Net Neutrality

Floyd Robertson wrote:

****  Verizon.

Verizon threatens Netflix with cease and desist letter

F U C K VERIZON, can you hear me now?

Not to change the subject too much, but how did the wireless carriers not get hit with bait and switch when they started charging for data? I remember VZW having commercials, showing all these cool things you could do over their 4G network. I think in any one of the commercials, the amount of data they used would have gone over the cap, if anyone had used their phone the way they were shown they could. I'm happy to still have my unlimited, but not looking forward to buying a new phone.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/06/05/qa-will-the-fcc-read-my-net-neutrality-comment/

FCC spokeswoman Kim Hart assures commenters that even though they are one of thousands, every submission is being read.

“All comments are reviewed and read by a team of people who specialize in the area of policy to make sure all viewpoints are accounted for,” she said.

....cough cough bullshit

Cosmo_Kramer wrote:http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/06/05/qa-will-the-fcc-read-my-net-neutrality-comment/

FCC spokeswoman Kim Hart assures commenters that even though they are one of thousands, every submission is being read.

“All comments are reviewed and read by a team of people who specialize in the area of policy to make sure all viewpoints are accounted for,” she said.

....cough cough bullshit

I've read in other places that leaving a comment is just as effective as calling. They have to review every comment. Is the site back up yet?

InTenSity wrote:
I've read in other places that leaving a comment is just as effective as calling. They have to review every comment. Is the site back up yet?

They are supposed to review every comment, but who says they do? Is their a comment-checking person who asks comment checkers if they've actually read the comments?

Cable companies are reportedly funding fake consumer groups to attack net neutrality

http://www.engadget.com/2014/06/06/cable-companies-alleged-to-astroturf-net-neutrality/

Steve - I was going to post that, you beat me to the punch. The sad thing is that probably only about 2% of internet consumers are even aware of what is going on. Even on this board, there is really only a few of us posting in this thread. I guess the only thing to do is keep it on the first page and hope people are vocal enough.

fcc.gov/comments is back up.

For another take on why the recent Netflix vs Comcast spat had nothing to do with Net Neutrality:

http://time.com/32784/netflix-comcast-net-neutrality/

Or if you want a real life example.

Someone opens a big attraction that becomes really popular, and causes gridlock on the roads with people trying to get there.

Big attraction argues that local municipality should build all the roads required to prevent the gridlock as "everyone pays for unlimited use of all roads thru taxes". Municipality argues that the attraction caused the gridlock and should pay for the upgraded roads .... who is right?

b0b wrote:Or if you want a real life example.

Someone opens a big attraction that becomes really popular, and causes gridlock on the roads with people trying to get there.

Big attraction argues that local municipality should build all the roads required to prevent the gridlock as "everyone pays for unlimited use of all roads thru taxes". Municipality argues that the attraction caused the gridlock and should pay for the upgraded roads .... who is right?

This is just about power, greed and corruption. Comcast owns Hulu and now has the power to squeeze out Netflix. They are going to kill off competition and have an even bigger monopoly. And all of this is going down right in full view of the public, nothing about it is concealed.

InTenSity wrote:Steve - I was going to post that, you beat me to the punch. The sad thing is that probably only about 2% of internet consumers are even aware of what is going on. Even on this board, there is really only a few of us posting in this thread. I guess the only thing to do is keep it on the first page and hope people are vocal enough.

fcc.gov/comments is back up.

In the thread on the Swill Bin where people are sounding off about Republicans and Democrats I piped up saying I believe the public is the biggest blame of this countries problems. I think apathy is a big problem.

steveschneider wrote:

In the thread on the Swill Bin where people are sounding off about Republicans and Democrats I piped up saying I believe the public is the biggest blame of this countries problems. I think apathy is a big problem.

Whatever.   
/s

Educate yourself a little bit while it's still neutral. NSFW - Joe Rogan has a potty mouth. :)

steveschneider wrote:This is just about power, greed and corruption. Comcast owns Hulu and now has the power to squeeze out Netflix.

sure it is - by both sides. If Netflix really is 33% of the network traffic, then you have to assume all ISPs send a decent chunk of your monthly subscription providing the infrastructure for Netflix traffic - whether you subscribe to Netflix or not.

b0b wrote:

sure it is - by both sides. If Netflix really is 33% of the network traffic, then you have to assume all ISPs send a decent chunk of your monthly subscription providing the infrastructure for Netflix traffic  - whether you subscribe to Netflix or not.

Are you against Net Neutrality?

steveschneider wrote:Are you against Net Neutrality?

Not sure, the net has not been neutral or really been "governed" by the government, so I don't know how I feel about the government setting "rules" either way. I'd rather the government leave the internet alone.

But don't get confused about "Netflix / Comcast", that is not a net neutrality issue, its simply who pays the bill for the bits being exchanged between the two companies. Traditionally the person with more traffic pays, however if the exchange was fairly even, there was no charge, aka "settlement free peering".

Netflix doesn't want to pay and is trying to convince everyone its a "net neutrality" issue. don't be fooled.

b0b wrote:

sure it is - by both sides. If Netflix really is 33% of the network traffic, then you have to assume all ISPs send a decent chunk of your monthly subscription providing the infrastructure for Netflix traffic  - whether you subscribe to Netflix or not.

Except for the fact that Netflix has data centers across the country, and they've tied directly into the trunk lines of any ISP that will let them. That means the ISP is only carrying the traffic from their own servers to the consumers home. And if the consumer has paid for a certain amount of bandwidth but doesn't get it, then it's the ISP that is ripping off their own customers. They want to charge customers for the same bandwidth twice, as well has charging Netflix for something they already charged the consumer for (twice).

Rodeo Burger wrote:That means the ISP is only carrying the traffic from their own servers to the consumers home.  And if the consumer has paid for a certain amount of bandwidth but doesn't get it, then it's the ISP that is ripping off their own customers.  They want to charge customers for the same bandwidth twice, as well has charging Netflix for something they already charged the consumer for (twice).

You're paying for a certain amount of bandwidth to your ISP's network, not the entire Internet. Your ISP has priced your fee based on certain things, including traditional peering agreements and the amount they can oversubscribe their network.

Make no mistake, Netflix is responsible for 33% of the traffic to ISPs like Comcast and Comcast has already spent a large percentage of your subscription to provide the infrastructure to deliver the traffic to you. And it upsets the traditional math of providing Internet access. Everyone that doesn't subscribe to Netflix should be a bit annoyed that they're paying a substantial monthly fee for it.

b0b wrote:

You're paying for a certain amount of bandwidth to your ISP's network, not the entire Internet. Your ISP has priced your fee based on certain things, including traditional peering agreements and the amount they can oversubscribe their network.

Make no mistake, Netflix is responsible for 33% of the traffic to ISPs like Comcast and Comcast has already spent a large percentage of your subscription to provide the infrastructure to deliver the traffic to you. And it upsets the traditional math of providing Internet access. Everyone that doesn't subscribe to Netflix should be a bit annoyed that they're paying a substantial monthly fee for it.

Bull shit.

Tell the FCC: Don’t kill the Internet

http://act.credoaction.com/sign/fcc_nn_comments_2014?source=fb_share4

7/15/14 is the deadline. Real simple, takes a minute.

Done.

Done.

As someone who just faced what this new business model will look like, and got screwed because of it, I can't begin to tell you how important this is for anyone who has a brain and doesn't work for one of 5-10 giant companies in the US.

Mentalstate wrote:Done.

As someone who just faced what this new business model will look like, and got screwed because of it, I can't begin to tell you how important this is for anyone who has a brain and doesn't work for one of 5-10 giant companies in the US.

Tell your story, how'd you get screwed?

Mentalstate wrote:Done.

As someone who just faced what this new business model will look like, and got screwed because of it, I can't begin to tell you how important this is for anyone who has a brain and doesn't work for one of 5-10 giant companies in the US.

Probably 10 percent of the population has a normal, functioning brain.

A Threat to Internet Freedom

NY Times video from last week.

steveschneider wrote:

Tell your story, how'd you get screwed?

Can't say much, but some very large companies have working $$$ relationships with certain popular social platforms, and are able to make determinations about disallowing any new small competition.

Surge in net-neutrality comments crashes FCC site; deadline extended

The Federal Communications Commission extended Tuesday's deadline for public comments on its proposed net neutrality rules until Friday after a last-minute surge in submissions overwhelmed the agency's website.

The FCC had received about 780,000 comments as of Tuesday afternoon, with about 222,000 coming through its electronic comment system, said spokeswoman Kim Hart.

I got this email from Marco Rubio. I don't know if I'm reading this correctly, but to me it sounds like he agree's with the appeals court and that Net Neutrality shouldn't exist.

[size=16]Dear Mr. InTenSity,
 
Thank you for contacting me to express your thoughts on the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) attempts to regulate the Internet, commonly referred to as "net neutrality." I appreciate hearing from you.
Since its inception, the Internet has flourished with minimal government involvement and has revolutionized our ability to communicate and conduct commerce. As an engine of economic growth, it has provided businesses with the ability to compete in the global marketplace. Continued development of the Internet and modern telecommunications, free of government interference, is integral to American innovation.
However, in 2010, the FCC adopted its "Open Internet Order," which would establish federal regulations governing network management practices for broadband Internet service providers. Fortunately, a U.S. appeals court for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down the order citing the Commission's prior decision to classify broadband as an information service. The Communications Act expressly prohibits the FCC from regulating broadband providers under this classification. 
In an effort to circumvent the appeals court decision, on May 15, 2014, the FCC approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) aimed at adopting new rules to replace those struck down by the appeals court. The NPRM also seeks public comment on whether the agency should reclassify broadband as a communications utility under Title II of the Communications Act. The uncertain and misguided authority that comes with reclassifying broadband must be addressed by Congress, not by five unelected bureaucrats at the FCC. That is why updating the outdated Communications Act, which passed in 1996, should be a top priority and would provide clarity to the FCC's role in the modern communications landscape.
If we've learned anything about the Internet over the years, it's the enormous power it has to give people economic opportunity. Please know, as a member of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I remain committed to ensuring the Internet remains free of burdensome regulations. Thank you again for contacting me with your concerns. [/size]
Sincerely,
Marco Rubio
United States Senator

Many sites are going to slow to a crawl on Wed to try to bring more attention to the Net Neutrality laws.

3.7 Million Comments Later, Here's Where Net Neutrality Stands

http://n.pr/1qfO6vb

Rocinante wrote:3.7 Million Comments Later, Here's Where Net Neutrality Stands

http://n.pr/1qfO6vb

It gone.

So, someone sum this up for a guy like me. Am I going to have to pay for for internet shit to be fast? If so, how much more?

DWags wrote:So, someone sum this up for a guy like me.  Am I going to have to pay for for internet shit to be fast?   If so, how much more?  

If you pay for 50 mb/sec speeds, the ISP's can say, 'fuck you, pay us more' if you want to use netflix and go to cnn. If this passes, and with the new FBI facial recognition thing going on, I'm seriously considering asking if my wife wants to move back to the Philippines. ISP's won't have to keep the web open, it will be under corporate control, at least in the US. This means that a few companies, potentially, could control who gets what information.

FBI launches facial recognition

For example, the FBI said it will gather data from security cameras at a crime scene. But does that include the estimated 30 million surveillance cameras installed at street corners and parks?

If the FBI information slide below is any indication, the FBI is interested in using NGI system to identify a random person in a crowd -- and track them as they move, said EFF attorney Jennifer Lynch. That's why the Electronic Privacy Information Center worries the NGI system will get integrated with CCTV cameras everywhere -- including at private businesses -- and let the government track folks without justification.

Some hope that the President does something right. He's pushing the FCC to reclassify the internet as a utility. At least that is how I interpreted this article.

Link here

(Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama took a strong stance on Monday on new 'net neutrality' regulations being drafted by the Federal Communications Commission, saying the agency should reclassify broadband to regulate it more like a public utility.

And a little more hope??

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/technology/in-net-neutrality-push-fcc-is-expected-to-propose-regulating-the-internet-as-a-utility.html

We have net neutrality! Does the system work?

steveschneider wrote:We have net neutrality! Does the system work?

The ISP's got greedy and it backfired on them. They thought that no one in the public was paying attention. I'd really like to see a breakup of Comcast and TWC, like what happened to the bells. I'm guessing it didn't help when it leaked that TWC profit margin is 97.5% on their broadband, and they were bitching that people would use too much bandwidth.

You know the regs are no good if the FCC will not disclose them until after voting on them.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/soros-ford-shovel-196-million-to-net-neutrality-groups-staff-to-white-house/article/2560702

Obama is using a false promise of something for nothing to gain control over the internet in US. Providers and big Obama supporters, like Comcast will then be able to "regulate" favorable terms for themselves. Focus will be to satisfy regulators and not customers.

Green Note wrote:http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/soros-ford-shovel-196-million-to-net-neutrality-groups-staff-to-white-house/article/2560702

Obama is using a false promise of something for nothing to gain control over the internet in US. Providers and big Obama supporters, like Comcast will then be able to "regulate" favorable terms for themselves. Focus will be to satisfy regulators and not customers.

Damn! 196 million in 1 year?!?! Oh wait, that is over 13 years, so it amounts to about 15 million a year. Can we get the numbers on what Comcast and TWC alone contributed in their fight against it? I'm guessing in 13 years its a lot higher than 200 million.