Net Neutrality expected to be reinstated after officials vote on 4/25/2024

d3athf1sh

d3athf1sh

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
1,247
“A return to the FCC’s overwhelmingly popular and court-approved standard of net neutrality will allow the agency to serve once again as a strong consumer advocate of an open internet.”
Click to expand...
Yes, Net Neutrality was so overwhelmingly popular that everyone, other than political and corporate elites, absolutely despised it and successfully shut it down.
Once again, Corporatism going hand-in-hand with Socialism.

Hope everyone has fun sucking that corpo cock. :borg:
 
Red Falcon said:
Yes, Net Neutrality was so overwhelmingly popular that everyone, other than political and corporate elites, absolutely despised it and successfully shut it down.
Once again, Corporatism going hand-in-hand with Socialism.

Hope everyone has fun sucking that corpo cock. :borg:
Click to expand...
well i think this is actually a good thing...? it means that isp's can't prioritize traffic to companies that pay some kind of fee and slow down other types of traffic that don't. right?
 
d3athf1sh said:
well i think this is actually a good thing...? it means that isp's can't prioritize traffic to companies that pay some kind of fee and slow down other types of traffic that don't. right?
Click to expand...
I guarantee you that once the any government gets control of this functionality, corporations will pay their way via politicians and this will quickly backfire on everyone.
 
nthexwn said:
That's exactly how net neutrality was repealed in the first place. Reinstating it is literally the opposite of that.
Click to expand...
part-of-the-plan-joker.gif
 
nthexwn said:
Ah yes, the cunning plan to reinstate the law that prevents them from exploiting us... So that they can exploit us. Pure genius that!
Click to expand...

No he was saying they lobbied them to change things then went to the other lobby to change things back.
 
Axman said:
No he was saying they lobbied them to change things then went to the other lobby to change things back.
Click to expand...
That much I could believe. Greedy politicians? Practically a given. Counter-intuitive conspiracies about how re-instating a law that might give the government the power to slap a few trillion dollar ISPs on the wrist for extortion will somehow give them total control over our private lives? Not so much.
 
I have mixed feelings about this. Net Neutrality is one of those things that sounds like a good idea, and would be a great idea if the government worked like the way it's described in an elementary school textbook.
 
This is one of those situations where everyone will collectively high five one another, ISP's will fake-smile and applaud a decision that is 'good for the people of the U.S.A.!", political activist groups will throw awards dinners to hand out bullshit statues and plaques to politicians and all of this will wind up in political ads as wins "FOR YOU, THE CONSTITUENTS!"....

Meanwhile, absolutely nothing will change because none of us can prove any ISP is deliberately slow-walking your connections to begin with. Server side problems? Check.

Laws like this are great...*EVERYBODY WINS* <groan>....... I mean, until the great etailer wars commence when WalMart, Costco and Amazon fight for Ultimate Online Supremacy as foretold in Idiocracy......then this shit gets real. But by then it will be too late.....
 
I like the idea, but I find net neutrality legislation hard to support.

The idea sounds good. All traffic should be treated equally on the internet, so everyone and every company gets an even playing field.
But you know the actual law is going to be 1000 pages of bullshit with loopholes, unintended consequences, and pork barreling.

There definitely are big telecoms that abuse their near monopoly status. But it's a status they almost always gained through government restricting competition. Usually local government, but sometimes even state governments making deals with them, restricting or making it prohibitively expensive for new ISPs to roll out their fiber. Along with the federal government giving them a half trillion dollars over time "to expand networks" which was simply used to buy out the competition and establish monopolies.

I think whatever bill they try to pass won't help the problem, it will probably just make it worse.

For example there are satellite ISPs that legitimately do have bandwidth limitations. To make their service better they give each customer a soft data cap where their traffic is treated equally. Once customers exceed their cap their traffic is deprioritized if the system is near capacity so it doesn't slow down the internet for all the other customers. Then they allow unrestricted bandwidth during the middle of night. Compare that to what cable company monoply ISPs do which is generally just a scheme to get more money.

The big established ISPs would LOVE if satellite and other wireless ISP's services were degraded to comply with net neutrality.
 
sharknice said:
I like the idea, but I find net neutrality legislation hard to support.

The idea sounds good. All traffic should be treated equally on the internet, so everyone and every company gets an even playing field.
But you know the actual law is going to be 1000 pages of bullshit with loopholes, unintended consequences, and pork barreling.

There definitely are big telecoms that abuse their near monopoly status. But it's a status they almost always gained through government restricting competition. Usually local government, but sometimes even state governments making deals with them, restricting or making it prohibitively expensive for new ISPs to roll out their fiber. Along with the federal government giving them a half trillion dollars over time "to expand networks" which was simply used to buy out the competition and establish monopolies.

I think whatever bill they try to pass won't help the problem, it will probably just make it worse.

For example there are satellite ISPs that legitimately do have bandwidth limitations. To make their service better they give each customer a soft data cap where their traffic is treated equally. Once customers exceed their cap their traffic is deprioritized if the system is near capacity so it doesn't slow down the internet for all the other customers. Then they allow unrestricted bandwidth during the middle of night. Compare that to what cable company monoply ISPs do which is generally just a scheme to get more money.

The big established ISPs would LOVE if satellite and other wireless ISP's services were degraded to comply with net neutrality.
Click to expand...
The funny thing is that they (the big companies) are vehemently opposing net neutrality, even though they could use it to really screw over small providers.

In short, your example is right, without net neutrality, the ISP could prioritize critical services. With it they cannot.

Personally, I'm for net neutrality in the sense that I want my ISP to be a dumb pipe, a utility come into or out of my house.

Yes that means the provider may run out of bandwidth for 911 calls if too many people are watchin dancing cat videos. Sucks to be that ISP, that's life, get more bandwidth. Degrading my service because it's for a 'lower priority thing' should not be an option. Who says my cat videos aren't for live saving doggie distraction?

Sure you can measure and charge me by the amount that comes in and out, but your not separating the liquids from the solids and charging me different rates.

Or limiting how much of this can come in vs their preferred provider.

That being said, as I get older the more cynical I get as well and expect the government to f-up this simple concept.
 
Red Falcon said:
Yes, Net Neutrality was so overwhelmingly popular that everyone, other than political and corporate elites, absolutely despised it and successfully shut it down.
Once again, Corporatism going hand-in-hand with Socialism.

Hope everyone has fun sucking that corpo cock. :borg:
Click to expand...
Corporatism has nothing to do with Socialism. Socialism is basically democracy for the work place. Corporatism is when companies get together to work for a common interest. You know, lobbying. We have a weak democracy. Put things up to a vote from the people and you'll never see Net Neutrality have a chance. But of course this is something even Democrats don't want. You'd also likely have Universal Health care, but whatever. Corporate interests are getting ready for when Trump wins office because Net Neutrality has no chance of passing right now. Because as we all know, Trump appointed Ajit Pai as FCC chairman in January 2017. The chances of Biden winning the election in 2024 is extremely unlikely due to his... Is Not Real policies. Ajit Pai 2.0 is extremely likely at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kac77
like this
We just need a law on the books to so that it's not just a federal agency statute. It's too easy for stuff like this to be overturned by the next regime at the FCC
 
d3athf1sh said:
well i think this is actually a good thing...? it means that isp's can't prioritize traffic to companies that pay some kind of fee and slow down other types of traffic that don't. right?
Click to expand...
Some people want to be able to pay to have their traffic be prioritized over others.
 
bigdogchris said:
Some people want to be able to pay to have their traffic be prioritized over others.
Click to expand...
And look how great Lighning Lane at Disney parks are, people get to pay to have priority, but so many want priority that no one actually gets priority, so you got two groups getting screwed, those who dont pay more and end up waiting forever, and those who do pay more but they arent really getting any perk to paying more
 
sfsuphysics said:
And look how great Lighning Lane at Disney parks are, people get to pay to have priority, but so many want priority that no one actually gets priority, so you got two groups getting screwed, those who dont pay more and end up waiting forever, and those who do pay more but they arent really getting any perk to paying more
Click to expand...
It's how you can raise prices at a pace that doesn't cause backlash because its opt-in (at first).
 
Darunion said:
It's how you can raise prices at a pace that doesn't cause backlash because its opt-in (at first).
Click to expand...
Fortunately it did cause backlash because said people paying are upset they dont get a perk that they bought, and people who dont are upset that it takes forever to get on rides that usually had 10 minute waits at most. The thing is the backlash isn't going to stop people buying because they sure as hell dont want to be in that other group and they already paid a kings ransom to get in. And as long as they keep getting money out of it they arent going to stop with the "service"
 
Net neutrality made sense when it was text and html or if bandwith get really good.

Now that the net it used for stuff it should not (like watching live football game), not sure if it make sense to enforce by law that in no way some form of semi-broadcast occur for something distributed via the internet to everyone at the same time. it really depends what favoring content mean.

If it just mean your ISP cannot block access to 4-8 chan or here like we had because internet provider where often linked to cable-tv provider have some Internet content available only to people with the same internet service, sure that sound nice. If it make anything that allow saving some data while making it work for customer sending the superbowl to everyone in 4k-7.1 audio at the same time.... that average.

Some ISP for example sometime do not count your voice usage as data or some IP tv service, that ambivalent if making this illegal is good or bad.
 
sharknice said:
I like the idea, but I find net neutrality legislation hard to support.

The idea sounds good. All traffic should be treated equally on the internet, so everyone and every company gets an even playing field.
But you know the actual law is going to be 1000 pages of bullshit with loopholes, unintended consequences, and pork barreling.

There definitely are big telecoms that abuse their near monopoly status. But it's a status they almost always gained through government restricting competition. Usually local government, but sometimes even state governments making deals with them, restricting or making it prohibitively expensive for new ISPs to roll out their fiber. Along with the federal government giving them a half trillion dollars over time "to expand networks" which was simply used to buy out the competition and establish monopolies.

I think whatever bill they try to pass won't help the problem, it will probably just make it worse.

For example there are satellite ISPs that legitimately do have bandwidth limitations. To make their service better they give each customer a soft data cap where their traffic is treated equally. Once customers exceed their cap their traffic is deprioritized if the system is near capacity so it doesn't slow down the internet for all the other customers. Then they allow unrestricted bandwidth during the middle of night. Compare that to what cable company monoply ISPs do which is generally just a scheme to get more money.

The big established ISPs would LOVE if satellite and other wireless ISP's services were degraded to comply with net neutrality.
Click to expand...
These "rules" aren't legislation. They are imposed upon us by an un-elected group of bureaucrats with delusions of grandeur overstepping the bounds of the powers given to them by Congress.

One of the biggest problems with "net neutrality" in government form is the fact that it has never been legislation and it's supposed to be legislation. It is the job of Congress to make laws such as net neutrality but it has never happened because Congress can't agree on it. And Congress is too busy to do actual work. To me the irony of the situation is that there should be no alleged net neutrality because Congress can't do its job. If something is so screwed up that Congress can't pass it, it probably means it's so bad it's not something you'd want anyway.

Also keep in mind that real net neutrality doesn't need to be a thousand page document. It would easily fit onto a single page with normal print size and double spacing and have room left over on the page. I absolutely refuse to support any alleged net neutrality which requires more than one page because there's nothing neutral about it and it's only going to screw me over.

The FCC can take their rules and shove them just like last time.
 
bigdogchris said:
Some people want to be able to pay to have their traffic be prioritized over others.
Click to expand...
The problem with this is that some people have a lot of money to prioritize their traffic. If democracy was all that ran our government, this wouldn't be a problem. This also wouldn't be such a big problem if most people didn't have one or two choices for their internet providers. A good deal of ISP's also provide content through said internet traffic, which means they have a conflict of interest. Comcast for example owns a shit ton of media companies, including NBCUniversal. There's no reason to "prioritize" internet traffic other than to punish people for not paying extra. For example I have Optimum Fiber 300, which is their cheapest internet connection. I had to fight for that connection because when Altice bought them, they automatically changed my connection from 100/100 to 200/10. Which was suppose to be an upgrade, until I found out it wasn't. I told them to either switch me to fiber or I'm going Verizon FIOS. I value upload much more so than download because you won't often find many instances that can make use of faster download. Most Wifi devices won't maximize 300/300. Most websites won't upload to you anywhere near as fast. That's why I'm on the cheapest option. The only reason I get away with this is because Optimum has to contend with FIOS, and they know I've switched back and forth many times.

Screen_Shot_2021_06_24_at_9.02.08_AM.jpg
 
DukenukemX said:
There's no reason to "prioritize" internet traffic other than to punish people for not paying extra.
Click to expand...
This is purely a technical question and I can be all wrong, but I feel it goes over and more complicated than simply people bandwith (they do not usually all use their max at the same time)

But it is really common now for internet traffic to make little sense (like NFL football on paramount+) and the experience tend to be terrible versus broadcast, we could say people should get regular broadcast to watch live sport if net neutrality make it hard.... ok perfect.

But would it not be an obvious reason to create something a la semi-broadcast for very popular internet content accessed by millions at the exact same time ? Sometime we see the same with a new very popular game on steam, I think.
 
everyone freaked out when it was being cancelled. there was talk of weird subscriptions
"gaming bundle" "social media" "work" each costing different prices.

nothing ever happened. why reinstate it if nothing actually changed?
 
DF-1 said:
nothing ever happened
Click to expand...
Is no say comcast count not as data in the montly total some service like their own IPTV ?
https://forums.xfinity.com/conversa...hannels-and-data-cap/62571a0b667f64453bd06ad2

Is that the kind of things net neutrality would make illegal, comcast cannot consider IPTV internet data differently than any other type of data:
This means that the coax cable running to the modem becomes the primary delivery method and all boxes running standard TV boxes features such as Linear Live TV, On-Demand, PPV, and channel guide do NOT count against data usage. Any internet-based app however will count towards this.

I imagine we could find a list of example of not all IP data treated equal by isp provider, like some QoS for VoIP, do not need a lot of bandwith obviously but priority in other ways.
 
Not having data count against a data cap that you have I feel is fundamentally different then prioritizing data. One allows Xfinity streaming shows without hitting your cap while Netflix does count against the cap, the other is giving priority to Xfinity while slowing down Netflix
 
sfsuphysics said:
Not having data count against a data cap that you have I feel is fundamentally different then prioritizing data. One allows Xfinity streaming shows without hitting your cap while Netflix does count against the cap, the other is giving priority to Xfinity while slowing down Netflix
Click to expand...
Depends really what people meant, it is certainly not neutral and give an big advantage over some data than other in the US market with many plan, slowing-rising speed to something that use relatively low bandwith speed like streaming in today world will not be a big effect, but use a lot of data on a monthly basis will be the huge hit, i.e. veru few with a non infinite data plan will go for IP tv if the isp do not that I feel like, while if they say we limit netflix to 25mbps and the IPtv goes to 50mbps and both count on your monthly data limit, would be less of a big deal for most people.

If neutral does not mean that data are treated egal, that for customer benefit if there ways to broadcast popular stuff, do some different datahandling for VoIP-TvIp service and so on, it could be more popular with the industry and customer I feel like, it is to dissalow you can watch this comcast tv series only if you are on comcast not on verizon and block 4chan or tiktok, etc.. that could be popular.
 
DukenukemX said:
I'm not. Neither am I voting Republican. We have the same terrible choices nearly 4 years ago. I'm going 3rd party this time. Maybe RFK Jr. if he's the popular 3rd choice.

The problem with this is that some people have a lot of money to prioritize their traffic. If democracy was all that ran our government, this wouldn't be a problem. This also wouldn't be such a big problem if most people didn't have one or two choices for their internet providers. A good deal of ISP's also provide content through said internet traffic, which means they have a conflict of interest. Comcast for example owns a shit ton of media companies, including NBCUniversal. There's no reason to "prioritize" internet traffic other than to punish people for not paying extra. For example I have Optimum Fiber 300, which is their cheapest internet connection. I had to fight for that connection because when Altice bought them, they automatically changed my connection from 100/100 to 200/10. Which was suppose to be an upgrade, until I found out it wasn't. I told them to either switch me to fiber or I'm going Verizon FIOS. I value upload much more so than download because you won't often find many instances that can make use of faster download. Most Wifi devices won't maximize 300/300. Most websites won't upload to you anywhere near as fast. That's why I'm on the cheapest option. The only reason I get away with this is because Optimum has to contend with FIOS, and they know I've switched back and forth many times.

View attachment 645673
Click to expand...
35Mbps upstream on 1Gb service [sic] is criminal.
Ratio should be 10:1 at worst IMHO.
I understand how asymmetrical DOCSIS n is, but its 2024!
 
Red Falcon said:
Yes, Net Neutrality was so overwhelmingly popular that everyone, other than political and corporate elites, absolutely despised it and successfully shut it down.
Once again, Corporatism going hand-in-hand with Socialism.

Hope everyone has fun sucking that corpo cock. :borg:
Click to expand...

Couldn't disagree more.

Net neutrality was fantastic regulation to prevent abuse by those who control the networks. It is ultimately absolutely necessary in an era when more and more necessary communication, business transactions and entertainment happens online.

A vote against net neutrality is a vote for your ISP or upstream their networks deciding what you can and cannot do online. You don't want that.
 
Is no say comcast count not as data in the montly total some service like their own IPTV ?
LukeTbk said:
https://forums.xfinity.com/conversa...hannels-and-data-cap/62571a0b667f64453bd06ad2

Is that the kind of things net neutrality would make illegal, comcast cannot consider IPTV internet data differently than any other type of data:
This means that the coax cable running to the modem becomes the primary delivery method and all boxes running standard TV boxes features such as Linear Live TV, On-Demand, PPV, and channel guide do NOT count against data usage. Any internet-based app however will count towards this.

I imagine we could find a list of example of not all IP data treated equal by isp provider, like some QoS for VoIP, do not need a lot of bandwith obviously but priority in other ways.
Click to expand...

Zero rate billing has nothing to do with net neutrality. as long as the traffic is treated equally, thats all that matters.

Zero rate billing is the proces sof excluding some data from other data for billing purposes, we did this automatically over the years.

anyone remember when calling long distance used to be a per minute charge? before finally that was zero rated to be just part of your phone plan?

This was allowed under title II and would be totally fine.

If the dumb pipe of data into my house wanted to charge me by the 'unit of data' vs an 'unlimited amount per month' or 'up to x ammount per month then x per unit of data' Those are all valid billing models, and excluding some data from being counted is totally fine as well.

We the consumer have the power then to buy the plan that actually suits our needs, and if a company was dumb enough to actually go down that usage based route, then there would be competition swooping in to take over from them and disrupt the market.

-----------

As a side note, I'd appreciate the politics being taken out, debating policy is one thing, promoting a party or encouraging votes for a candidate is another and IMO this is not the right forum for that.
 
Sindalis said:
Zero rate billing has nothing to do with net neutrality. as long as the traffic is treated equally, thats all that matters.
Click to expand...
If traffic being free vs costing money is called being treated equally, the term neutral and equally is being used very loosely....

Netflix paying an ISP for its traffic not counting as much again the dataplan or Google ISP not counting youtube traffic/google cloud like dailymotion traffic and apple cloud if they have a dataplan, do not sound neutral or equal at all.

Sindalis said:
This was allowed under title II and would be totally fine.
Click to expand...
Make sense, as I suspected net neutrality law would not enforce net neutrality, it would not be popular with the population or be a good thing in a world where millions want to stream on IP the superbowl at the same time, ip tv, ip phone, etc....
 
Sindalis said:
We the consumer have the power then to buy the plan that actually suits our needs, and if a company was dumb enough to actually go down that usage based route, then there would be competition swooping in to take over from them and disrupt the market.
Click to expand...

Except usually ISP's operate as cartels, carving up territory, and not straying into territory controlled b others.

Sometimes they even have granted local monopolies by towns and municipalities in exchange for rolling out service to the entire town. (and surprise surprise, they often never do, and then tie the town up in legal battles for decades, because that is cheaper, and they have a bigger legal budget than some little town.)

Consumer choice is a good way to make businesses fight for your business, but unfortunately in large portions of the country (maybe even in a majority) there is only one choice.

In my neck of the woods it used to be Comcast or nothing. Then in ~2009-2010 Verizon FiOS came to town, and all of a sudden Comcast increased bandwidth, maxed out upstream bandwidth, rolled back plans for bandwidth caps, and lowered prices.

Competition is great! Most people don't live where they have competing ISP's.

It's very difficult for a small startup to swoop in and disrupt a market when that market is so infrastructure dependent. It is very expensive to run cable and switching on a community infrastructure scale. That, and the existing players have means to lock them out. If Comcast and/or Verizon own all the poles - for instance, unless there is regulation to prevent them from doing so, they can effectively block anyone who tries to move in by not granting them permission to use the poles. There is lots of stuff like this.

So yeah, you cannot depend on free markets to sole this one, when it isn't a free market in the first place.

Even in a duopoly there is no guarantee it will work. Economic research shows that for the maximum effect of free markets benefiting the consumer, you need to have between 3 and 5 roughly equal competitors. That is almost never the case in any industry, as businesses seek to instead carve out niche's in which they can justify cranking up prices and fleecing those who need that niche.

In 2024 - humorously enough due to a lack of regulation - the free market is horrifically broken, and is manipulated to high heavens. This is especially true within tech/IT (both consumer and Enterprise) and even more so within ISP and other service providers.
 
DF-1 said:
everyone freaked out when it was being cancelled. there was talk of weird subscriptions
"gaming bundle" "social media" "work" each costing different prices.

nothing ever happened. why reinstate it if nothing actually changed?
Click to expand...
because it was only a matter of time
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top