Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 274 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,166 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Quote:
This is just evidence that supporters of heavy-handed Internet regulations are becoming more desperate by the day as their effort to defeat Chairman Pai's plan to restore Internet freedom has stalled. The vote will proceed as scheduled on December 14.
Full Article
 

·
Frog Blast The Vent Core
Joined
·
6,118 Posts
Of course we're desperate. You're ignoring our cries for help in order to help out the most hated industry in existence, and completely lying about "restoring internet freedom" to do it.

Who wouldn't be desperate?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,814 Posts
Is this really a surprise? I've called my rep and senator to voice my opinion but I dont think we live in that kind of America. I am really curious to see how fast ISP's start implementing charges for certain services etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,713 Posts
I've been careful to look at all the primary net neutrality "schilling" going on on reddit and I'd say about 90% is from baby accounts. Predominantly I don't think the actual wage earners of the United States actually care since Net Neutrality has done literally nothing to control the cost of internet or improve speeds (a third party selling access over lines that Comcast refuses to upgrade is still at the same speed).

In the end the only thing Net Neutrality has done is roughly the same thing as what Bill Gates said about programs being "User Friendly"... It's put a label on the internet service you receive that makes you think it is different. More than 90% of the hinkeyness that has occurred with preferred customers and bandwidth restrictions is literally the kind of thing that HAS to occur on cellular networks to keep them from crashing to the point that verbal traffic gets interrupted. Frivolous playing of youtube videos for music playback can be detected if you turn the video quality way down and nobody complains, etc.

So I'm all for Net Neutrality for Cellular but I'm utterly against Net Neutrality Title II protections against monopolistic practice prosecution for ground line companies.

its come to the point that people "in the issue" are so misinformed that they don't know that Charter Communications is a major cable internet provider who's reputation was once worse than Comcast or that Verizon is now no longer a land service company at all: Frontier Communications literally took over the non-cellular parts of the company.

So people who carry on about Net Neutrality tend to be ignorant of the actual current companies and events of the internet itself.

That's why it's such a non-issue to me. My internet worked fine in 2002, worked better when we switched from Bell South to Comcast, worked just fine on RR over Brighthouse, then Brighthouse over Charter and now Charter is apparently Spectrum.

Absolutely no change in service, service quality, reliability or prices in some kind of fantasy "they're coming to take our guns" world of non Net Neutrality regulation. Internet service has slowly gotten better since cable internet was widely implemented. DSL was a nightmare.

But these Title II protections are anti-consumer at best in the way they are implemented. The US is still predominantly provisioned in blocks of 10/1. Fast lanes for higher tier customers is perfectly legal as long as you maintain the 10/1 on your standard connection. I've never had a day when it didn't work right that wasn't caused by a rat or rain or some other problem we've had to deal with since kids playing with walkie talkies too close to an exposed phone line could knock your 300 baud acoustic off line. The internet has ALWAYS worked with fast lanes and preferred customers. Banks, stores, law enforcement, schools and colleges *always* have priority over residential users. That's just how its always been and will always be. Most areas of internet are provisioned at about 15 to 35% of their capacity, meaning if every customer suddenly doubled their paid bandwidth there'd be no choking but it also means that the workload on the hardware is so low that 2/3rds of it could fail and nobody'd really notice. You can literally take an entire third of the bandwidth allocated to a city offline for repairs and all it will do is cause a moment to minute lag in connections.

As with many things that Democrats push through government, Net Neutrality was gutted by reality and technicality to the point where it was literally nothing more than a shell that gives the ISP's protection against other companies forming and cities creating municipal service.

That's it, Net Neutrality is the stranglehold that the cable companies have on the consumer.

Do we need a law LIKE it to protect consumers? Yes. We have that law already.

The main statutes are the Sherman Act 1890, the Clayton Act 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act 1914. These Acts, first, restrict the formation of cartels and prohibit other collusive practices regarded as being in restraint of trade. Net Neutrality literally gives a pass by half of the regulations in those three acts in response for lip-service by the internet carriers.

Youtube always slows down, google always manipulates what sites you see, comcast always sues any company that might compete with them. No changes occurred in any way from Net Neutrality's existence. It literally was never enforced, in every circumstance that the FCC stepped in to "regulate" it was about some company offering perks unique to themselves that they had the right to give away for free being "unfair" to other companies. That's literally how the free market works. That's how the US economy is supposed to work.

Application of Title II to internet provision without any means for the FCC to actually investigate or enforce it does nothing to protect consumers.

Removal of Title II from internet providers exposes them to the Federal Trade commission Act 1914, which almost every company has been violating on a year-by-year basis at this point.

Forget "net neutrality" it was a pipe dream that came out worse than the ACA.

Let it die, then demand the FTC break up these huge companies that are charging you $80 a month for $5 of bandwidth.

Net Neutrality has literally done *nothing* for the consumer and it has constantly been misconstrued as what protects us when it's actually the FTCA1914 which protects us. 90% of the time when you have a slow-down on the internet its because some moron minimum wage sweat jockey at a subcontractor changed the wrong wire or flipped the wrong switch. The internet is literally the single most complex machine on the planet right now.

As a side note, cellular communication is burst communication and not designed to give you a solid continuous connection nor can it. The companies do not maintain an antenna for every customer on the network and they are allowed to advertise the "up to" speed listed simply because it is technically possible at 3:15 AM to get speeds like that. There's nothing as dishonest in the US as the garbage you see in Europe all the time with internet connections provisioned at 200mbps/1.2mbps where the up-stream connection doesn't even have enough bandwidth to maintain a full downstream speed's response overhead. THAT is a good example of how well protected we had it before "Nut Nutellity" came and painted some democratic party protection scheme on our internet services with the claim that it was good for us. We literally got a garbage reassurance from the federal government that wasn't enforceable in any way and does nothing to protect us.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,632 Posts
Hope none of this crap ever affects or comes to Europe.

Meanwhile my apartment complex just got brand new fiber optic installations. Even faster and still unlimited bandwidth ftw.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,885 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmodian View Post

Describing advocates as desperate when you are simply completely ignoring them to do the bidding of your corporate masters is a normal technique to move the argument away from ideas.

I am not sure anyone honestly believes fast lanes for some content and slow lanes for other is consumer friendly but lobbyists can say anything with a straight face.
rolleyes.gif
Well now they sell it as "removing regulations" so they can seem like the good guys. It's ridiculous to assume the telecoms won't take even more advantage of consumers if this is repealed, despite their claims to the contrary. Saw a good twitter joke the other day:

Verizon: We have no plans to kill anyone
America: Okay, so we'll just keep murder illegal then
Verizon: ...
Verizon: No

Pretty much exactly what the telecoms are saying.

There was also a great fan-made sign in the background of the Alabama-Auburn football game - "Nick Saban hates net neutrality"
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: LAKEINTEL

·
Just a Crazy Cat in a Box
Joined
·
5,534 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Usario View Post

I'm interested to see if any ISP actually tries to implement "fast lanes" for certain content providers, or different tiers of what content providers are accessible... and, if they do, as long as it can be struck down as anticompetitive and anticonsumer in a court of law, then let this be.
Sad thing, I already have a ISP that tiers streaming based on resolution of the content. The base line is 480P, next tier is 780P, and then 1080P (which cost like 150 bucks for it). So, even if NN stays or goes, I am screwed already.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
14,126 Posts
Try to keep the pointless arguing out of here and please don't reply to any posts you report.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,191 Posts
I don't think NN was ever about "telecoms vs the people", but it was "telecoms vs the content providers", and with "Net Neutrality" (what a bogus name to make it sound "good", like Affordable Care Act, as stated earlier) content providers win; in doing so, they market it out to be that "the people" are winning, too. Surely, they're pumping the most money to beat Patai. As they all say, follow the money.

EDIT: From the many sources I read from both sides, I have concluded that Content providers are pegging the ISPs' network, but they don't want to pay more for what they use in terms of network pipelines and data pushing bandwidth allowed in their agreement. By throwing the consumer in as a group that will "suffer" from this, the content providers get imaged as the "good guys".
 

·
Unwilling Beta tester
Joined
·
7,188 Posts
So, big companies already have a virtual monopoly over a large chunk of the US population's internet connection, and now the FCC wants to remove regulation that stops them from further screwing their customers over under the guise of 'restoring freedom'?

Yeah, sounds about right.

This is what happens when you let an industry effectively regulate itself. You either have to have competition, or regulation, or both.
 

·
Getting used to 'new'
Joined
·
5,126 Posts
I believe in the freedom that our nation gives when it comes to personal growth and independence...

But at the end of the day greed will all ways win. We need freedom, but we need to keep things in check. From my understanding ISPs, data providers, and telecommunication networks have all ready been given large amounts of money to have infrastructure for the nation, price gouge customers via monopolies, and enforce unfair clauses just to make even more profit than they get. The amount of money these big companies make is absurd, and yet they want more.

yes there should be freedom, but when greed dominates, it's time to get those involved under control. I imagine people are going to take this the wrong way and try to make a Hitler joke in there somewhere, but I'm tired of seeing so many people around me struggle while those that can add a 7 digit figure to their bank a month (or even weekly) find a way to increase that without assisting and sometimes hurting those on the bottom...
ISPs are one of them.
 

·
Frog Blast The Vent Core
Joined
·
6,118 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by prjindigo View Post

So people who carry on about Net Neutrality tend to be ignorant of the actual current companies and events of the internet itself.
But not everyone. For myself, I am quite familiar with the technology involved in telecom networks, and what these companies are allegedly charging us for.

But you don't need to be a network engineer in order to get upset at the idea that a company that both owns an ISP and also a content creator might want to favor their own content on their own ISP over the content of competitors, and that they should be prevented from doing that.

The entire purpose of repealing net neutrality regulation is to make that easier. Period. That's it. You can make all the lengthy posts you want, but nothing changes the basic fact that Ajit Pai is lying when he says he's going to restore internet freedom.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,735 Posts
I feel like this has really been a big setup from the very beginning and everyone of the "common users" has fallen into it.
Fast lanes and all that were never once an issue at all and no one was contemplating them or making plasn to implement. Then all of a sudden it starts going around like wildfire through forums and on the internet in general about how this issue exists and we must create legislation to stop it. All the while it is just really introducing the thought of this concept into the culture so that when the legislation gets repealed or fails in the first place corporations already have the idea out there and can move into it right away. So ya, it just feels like it was a whole setup to get everyone used to the idea for a year before they actually make a push to having it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,166 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Some of what happened before title 2 classification stopped it. Some of this has already started to make a comeback before the repeal.

https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history

some more info

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States

@prjindigo if you think people that want to save net neutrality are somehow ignorant to what is going on, you obviously have not been keeping up over the last couple decades. The reclassification was a direct result of ISP and telecom companies doing what we know they will do again. This is one of those times where the battle was already fought and won. It was supposed to be over.

The extra crappy part, if you read the article in the OP, there is an ATT case in the works right now. If ATT wins that case the FTC regulations that the FCC claims would keep things under control (did not before BTW) will no longer have jurisdiction over ISP companies. Meaning absolutely zero limits and accountability. The wet dream of ever ISP board member.

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
 

·
You broke it!
Joined
·
14,286 Posts
Oh......

I will be fine watching the World burn from my cabin in the woods. As much as I still use/depend on the Internet since getting out of the industry, a couple of years back, I have still taken steps to make it to where I could do without it.

Having sat in rooms with Senators, CEOs of major industry, Governors, and Mayors, watching them literally not bat an eye at the idea of parceling out infrastructure, I already know where this is going. The same insanity that was had with the "Public Air Waves", selling spectrum to the highest bidders, completely locking out entire markets covering hundreds of thousands of people, due to who "owns" the spectrum.....

The whole comparison you see of the Internet looking like your average cable company channel lineup, with all the packages, is actually a best case scenario with what these people want to do. There is literal notion of physically separating nation infrastructure and putting "Toll lines" between them to connect them.

"Sorry, Jim, I can't play with you on that game because I don't have SpectraNet like you, I have BoogerNet instead!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by prjindigo View Post

I've been careful to look at all the primary net neutrality "schilling" going on on reddit and I'd say about 90% is from baby accounts. Predominantly I don't think the actual wage earners of the United States actually care since Net Neutrality has done literally nothing to control the cost of internet or improve speeds (a third party selling access over lines that Comcast refuses to upgrade is still at the same speed).

In the end the only thing Net Neutrality has done is roughly the same thing as what Bill Gates said about programs being "User Friendly"...
And........I stopped reading.

You haven't been in this, have you? Don't worry, people like myself have fought for decades to keep those who don't know better protected.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,166 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Quote:
Originally Posted by EniGma1987 View Post

I feel like this has really been a big setup from the very beginning and everyone of the "common users" has fallen into it.
Fast lanes and all that were never once an issue at all and no one was contemplating them or making plasn to implement. Then all of a sudden it starts going around like wildfire through forums and on the internet in general about how this issue exists and we must create legislation to stop it. All the while it is just really introducing the thought of this concept into the culture so that when the legislation gets repealed or fails in the first place corporations already have the idea out there and can move into it right away. So ya, it just feels like it was a whole setup to get everyone used to the idea for a year before they actually make a push to having it.
So, Netflix forking over cash to Comcast before the title change never happened? All that stuff in the news for weeks around that time was never a thing? That was not even that long ago. How do people forget so easily?
 

·
You broke it!
Joined
·
14,286 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prophet4NO1 View Post

So, Netflix forking over cash to Comcast before the title change never happened? All that stuff in the news for weeks around that time was never a thing? That was not even that long ago. How do people forget so easily?
That and a lot more illicit activity has taken place in the industry over the years. However, it is one thing for it to happen behind closed doors versus a World where it is perfectly legal and encouraged.
 

·
Robotic Chemist
Joined
·
3,252 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucdan View Post

EDIT: From the many sources I read from both sides, I have concluded that Content providers are pegging the ISPs' network, but they don't want to pay more for what they use in terms of network pipelines and data pushing bandwidth allowed in their agreement. By throwing the consumer in as a group that will "suffer" from this, the content providers get imaged as the "good guys".
So I pay for my internet connection. I pay for and watch Netflix. Netflix has to pay my ISP for the bandwidth I already payed my ISP for? Why do i pay my ISP if not for the bandwidth to watch Netflix with?

Edit: It is not the content provider who is pegging the network, it is the consumer watching stuff that is pegging the network. The consumers should be able to use their internet connection for whatever they want and if the network is too slow to support the bandwidth required it needs to be upgraded. We are already speed throttled and pay more for more bandwidth, if the ISP cannot give me the bandwidth I payed them for it isn't Netflix's fault, I was the one who clicked the link.

And as mentioned below, Netflix already payed their own ISP too. Fast lanes make no sense unless you are a content provider who also owns an ISP and wants a competitive advantage over Netflix, YouTube, etc.
 
1 - 20 of 274 Posts
Top