic, and these bits can be ignored, honored or changed, by any router.

Sure, but unfortunately it brought with it a lot of regulatory baggage and uncertainty ill-suited for the internet which IMO were equally as much a threat to the internet as blocking/throttling.

Regulations needed to be put in place, and Title 2 was applied since the Morons that run the GOP side of the house have an aversion to regulations due to their educational attainment being overriden by cash from their donors. One could use the word corruption.

As long as the lobbyists are pursuing less regulations, and the GOP is willing to accept some more money, then we will have less regulations. Remember the FCC is not applying logic to the rollbacks and creating new regulations that make sense. They are just rolling them back. This is expressly evident as this was a party line vote.

casinterest wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Title 2 though, handled the critical issue of the carriers being able to throttle. This is the critical issue, and is one that a lot of folks don't grasp .
In the internet is designed with fields of bits that can prioritize traffic, and these bits can be ignored, honored or changed, by any router.

Sure, but unfortunately it brought with it a lot of regulatory baggage and uncertainty ill-suited for the internet which IMO were equally as much a threat to the internet as blocking/throttling.

Regulations needed to be put in place, and Title 2 was applied since the Morons that run the GOP side of the house have an aversion to regulations due to their educational attainment being overriden by cash from their donors. One could use the word corruption.

As long as the lobbyists are pursuing less regulations, and the GOP is willing to accept some more money, then we will have less regulations. Remember the FCC is not applying logic to the rollbacks and creating new regulations that make sense. They are just rolling them back. This is expressly evident as this was a party line vote.

I understand the argument, but Title 2 reclassification was a terrible vehicle for it. And the fact that Verizon, Comcast et al are now lobbying in favor of being regulated under Title 2 is telling. Sorry, but I don't see any better upside to the internet being forced under stifling, outdated regs that inhibit competition vs. the potential threat of throttling...both are terrible outcomes.

I am for Net Neutrality and was pissed when AT&T blocked FaceTime.

My cable/internet provider allows NetFlix thru the coax cable. Haven't used but felt it as a neat option rather than hogging internet bandwidth.

I believe T-Mobile allows free NetFlix streaming, AT&T allows free DirecTV streaming. Watching videos on smartphones has gotten out of control.

I doubt any ISP going to throttle any content soon not knowing what will happen in three years. Maybe Google will launch Google Fiber in all major Metros.

After U.S. decision, France says will continue to defend net neutrality

PARIS (Reuters) - France will continue to defend “net neutrality” irrespective of what other countries may do, Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Friday, after a United States commission voted to ditch rules on the issue.
.
.
.
“France will continue to defend net neutrality despite whatever decisions are taken by other countries,” Le Drian said in a speech on Friday on France’s overseas digital strategy.

20 years ago France Telecom (now called Orange) had a monopoly on the telephone network. The ARCEP, the "French FCC", after France Telecom became private, forced it to rent the last mile to the competition.

Now we have several big competitors and you can get an ADSL line from any of them anywhere in metropolitan France. For cable or fiber ISPs tried to be alone in cities or streets to gouge customers, again the ARCEP intervened and now after two years you can get any one of the ISP through the fiber installed by the first one.

Where fiber is available you can get 1000MBps with no throttling for 25€/month.

I think the misunderstanding of net neutrality is super widespread. Not censoring does not equal net neutrality. Personally I've already bought individual proxy server at https://buy.fineproxy.org/eng/individualproxy.html to protect my data and get access to the blocked content. It turned out to be much more convy than work on the proxy used by others.

janders wrote:

Good riddance, and unlike 2015 they actually used order and open due process this time.

Now lets let the companies innovate, be creative, come up with different ways to deliver to us. Ultimately market gets to pick what sticks or not.

Was there any choice given to regular American family users when certain ISP start throttling Netflix and set a monthly data usage cap? Many American families only have a single ISP connected to them

Treating 21st century tech as 1930s infrastructure was looking backward not forward.

Yeah, just look at what Huawei and etc are proposing, and also implemented in some Asian countries, let ISP make profit from content that people are visiting instead of just charging for the access channels, charge extra for usable speed in international internet connection, provide free access to the like of AIM so that people won't switch over to more usable chat tools, etcetc

c933103 wrote:

janders wrote:

Good riddance, and unlike 2015 they actually used order and open due process this time.

Now lets let the companies innovate, be creative, come up with different ways to deliver to us. Ultimately market gets to pick what sticks or not.

Was there any choice given to regular American family users when certain ISP start throttling Netflix and set a monthly data usage cap? Many American families only have a single ISP connected to them

That is the issue that really needs to be fixed...

Much of the net neutrality debate is really a crutch for not fixing the real issue - undue monopoly in the US internet supply market.

Here in NZ, you sign up for super fast fibre with an ISP, and its an independent company which owns the last mile - they charge a standard rate for all ISPs, and all ISPs hook in upstream to deliver you service. This means I can choose from dozens of service providers, at hundreds of service levels, with many different packages. Some deliver IPv6, some give a static IP, some use CGNAT.

I pay around $60 US a month for a gigabit fibre connection, no cap, no throttling and a static IP. Because competition works.

I agree with the net neutrality stance and the monopolies that companies have. Twitter has recently silenced any conservative/pro Trump/pro Brexit accounts. They haven't banned them as such but have limited the impact of any tweet made just like YouTube demonitised most similar videos.

Free speech is alive and well and protected. Just so long as you're liberal, anti Trump and anti Brexit and spread anti white hate and hysteria.