Overclock.net banner

[Bloomberg] FCC Plans December Vote to Kill Net Neutrality Rules

2K views 29 replies 18 participants last post by  Malinkadink 
#1 ·
Yup, it's still alive and kicking...
Quote:
One of the people said Pai may call for vacating the rules except for portions that mandate internet service providers inform customers about their practices -- one of the more severe options that would please broadband providers. They argue the FCC's rules aren't needed and discourage investment, in part because they subject companies to complex and unpredictable regulations.
Source
 
#7 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by PostalTwinkie View Post

Can't do that so long as we have money in politics.
Well, we could but that would require people to be logical and decent individuals. Money in politics only matters because some politicians are completely crooked. Norway's take on politician's having to demonstrate 100% financial transparency is a particularly good solution.

That kind of segways into how I think North America is devoid of proper responsibility and to some extend, morally corrupt as our take on Capitalism promotes sociopath behavior. Kind of like Rome before it fell but not quite as bad.
 
#8 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by DIYDeath View Post

Well, we could but that would require people to be logical and decent individuals. Money in politics only matters because some politicians are completely crooked. Norway's take on politician's having to demonstrate 100% financial transparency is a particularly good solution.

That kind of segways into how I think North America is devoid of proper responsibility and to some extend, morally corrupt as our take on Capitalism promotes sociopath behavior. Kind of like Rome before it fell but not quite as bad.
I know I'm an idiot but wow. This isn't a thing in the U.S.?
 
#12 ·
^This. You can have "100% transparency" but that doesn't clarify or prohibit an ex-executive's intent or motivations when producing law, especially when they are revolving between public and private.
 
#13 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by claes View Post

^This. You can have "100% transparency" but that doesn't clarify or prohibit an ex-executive's intent or motivations when producing law, especially when they are revolving between public and private.
That's covered by conflict of interest, which the American political system has been blatantly ignoring for decades at this point.

All in all, those ex-executives won't be making any laws or regulations if they're not allowed on commissions like the FCC (conflict of interest) and finally the politicians don't allow themselves to be swayed by big corporations promising donations, etc.

Cutting $ out of politics would work but it's just a bandaid on a wound that needs stitches, the issue is a social one, we've created a society that puts value on material wealth over integrity. Plus wrestling away the ability for corporations to lobby will be next to impossible. They'd take you to court at ever chance possible all the way to the supreme court. It would probably take multiple presidencies to even apply the bandaid because the "patient" will do nothing but kick and scream.
 
#15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mand12 View Post

I'd like you to find me someone qualified to make national decisions about our telecom network who didn't ever work for a telecom company.
Precisely. You don't even have to look very had for a counterexample even the staunchest cynic would have to acknowledge in Tom Wheeler.
 
#16 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpykeZ View Post

Funny thing is, people think net neutrality even matters. ISPs have already been caught throttling Netflix etc with no slap on their wrist for it.
This was more because Netflix was taking up a lot of bandwidth since so many people use it and it eats a lot of data and the ISPs weren't happy about carrying that load and not getting paid extra. Still doesn't make it right, but that was why they were throttling netflix users. They can resolve bandwidth constraints by upgrading their infrastructure but that costs money of course and ISPs are notoriously cheap which is why we're really behind in the US in regards to getting gigabit speeds to the entire country.

If NN gets axed then ISPs will have the right to start block content or throttle people at least based on the content they view. Trying to access something from a competitor? Throttled. Browsing for content that doesn't align with their political agenda? Throttled. etc.
 
#17 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malinkadink View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpykeZ View Post

Funny thing is, people think net neutrality even matters. ISPs have already been caught throttling Netflix etc with no slap on their wrist for it.
They can resolve bandwidth constraints by upgrading their infrastructure but that costs money of course and ISPs are notoriously cheap
I think it was Verizon was offered by another company to cover all costs and parts to upgrade the the servers connecting to an area of a city (or something along that line). They declined.

For free and no labor on their part, they turned it down.
This isn't just greed. I'll see if I can find the news article.

EDIT: Link
Quote:
Above, I confirmed exactly the same thing for the Level 3 network. So in fact, we could fix this congestion in about five minutes simply by connecting up more 10Gbps ports on those routers. Simple. Something we've been asking Verizon to do for many, many months, and something other providers regularly do in similar circumstances. But Verizon has refused. So Verizon, not Level 3 or Netflix, causes the congestion. Why is that? Maybe they can't afford a new port card because they've run out - even though these cards are very cheap, just a few thousand dollars for each 10 Gbps card which could support 5,000 streams or more. If that's the case, we'll buy one for them. Maybe they can't afford the small piece of cable between our two ports. If that's the case, we'll provide it. Heck, we'll even install it.
 
#18 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcEsSalvation View Post

I think it was Verizon was offered by another company to cover all costs and parts to upgrade the the servers connecting to an area of a city (or something along that line). They declined.

For free and no labor on their part, they turned it down.
This isn't just greed. I'll see if I can find the news article.

EDIT: Link
I hate ISP's as much as the next guy, but there is more to it than this. You can only install so many line cards into a chassis before the chassis is full, and the backplane can only support so much throughput. If we're talking Cisco then those line cards aren't cheap. The article quotes 10Gig, but i don't see why any ISP would use that anymore. They'd probably roll 40Gig, and my company received a quote from Cisco for something ridiculous, i think it was like almost 950K to outfit a Chassis with a 40 Gig line card(Including the chassis and a single card. The chassis can only hold 8 cards i believe.). Now i don't have the exact numbers, but the article calling it a few grand is off base. Now my perspective is from a network support team, not the architecture team that outfits these chassis', but its a lot more than "a few grand".

I do believe ISP's have an obligation to provide us the bandwidth they sell us, and should improve their networks. However it will be more expensive than people quote it. A lot of fiber runs are 192 count, and more doesn't need run to expand capacity. They are correct that it is mostly a hardware placement issue, but the hardware is not as cheap as they say.
 
#19 ·
That's funny how the original NN threads were loaded with people and opinions supporting it, yet when it comes to bringing it all down nobody cares because after Title 2 and the regs, nothing has changed for the benefit for the end user. Your internet isn't faster, it's not cheaper and you do not have more privacy and companies are still capping and throttling.
 
#20 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiftstealth View Post

I do believe ISP's have an obligation to provide us the bandwidth they sell us, and should improve their networks. However it will be more expensive than people quote it. A lot of fiber runs are 192 count, and more doesn't need run to expand capacity. They are correct that it is mostly a hardware placement issue, but the hardware is not as cheap as they say.
While it's not cheap major isp's have been given subsidies to do just that...update hardware and lines. For the most part they took said subsidies and have done very little with them aside from profiting.
 
#21 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by maltamonk View Post

While it's not cheap major isp's have been given subsidies to do just that...update hardware and lines. For the most part they took said subsidies and have done very little with them aside from profiting.
As stated previously. A lot of fibers are dark, and large chunks of 192 count fiber lay unused. So your statement about subsidies to update the lines doesn't hold true. Although since they don't need to run more lines they should have more money to expand existing hardware.
 
#22 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiftstealth View Post

As stated previously. A lot of fibers are dark, and large chunks of 192 count fiber lay unused. So your statement about subsidies to update the lines doesn't hold true. Although since they don't need to run more lines they should have more money to expand existing hardware.
I believe I said lines and hardware. It really doesn't make sense to do one without doing the other. That aside.....they DO need to run more lines to reach those without and need to connect dormant lines (those laid but never used...it's actually a thing) to appropriate hardware.
 
#23 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpykeZ View Post

Funny thing is, people think net neutrality even matters. ISPs have already been caught throttling Netflix etc with no slap on their wrist for it.
You are confusing the law with enforcement of the law. Plenty of murderers get away with it, it is still right for murder to be illegal. Net neutrality matters, it just needs to be enforced, which is beyond the point of the article since they want to outright kill it by removing ISPs from Title 2, which specify "mak[ing] any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services".

I know we live in a strange era where truth depends on which newssource you listen to, but are there really people who are in favor of ISP discriminating services based on what profits them the most? I can't believe it.
 
#24 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by maltamonk View Post

I believe I said lines and hardware. It really doesn't make sense to do one without doing the other. That aside.....they DO need to run more lines to reach those without and need to connect dormant lines (those laid but never used...it's actually a thing) to appropriate hardware.
Sigh,

There is plenty of unused fiber. They don't need to run more lines, they just need to utilize the dark fiber they have. Is reading comprehension a thing where you're from? You skimmed over my statements just to talk. Do you have something to say, or do you have to say something?
 
#25 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiftstealth View Post

Sigh,

There is plenty of unused fiber. They don't need to run more lines, they just need to utilize the dark fiber they have. Is reading comprehension a thing where you're from? You skimmed over my statements just to talk. Do you have something to say, or do you have to say something?
Whoa buddy.....did I run over your cat or something? Relax a bit or cut down on the caffeine maybe? No need for insults

Running more lines is needed for anyone outside of urban/suburban areas, hence my comment. If fiber is lain across rural areas already, my apologies, but I very much doubt that to be the case. I agreed with you about the hardware just not about enough fiber being made available by isps.
 
#26 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by maltamonk View Post

Whoa buddy.....did I run over your cat or something? Relax a bit or cut down on the caffeine maybe? No need for insults

Running more lines is needed for anyone outside of urban/suburban areas, hence my comment. If fiber is lain across rural areas already, my apologies, but I very much doubt that to be the case. I agreed with you about the hardware just not about enough fiber being made available by isps.
Sorry,

Most of the fiber actually exists unless you live outside of a county outside of a normal city. I can totally understand Comcast not running 50 miles of fiber, and spinning up a 75,000 dollar Cisco node for a city of 200-500. The ROI just isn't there. In Europe most of those smaller towns are serviced by wireless, which is what we should have in those situations. In other situations where they are in county of a larger city its mostly the last mile, and the ROI still isn't there. Really the best solution is wireless which the FCC won't allow because they won't release the spectrum.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top