Slashdot Mirror
The Trump Administration Just Voted To Repeal the US Government's Net Neutrality Rules (recode.net)
The Federal Communications Commission voted on Thursday to dismantle landmark rules regulating the businesses that connect consumers to the internet, granting broadband companies power to potentially reshape Americans' online experiences. The agency scrapped so-called net neutrality regulations that prohibited broadband providers from blocking websites or charging for higher-quality service or certain content. The federal government will also no longer regulate high-speed internet delivery as if it were a utility, like phone services. From a report: Under the leadership of Chairman Ajit Pai -- and with only the backing of the agency's Republican members -- the repeal newly frees telecom companies from federal regulation, unravels a signature accomplishment of the Obama administration and shifts the responsibility of overseeing the web to another federal agency that some critics see as too weak to be effective. In practice, it means the U.S. government no longer will have rules on its books that require internet providers to treat all web traffic equally. The likes of AT&T and Verizon will be limited in some ways -- they can face penalties if they try to undermine their rivals, for example -- but they won't be subject to preemptive, bright-line restrictions on how they manage their networks. Meanwhile, the FCC's repeal will open the door for broadband providers to charge third parties, like tech giants, for faster delivery of their web content.
The FCC is essentially punting their regulatory duties to another agency (FTC) that has little legal jurisdiction here. There needs to be at least a temporary injunction to halt this.
Free to be slaves! But your guns TOTALLY keep the Queen of England at bay.. keke
No one is crying for Facebook and Google. It's a much bigger threat to small businesses than to the tech giants.
Google and Facebook will be fine. They may end up having to pay fees to the ISPs, but they have plenty of money and they'll be fine. The victims will be consumers and any new start-ups that can't afford the ISP fees needed to break into the market while they're still small and trying to grow.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Using Title II, a near-100 year old law to govern the Internet, was the wrong solution to this problem.
Watched The Matrix last night. Having forgotten all about the Net Neutrality madness.
Looking to unplug at any given time.
All of them.
I don't respond to AC's.
No just the USA. The rest is better off.
I'll be neg repped into oblivion but it was NOT the Trump Administration that repealed net neutrality, there are 5 people who are in charge of this and they voted down party lines. You want to go after someone, go after these folks. Trump didn't make this happen, these folks did:
Name Position State of Residence Party Term Expires†
Ajit Pai Chairman Kansas Republican June 30, 2021
Mignon Clyburn Commissioner South Carolina Democratic June 30, 2017
Brendan Carr Virginia Republican June 30, 2018
Michael O'Rielly New York Republican June 30, 2019
Jessica Rosenworcel Connecticut Democratic June 30, 2020
Wheel of Time: Book by Book and Sumview (summary review) Bigdady92 style: http://bigdady92.blogspot.com/
Pretty sure last year there were Trump supporters swearing up and down that this would never happen.
The FCC is an independent agency of the US government, not part of the executive branch, and so not part of the Trump administration.
This is a bright line that needs to be preserved. We don't want presidents to be able to order the FCC to act, especially the current one. And Obama's pressure on the FCC to regulate the internet was part of the history that got us in this mess in the first place.
Anyway, The Hill had a level-headed and short description of the action here. It was really nice to get a break from sensationalized--and factually off--articles screaming about the world coming to an end.
See it here: http://thehill.com/opinion/tec...
This comment was blocked due to non-payment for /. access -Comcast
The world just ended.
Poor poor Google and Facebook!
I guess we'll see if all these gloom and doom projections were warranted.
This is good news!
Nobody is crying for Netflix, either. This is about small businesses who won't have such an easy time paying the fees that ISPs could charge. It's a completely unnecessary barrier to entry that prevents competition and innovation.
Thank you for subscribing to your basic internet service. Please choose between the below options: 1) 100mb uncapped video service, included with your basic service. 2) 1gb uncapped video service, only $10/mo. 3) Each additional 1gb only charged at $5/mo. What a deal! ((Please note that the capped speed will limit you to 56k speed. The speeds you receive will also be limited by the service agreements we have reached with the provider of the video you desire and the contracts they have with all of the ISP's between your IP address and theirs so even with an unlimited speed agreement you may notice 56k speed caps due to those arrangements.)) Have a nice day!
Mitch McConnell supports Pai. He'd have to schedule the debate, so it doesn't look good. (Paul Ryan seems to favor net neutrality though).
Then there's the matter of Trump.
And poor (insert local business) that doesn't have the money to pay for the premium internet pipe.
Goodbye to the internet we've come to know and love.
Gee, I wonder who appoints FCC commissioners? Guess we'll never know!
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Netflix pays for their internet access just like everybody else, you numbnut.
FCC != Trump administration. Is msmash Anderson Cooper or Jake Tapper?
Poor us, who will see Netflix have to raise their rates as cable tv providers attempt to kill their competition with unwarranted fees
Big corporations love barriers to entry - keeps the little guy from innovation and disrupting the marketplace. Repealing Net Neutrality is an obvious dance to big money concerns.
Vote these bums out!
Justify this all you slashdot libertarian Hillary haters (no this wouldn't have happened under a center right Democratic Party administration). Make the case that "they're all the same" or "it's not so bad". Go on. Make that case in a slashdot comment thread where there's occasionally enough tech knowledge around to keep you technically honest. Go on. Make that case. Once you finish jerking off of course.
You wanna see what FCC chairman Ajit Pai thinks of you? Here is a video he posted yesterday to tell you why you should not worry about losing Net Neutrality.; He posted it on the right-wing website Daily Caller. (for real, you should watch this 1.5 minute video from Trump's FCC chairman, as he reveals he has no idea what Net Neutrality is, and also that he is a massive fuckwit.)
https://youtu.be/JeKK637IYAg
He's telling you all the things you'll still be able to do on the Internet after he signs over control to Comcast. Oh, and by the way, in the part of the video where he does the "Harlem Shake", one of the girls he's dancing with is a blogger who promoted the "Pizzagate" pedophilia controversy.
https://gizmodo.com/ajit-pai-t...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/fut...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Wait a second. Netflix doesn't pay for their own internet access?
See I see it as this, I pay for a connection to the internet, Netflix pays for a connection to the internet. Nobody else should be charging either of us extra to talk to each other as fast as any other website on the internet.
Redirect all requests from FCC ips to goatse. I am really mad and upset right now and am not even American as i know America will use its influence on other countries. We must take action like goatseing the FCC to get them take us seriously.
This is obviously punishment from God for gay marriage.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
from now on the periodic advertising pauses on the Internet access something like it is now on TV cable?
Republicans (in office) constantly complain about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because its single director has too much power, no external accountability and isn't subject to Congressional oversight (ie. control) and should either be abolished or changed to be run by a board of Commissioners, like the FCC.
Funny how they don't complain about the FCC behaving much the same way, even considering the FCC *has* a board of Commissioners and *is* subject to Congressional oversight. Maybe it's because the FCC is protecting corporations, not consumers - exactly like Republicans (in office) want.
I say "in office" because it seems many Representatives are doing what is in their best interest, regardless of what their constituents, who may also be Republicans, want. Sometimes, it seems the masses are more reasonable and responsible than their elected officials - sometimes.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
It is mind boggling that you have government control on one side by granting potentially abusive monopolies, and at the same time you remove any consumer protective regulation so that these monopolies can be as abusive as they want... Sure, the US has a decent GDP/capita, but that really is no excuse to have up to 10x the telco cost compared to other developed countries (and/or depending the location get stuck with circa 2000 internet speeds).
Well, OK, the fact that it is happening is not mind-boggling - just follow the money... The lack of realization/resistance from the people is the stranger and scarier aspect.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
So I see a lot of negativity about this, even though in the past with no NN rules almost nothing happened, and when it did was shut down quickly (like torrent throttling).
So I have a challenge for you all worried about this. Today, make a note of how much your internet costs. Then do some speed tests and record the results.
In a year, do the same thing. How many of you seriously think we will be worse off?
I personally do not think much will change, if anything... there is little practical downside to the choice of the FCC, and so much fear mongering from the other side of things that it greatly strains credulity.
I do look forward to a year of ANY news having to do with an ISP being blamed on net neutrality though regardless of how it would have been affected by NN rules, sadly that's the one downside I am sure of...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The fat bastard (Ajit Pai) may have 'sung', but the proverbial Fat Lady hasn't sung yet, folks. Despite my sometimes doom-saying (hey, cut me a little slack -- the world is a depressing place lately!), this is, really, just the opening volley in the War for the Internet. As another headline I read on this subject stated: "Net Neutrality Fight Moves to Courts, (and) Congress". There's now too much at stake with this, and there are some big players with lots of skin in the game to lose. So keep your hopes alive -- for now.
But now they get to pay twice, or even more. It will be so much better!!!
Ironic that an agency that owes its very existence largely due to the reaction of a certain Mr Strowger to the lack of Net Neutrality should now revoke the rules that have made the Internet such an egalitarian adventure.
It's a tragic day in the Divided States of America when the voices of the many are ignored by the will of a few.
So my thinking here is that you do not understand what "humor" is, nor how a lot of that video was about countering equally absurd criticism of what will be affected by dropping NN rules. You'd think a million puppies a day were being murdered with all of the outcry we have seen from a tiny vocal minority (which we know is a minority because of recent protests that fizzled out in most cities).
European here, so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the executive branch called "the administration"? And isn't the FCC part of the executive branch? And doesn't the president direct the executive branch? And isn't Donald Trump the president? And didn't he make Ajit Pai the chairman of the FCC?
And what's to stop the gloom and doom projections from happening? Clearly there are profits to be made so let the profiteering begin!
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
Remember way back in 2015, when we were all forced to pay $1 a byte for Internet service?
Me neither.
but end users will not put in meters on internet that are not checked and don't have an seal of approval.
IF a gas pump was rigged like any of ISP meters then there will be big fines.
It doesn't matter NN rules or not, if you are a small business you can only afford so much bandwidth to provide content to people. Were you seriously thinking NN rules meant that any business could use any amount of bandwidth for free? Come on!!
Look at T-Mobile's binge-on program. ANY small business can take part, all they have to do is provide content in a specific lower resolution format T-Mobile can feed instead of a higher res version. That is juts one example of how small businesses are benefitting from things that many people claimed were against NN rules (even though no-one actually knew what the NN rules really did for or against them).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm going to go ahead and do this. Because it's been bugging me for awhile.
What are you Cracked out nutjobs talking about?
home user internet has a soft and a hard cap. check your contract, they'll yell at you and cap you if you exceed it, and kick you off the service if you abuse it. providers frequently block ports, traffic shape torrents, etc.
a Business that needs unlimited services (for business voip, or a locally hosted database, for example) will have a commercial connection. these usually have no data cap, hard or soft. and few restrictions (and cost a lot more)
almost everything i've seen you guys complaining about regarding "net neutrality" has nothing to do with reality, or rational business practices but is instead the result of either a Massive FUD tactic, or just your echo chambers playing post office..
If it is such a non-issue, why would they bother reversing such a law? And why do big ISP put money into bribing (lobbying) for such a change?
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
And so will we as we pay to unlock each website we visit.
I'm expecting ISP lootboxes in 2018.
Maybe this week you get 25mbps, maybe you get 5mbps. Ooooh? Didn't want that one? Buy another lootbox then.
This isn't theoretical at all. That's disingenuous. There are plenty of examples of ISPs attempting to engage in behavior that was prohibited by NN rules. Those rules are now gone.
This allows ISPs to block content as they see fit. Large ISPs like Comcast have already attempted to do this, though the NN rules did not allow that. Ajit Pai has said he believes Comcast should have the ability to block content or entire protocols. ISPs have engaged in zero rating services or content. For example, Verizon allows businesses to pay for their content to be zero rated. Comcast implemented their own streaming video service that didn't count against their data caps. None of this is theoretical at all.
This policy was pushed through in an extremely corrupt manner. Ajit Pai has made numerous false and misleading statements about NN. Many comments were submitted on behalf of individuals without their consent, people who aren't American citizens, people who are dead, or even people who don't exist at all. Most of the fraudulent comments were opposed to NN rules. The FCC has been far less than transparent in investigating this matter. They've selectively disregarded comments based on standards such as the legal language of the comments that weren't made known to the public during the commenting period. The process was rushed through despite the many objections I just listed. It was an extremely corrupt process by an extremely corrupt administration. If eliminating the NN rules isn't harmful, there would be no need for the process to be opaque, for Pai to make dishonest statements, and to rush the process.
Google and Facebook will be fine. They may end up having to pay fees to the ISPs, but they have plenty of money and they'll be fine.
But their profit margins!!!! Won't _somebody_ think of Google's profit margins!!?
Why say go after these folks and list the Democrats who voted against?
Also, Trump appointed a Chairman who was the most obvious pro-telco person available to lead the FCC. Sorry, if you don't see that as all-Trump you are more of an idiot than the average Trump voter.
...it suddenly loses it's independence and becomes the Trump Administration. Not a fucking word about the "Obama Administration" and it's 3-2 vote to enact the rules here:
here
Obama nominated him to the FCC, not the chair, because that's how the FCC works: Winning party gets three commissioners, losing party gets two, so Obama's hands were tied on that one.
After Trump was sworn in, he nominated Pai as chairman.
And now you know...the rest of the story!
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Actually, yes. He was appointed by Obama.
Netflix was paying for a connection to a 3rd party, 3rd party was connection directly to Comcast via a peering arrangement. Netflix traffic started overwhelming 3rd parties connection to Comcast. Netflix wanted a free connection directly to Comcasts network which Comcast would not provide. Netflix and Comcast work out an arrangement where Netflix now pays for a direct connection to Comcasts network bypassing said 3rd party. This is how the net is supposed to work, Comcast has no obligation to give you, I or Netflix a free direct connection to their network. The Netflix lie really drives me up the wall.
as cable tv providers attempt to kill their competition with unwarranted fees
The more cable TV providers raise fees the more customers they drive to Netflix. I'm not sure how driving customers to the competitor is "killing" the competition.
Psst...there were no price controls in Obama's Net Neutrality.
Companies charged what the market would pay.
Pay better attention, because I have said it before, and put it in a video below that there are TWO kinds of net neutrality and we had the wrong kind.
1. Net neutrality - The internet should be a even playing field for all; No throttling, no censorship, no corporate and no government control. Entirely in the hands of the end users, everything else is just bure bandwidth. - This is what we wanted and all of you THINK that we got.
2. "Net Neutrality" - A plan by the same name that was created by Obama and the FCC to get government control over the Internet activity by calling it a utility. - This is what we actually got. yes it prevented throttling by corporations for the time, and government didn't censor and do too much YET, mainly because Clinton didn't get in office.
3. No restrictions on corporations. Results in censoring and throttling.
Most of you are under the impression that we get either option 1 or option 3, but you overlook the Option 2 which is what Obama actually gave us. We SHOULD have got option 1, not option 2.
VIDEO:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7WHoqsRuxU
They are going to charge Netflix you idiot so they can make it an unattractive option. Either it will be slow or have to raise prices.
The cable tv fees are already high for consumers and the availability of alternatives is dragging the cable fees down.
Since the cable companies can now control bandwidth by data source (i.e. Netflix) they can choke back Netflix traffic and make it unwatchable, forcing consumers back to paying for expensive cable tv
If Netflix pays the cable companies for more bandwidth (i.e. not choked off), then they are going to have to pass those costs to the consumers by raising their rates
Consumer can then lose two ways
1. Stuck with expensive cable tv with no option to use a cheaper service because Netflix is not allowed the bandwidth
2. Stuck with expensive cable tv OR expensive Nettfix because netflix is now paying the cable company for access to consumers
See, we always end up taking it in the end when corporations are left to their own devices
Shouldn't the flag icon in the title be at half mast?
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
And that's the whole premise behind net neutrality; you've paid for your access, it shouldn't matter where you're connecting to.
Unfortunately, with the regulations that will govern what ISPs can do once this change goes into effect, as long as the ISP tells you up front what they're doing, it's all hunky-dory and legal. So if your ISP announces a change in terms of service that states that, because of the religious beliefs of the ISP management, customers will no longer be able to access any website that offers medical information about birth control or abortions, you're SOL. It's potentially like the opening narration of the TV series "The Outer Limits" -- "There is nothing wrong with your internet connection. Do not attempt to adjust your cablemodem. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to improve your access to a site, we will increase the bandwidth. If we wish to impede your access to a site, we will reduce its bandwidth. We will deny you access to any website critical of our actions, policies, or beliefs, and inject advertising for sites that pay us to do so into all web pages you access. Until Congress passes a law preventing us from doing this, sit back and we will control all that you see and hear on the internet."
and offer fiber-to-the-home across the country with the specific marketing pledge of always-guaranteed net neutrality.
Some player that has spoken out about favoring net neutrality, and which already has experience piloting these kind of networks in some cities.
Not naming any names.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
How do you like all that WINNING?
Just not for you
UNH UNH take it consumers!
Just one more in a long line of societal injustices. It's muskets and pitchforks time.
most home internet connections are already cut off from most internet services try running a mail server at home.
Since the cable companies can now control bandwidth by data source
Oh. I get it. This is another example of confusing cable TV with cable ISP. I responded specifically to a statement about cable TV.
Amazon, Facebook and Google are few companies that will NOT have to pay. Nobody will ever buy internet service that doesn't have these 3 "base" services. Besides, many other services depends on Google and Amazon clouds. Smaller comanies will have to pay for their "place" in cable service, just like TV channels.
839*929
IF a gas pump was rigged like any of ISP meters then there will be big fines.
Ahh, more regulations that hurt small businesses and need to go away. Once gone, competition will keep the gas stations honest and by not having to worry about stupid regulations like needing to check the accuracy of their gas pumps, those poor oil companies might finally be able to turn a profit. Small businesses like Exxon need all the help they can get.
While about it, we can remove some of those other business killing regulations such as having to install non-leaky tanks. The threat of losing their gasoline to leaks will make sure the tanks don't leak too much and the most wonderful part is that if anyones water gets gasoline in it, well they can buy bottled water at the gas station.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
If it is such a non-issue, why would they bother reversing such a law? And why do big ISP put money into bribing (lobbying) for such a change?
Now we wait for the other shoe to drop.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
netflix doesn't pay for my bandwidth, I do, and if I decide to download data from their site, that is MY business. I am the one paying for it after all.
because of the religious beliefs of the ISP management, customers will no longer be able to access any website that offers medical information about birth control or abortions,
Every time a NN proponent comes up with this kind of ridiculous hypothetical situation, they make their argument look ridiculous. Given that there can be serious, real issues, why do you folks keep trying to go further and further into imaginary-land?
Why not go fully nutzo? As long as the ISP tells you ahead of time that they're coming to confiscate your firstborn male child, they're hunky-dory! And if you don't have a child, yet, as long as they tell you they're going to come rape your wife, they're hunky-dory! And if you don't have a male child, they'll take your girl child and create a male child for you! And then burn your house down! All HUNKY-DORY because they told you in advance.
This didn't happen in 2014. Why do you think it will suddenly become a problem today?
Netflix pays for internet access, not for a connection to a third party. Just like you pay Comcast for internet access, not just for access to Comcast's WAN. There is enough bandwidth on Netflix's side to reach all transit providers without congestion. The amount of traffic that can pass from the Tier 1 backbone operators (transit providers) into Comcast's WAN is a matter of negotiation between Comcast and the backbone operators. Comcast is not buying enough of that access to satisfy the contracts it has with its customers, who paid for internet access, not Comcast access.
The above explanation of the way every bit of Internet traffic is already paid for should be sufficient, but just to prove that Comcast really has no leg to stand on with that argument, here's more: Netflix will, at their own cost, provide servers and direct peering connections to any medium and large ISP, to cut the transit providers out and reduce the cost to themselves and the ISPs. They don't have to do that. Comcast thinks it should be paid for direct access to the Comcast network. Fine, then they should pay the transit providers. They took their customers' money for internet access, and they need to provide it.
But isn't buying enough transit to carry the data that Comcast's customers paid to access expensive? No, it's ridiculously cheap: You can buy 10Gbps unfettered bandwidth (transit to and from the whole internet) at $1500/month. That's $15 for 100Mbps, with a 1:1 contention ratio. Typical contention ratios for business connections are 1:10, for consumer connections 1:50. That means Comcast would have to pay between $0.30 and $1.50 to actually provide the internet access that Comcast's customers already pay for, but they want to get paid by both sides, so they make up these stories about expensive bandwidth and how content providers get a free ride. They're holding their captive customers hostage to extort money.
!!!!!
Hi. I'm Sarten-X. It's a big deal to me.
I've been working on a silly little web project, that someday I hope to turn into an income-generating company.
Unfortunately, my project relies on having fairly snappy response times (mostly low bandwidth/low latency, but occasionally having bursts of high bandwidth usage) for a good user experience. Without neutrality, I can't expect that any more. Traffic to and from my tiny little project will be queued behind the high-definition stream for Netflix, because I can't afford to pay Comcast (or Spectrum, or Verizon, or AT&T, or whoever else owns the customers) the millions of dollars in fees to get fast-lane prioritization.
Yes, it's speculation. It's also history, because I lived through the last round of these problems. I remember working with ISPs in the 90s and 2000s to figure out why certain traffic was unusually slow... sure enough, it's because that particular service had been deemed "low-priority" and was throttled. Fortunately at the time I had a big enough team of corporate lawyers that we could force a bit more throughput from the small ISP, but that's not usually the case today.
The reality is that probably 90% of Americans won't notice a difference. Their Netflix subscription might cost a few cents more, or their telecom stock value might get a small boost, but that's about it. The real loss is in potential. The next big Internet-based success might just be someone's silly little project today, and it'll likely never be able to grow because of the arbitrary limits placed by ISPs.
No, it's not just about torrents. It's about waiting for a product demo video to buffer, or waiting for an AJAX call to update a GUI, or waiting for a site's style sheet to properly load. It's about my user experience (and thus my project's success) being heavily dependent on how much extra money I pay to which ISPs, rather than how good my actual product is.
Yes, it's a big deal.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
The cap isn't the issue (ok, it's another issue that is related). How much traffic you can get from a source (like Netflix or Vimeo) toward your cap is now something that can be manipulated. So you might be below your cap but unable to access Netflix. Did you opt in to that?
Yeah so they'll find a diferent provider big deal.
Gee, I wonder who appoints FCC commissioners?
No spoilers, I haven't seen The Last Jedi yet.
Just wondering what can be done?
Sounds like Washington State is saying that if ISPs don't adhere to Net Neutrality, then they can't use the power poles..
I was thinking that Google/Facebook etc, could now intentionally start slowing data to US Government IP blocks, and ask the US Government to pay them to speed up the service..
Get a leg up and start slowing youtube to all the ISPs like comcast and verizon that supported reversal of net neutrality, and force 480p quality to those customers, when they complain, Google can point their finger at the ISP and say it is their fault, works great to other customers..
Netflix is dead because of Disney (who just bought out Fox), not because of net discrimination.
> Why not go fully nutzo? As long as the ISP tells you ahead of time that they're coming to confiscate your firstborn male child, they're hunky-dory!
That's prevented by existing laws and regulations, unlike traffic peering and shaping (now). We get someone like you going off on pointless tirades just because some idiot mistakenly told you were smart as a kid.
No, the FCC is an independent agency like the Federal Reserve. It doesn't only become part of an Administration you don't like when it does something you don't like.
It's not quite that simple though.
The problem at hand has to do with peering relationships. Normally what happens between the big Tier 1 providers is that they make agreements to the effect of "I'll take X amount of your traffic and you take Y amount of my traffic and assuming X and Y are pretty close we just call it even". Well, Netflix creates a massive imbalance because they send tons of traffic and don't receive hardly anything. Because they are so large this creates a problem on those peering relationships because they are no longer symmetric.
So, what happens? The consumer side ISP looks at the Netflix ISP and says "Hey, you are sending us 4x the traffic that we are sending you. Either pay up for the difference otherwise we rate limit you". This happened several times with Netflix. The Netflix ISP wouldn't pay up so Netflix got rate limited and Netflix users got pissed.
So, who is at fault here? Kinda hard to say. Probably what should happen is that the Netflix ISP would pay the overage on the asymmetric peering and increase costs back to Netflix.
Now, none of this is really Net Neutrality related. Netflix is really an odd example due to the absolute insane amount of traffic they generate...most companies are not going to be able to change the balance of Tier 1 peering providers in a major way. In general Netflix should be placing equipment on all large ISP's to increase it's own quality of delivery.
I agree there's a problem here; just how do you speediest? Speedtest.com only measures to a local site and as you say can be gamed pretty easily.
So how about this - measure your speed to Netflix instead via the Fast.com tool they launched some time ago.
Fox example, on Speedtest right now I'm getting 270Mbps (which is actually throttled by wifi hardware, real speed is faster from router).
On Fast.com however, I am getting a nice round 100Mbps average right now. So I'll come back in a year, and see how that fares.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Because of Net Neutrality Laws, now Comcast has to shoulder the increased cost of all that traffic without being able to charge
Are you fucking stupid? The customer wants to watch Netflix, so the ISP connects them to Netflix and charges the customer for the service. If the ISP doesn't connect the customer to Netflix, they aren't carrying out their job. The ISP is free to pass on the cost of doing business to their customer. What is so difficult to understand?
To be fair the rules are consistently referred to as "Obama-era net neutrality" in many of the news outlets. Obama also spoke out publicly in favor of the rules on more than one occasion. On the other hand I doubt this whole mess is much of a blip on Trump's radar, but it seems clear this wouldn't have happened had he not been elected.
while [ 1 ]; do echo -n -e "\xe2\x95\xb$((($RANDOM&1)+1))"; done
Poor Comcast. Not forced to pay for the internet connection for their customers. Comcast and all of the other ISPs should be paying Netflix and the other content providers. It is the content that keeps people on the Internet, not the cable, but ISPs managed to corner off the "tier 1" ISP space, when all all networks on the *Inter*-net where supposed to be equal. The only model that makes logical sense, if one is going to charge for traffic, is for the incoming traffic to be charged to the consumer. Instead, in a massive rent-seeking grab, tier 1 ISPs have managed to persuade cowards like you that they should be able to change for incoming traffic at peering points and outgoing traffic to their users. This lets them screw over the American public, Silicon Valley and the rest of the world (that is not considered a tier 1 peer). And no, this is not the way the internet has always been - once upon a time peering was just something people did and when the pipe was too small they paid for a bigger pipe.
home user internet has a soft and a hard cap. check your contract, they'll yell at you and cap you if you exceed it, and kick you off the service if you abuse it. providers frequently block ports, traffic shape torrents, etc.
Bullshit, mine doesn't. My ISP gives me an unlimited dumb pipe to the internet and that's it. They don't filter, throttle or cap anything. They don't even care if I run servers on the connection and they've stated that they won't be changing even with the end of net neutrality, which I believe because I've had their service since long before net neutrality laws existed and they have always been the same way.
Just because your ISP is complete shit doesn't mean they all are.
Does the US have more than one government? Are OP implying that there is a shadow government and "The Trump Administration" are not the only ones making decisions? I have no recollection of people writing "The Obama administration just voted..." When they were in power.
Maybe its just a case of the hate of the dark side being so strong that they have to distance themselves from the current president when ever possible?
Based on the rhetoric flying about regarding this issue, this was a course of action decided on long before it entered the awareness of the body public. Reactions, outrage and protests were all accounted for ahead of time and no amount of public squawking was ever going to stop this from happening. It's almost Ozymandian in that regard, by the time you or I heard or cared about this it was already too late to stop.
I posted this in another followup response but I thought I'd do one more post, since the figure from this test was more useful than Speedtest.net - fast.com is a network speed test from Netflix that today returns pretty different results for me than the speediest.net results... I'll keep an eye on that through the year and see if service starts to degrade.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Isn't the very behavior we're afraid of, already prohibited by other laws?
"Gee, that's a nice web application you've got there, shame if its packets were too slow to get to the customer in time..." is a straight-up protection racket, is it not?
Because of Net Neutrality Laws, now Comcast has to shoulder the increased cost of all that traffic without being able to charge.
I don't get this. Doesn't Comcast already charge their customers for the bandwidth they use? Why should they be allowed to go shakedown the companies that their customers happen to access? Isn't it just Comcast's job to carry traffic from the edge of their network to their customers, at prices agreed with their customers? Why should they be able to discriminate based on where the traffic originated, and use that to extort money from the sources?
There are probably other states, but to my knowledge California, Oregon, Washington, and New York have all filed suit against this reversal of Net Neutrality.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
to improve my small .org's email server being allowed through Verizon, Hotmail, Yahoo's etc spam filter systems. When they decide to blacklist us, all our families and friends silently miss our communications for weeks as a time. The FCC for the last 8 years didn't help us with this once. Someone hit the off switch. thiss hit is getting old. We're all still here and things haven't improved or degraded.
Thatis why Trump fired his Security Advisors: The Trump was number 1 visitorlog and callog of prisonned childsex trafficker billionaire Jeffrey Epstein and The Trump flew aboard Thw Lolita Express jetplane over 25-times just like The Clintons to participate in Talmud child rape spirit cooking blood-elixir drink rituals that are government-protected as religious rituals on St. James Island.
Fuck AMERICA: fuck democrats, fuck republicans, fuck DENNIS HASTERT the Hermosa Beach Mermaid Bar groper RBUHS wrestling molester, fuck ALEPHONTIS the childmeatpie baker, fuck PODESTA the Fatherhood child flogger, and fuck the Royal Family blood drinking pedophile pimps, and fuck the Pope, and fuck you POPE RATZO "pick the cleaner shitside" dumbfuck of Slashdot.
Comcast has no obligation to peer with any of them, even under net neutrality rules. Then both Comcast and Netflix have to get a third party to carry the traffic between them, because their respective customers pay them to do that. This is the default situation. You can be an ISP with just a LAN, a router and a connection to a transit provider. That's literally all it takes. If you build your own backbone connections and peer at an internet exchange point, you do so to lower your costs, but it's not necessary and there is no legal obligation to do it. An ISP isn't even required to provide a particular level of service. If you as an ISP sell a 100Mbps connection to a thousand customers, but only buy 1Gbps of transit, your customers will find that you're a bad ISP, but that's not a net neutrality violation. If you then provide preferential treatment to the traffic from content providers that pay you off, THAT was a net neutrality violation, and now it's not, because those rules are gone.
The simple fact of the matter is that Comcast gets paid for every bit it carries on its network. That's what being an internet provider means. You don't get to collect fees from everybody on the internet just because their data is carried on your network. Your customers already paid for that. If content providers give you the bits that your customers want for free at an IXP, say thank you and don't complain that it saves the other side money too. The alternative is paying for transit, and that you have to do or your customers will know you're a shitty ISP.
I am really enjoying the liberal tears today. 100% high energy!
Remember when Trump promised to talk to Bill Gates about "closing up the Internet" while mocking concerns over freedom of speech?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=27&v=JcmiHx5Yf2I
*sigh* not so funny anymore.
Trump gets a hard-on every time he gets to undo anything Obama managed to accomplish during his presidency.
Also, the two big cable companies that have divided and monopolized the US market get to make more money for crappy service! What's wrong with that?
I remember working at an ISP in the 2000s. We used QoS to prioritize or deprioritize traffic to certain services, mainly because warez and WoW were clogging the pipe. That was targeted at services. What they can do now is prioritize or fuck over specific businesses and the business will never know unless someone on the inside leaks the configuration. This will, guaranteed, lead to the most successful online businesses paying off carriers to interfere with the traffic of their competitors, making it difficult for a new business to get off the ground. They have already been doing something similar for a few years by having their PR agents plant news articles describing their competitors as racist, sexist troglodytes of the alt-right and pushing for them to be banned from industry conferences.
Weak.
Interesting how many want this sort of government regulation to stay in place? Love the Chicken Little mentality that the sky is falling when in fact we really do not know what's really going to happen?
Free wire? They pay plenty for access to the network backbones. You think someone will just let you connect up Peta-bytes of data for free? If so, then maybe we don't need net neutrality.
Just wanted to add that there's evidence Comcast did this on purpose in order to put Netflix in a bind. (Customers have alternative choices with Netflix, but not as many with Comcast.) They wanted to force Netflix to either agree to their demands to have their service unusable. Basically, mafia-style "this is a nice store you've got here, it'd be a shame if something happened to it" tactics from an ISP that holds a monopoly in many areas.
And now these tactics are legal again.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
The dark age nightmare of the Internet before 2005 is back! Oh no! Run for the hills!
Are you crazy! In the big picture, it's not Netflix that is generating the traffic. By your reasoning, Netflix would be better off if they had their client stream /dev/zero back from people's TV/Roku/PC, just to balance the traffic. Comcast and the other ISPs are the ones generating the traffic and should be paying to upgrade their equipment if they cannot meet their contractual obligations to provide their clients with the bandwidth they are paying for. The ISPs should be paying Netflix and other other content providers on the internet to thank them for creating a market of consumers looking for Internet connections, enabling their business model.
That's prevented by existing laws and regulations, unlike traffic peering and shaping (now).
Well, why is it not prevented by existing laws? Because Congress SAID that the FCC should not regulate this. That's an existing law. Obama had the FCC find a loophole so he could get around the Congress.
Loopholes good, or loopholes bad?
Answer the question. It didn't happen in 2014, why magically will it appear today?
My local (and only) cable TV provider is Spectrum. My local (and only) cable ISP is Spectrum.
What, again, is the practical difference?
Cable TV provider Spectrum loses business to Netflix, so Cable ISP provider Spectrum makes it cost more for Netflix to work (or makes using it untenable with throttling), in order to drive customers to Cable TV provider Spectrum. Spectrum gets more money in all cases at the cost of customer freedom.
The entire "I'm talking about TV providers, not ISPs" is an incredibly disingenuous straw man.
People will see that this is a good move by removing regulations that were stifling innovations and allow silicon valley companies to consume huge junks of bandwidth that brought no value or jobs to the US. This was a good move FCC !
They never got a free wire. Never. Know why? Because I paid for it. Every single netflix customer already paid their ISP for Netflix to use that wire.
They're not trying to get justly compensated for Netflix "freeloading". They're trying to double dip on what we already fucking pay for, and make Netflix seem like the bad guy if they have to jack up their prices.
Then when Netflix goes out of business because customers aren't willing to pay the ISP twice to watch it, guess who's sitting there in the wings with their own shittier streaming services? THE FUCKING ISPS!
why does government and business ruin that which more or less works?
Profit!
Just because your ISP is complete shit doesn't mean they all are.
You mean the enormous ISPs that most people in the United States are forced to use, thanks to those companies engaging in illegal, anti-competitive market exclusion agreements?
The ISPs that Ajit Pai has said, on record, a) don't need to have competition forced on them, and b) the FCC is trying to provide monopolies for by preventing individual states from ensuring there are alternatives for?
No, all ISPs are not complete shit. But the largest, fattest, most anti-competitive ones are, and they're the only ones we can use. (I'm currently in a city of 500,000+ people, and there is ONE broadband ISP here. ONE.)
Netflix wanted free rackspace at all ISPs. ISPs said: 'What makes you special? Pay up, like everybody else that want's servers in the ISPs racks.'
Netflix parses it as 'We offered free servers to the ISPs, but they refused to let us install them (for free).'
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The law needs to be updated. The courts and government have routinely gone back and forth unable to address the core of the issue and that is how do you classify ISPs. The law makes a distinction but the problem is that an ISP is both.
Congress needs to get involved to classify what an ISP is so that the FCC and FTC can apply the proper classification for regulation.
customers will no longer be able to access any website that offers medical information about birth control or abortions
This is definitely what republicans want - so that there are more babies for them to eat
Nobody else should be charging either of us extra to talk to each other as fast as any other website on the internet.
An Internet Service Provider's role in a "free and open internet" is to Provide Internet Service (hey the letters are the same, neat) to as many people as possible. Which they're already under public scrutiny for and have a history of gaming that system at every opportunity (see Verizon's "Close enough" NYC shenanigans, and the money they were given to roll out broadband in the 90s that they just kept when they decided it wasn't feasible). Google didn't beat the competition because Time Warner came up with amazing new way to provide their service. The opposite really, I remember using Google early on because it operated noticeably faster over our line.
No, the only innovation we're protecting is the ability to innovate more ways to charge you for what you already get. Because apparently regulations that prevent you from doing things that you aren't currently doing (and you pinky swore you wouldn't do) are stifling. Time to get back to innovating on that wall to protect our Free and Open border.
If it is such a non-issue, why would they bother reversing such a law?
Among other reasons, BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER A LAW. If you think it SHOULD be a law, rather than an Obama-era edict to apply a decades old telephone framework to modern networking, then you should be delighted this is gone, and seeking to get some actual legislation in place. Something that reflects an era after rotary dial phones.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The default between any two entities on the internet is that they pay someone else as a go-between. This is called "transit". If two entities on the internet cannot get to a peering agreement, then their traffic will take the default route, which typically involves the services of a combination of tier 1 providers like Cogent, Level 3, Hurricane Electric, Telia, etc.
Now suppose Comcast and Netflix are those two entities. Netflix makes sure that the traffic that Comcast customers request is handed over to, well, not Comcast directly, because Comcast doesn't want to let Netflix deliver the data right to their routers. So Netflix pays (for example) Hurricane Electric for "internet access" and hands that data over to them. Comcast may not have a business relationship with HE, so HE peers with Level 3 and Level 3 then routes that data to Comcast, along with all the other traffic that happens to be routed via Level 3 from sources that don't have a direct (paid or settlement free) peering agreement with Comcast. Comcast has to pay for that traffic, because Comcast doesn't have a global network to reach all of the internet, but Level 3 does, so Level 3 takes no shit from Comcast. It would be cheaper for Comcast to just have the data delivered directly, but they want to get paid by Netflix, so they try to play hardball. But here's the problem: If they simply don't buy enough transit from Level 3 or some other tier 1 network, then traffic from many sources all over the world will suffer from congestion. Comcast customers will complain about Comcast being a shitty ISP. They rightfully expect Comcast to provide access to those sources at the advertised speed. Net neutrality doesn't allow Comcast to selectively throttle Netflix traffic so that other sources are not congested, only Netflix. Without net neutrality, Comcast can show Netflix the instruments of torture: Pay us, even though you already paid your ISP and our customers already paid to access your service, or we'll throttle your traffic.
So no, Netflix should not pay. Net neutrality should be observed.
Something I haven't seen many people mention lately is the legal immunity that common carrier status provides to the carrier against criminal content.
Aren't ISPs at risk of losing common carrier status if they start doing the things that NN proponents fear? If they do lose CC status, can't they then be held liable for illegal content traversing their networks? Seems like one major ISP CEO going to jail because his company is aiding and abetting the distribution of illicit imagery, or unlicensed software, or any other "criminal information," would be enough to stop the ISPs from not playing nice with our data. No?
http://undecidedgames.blogspot.com
Many comments were submitted on behalf of individuals without their consent, people who aren't American citizens, people who are dead, or even people who don't exist at all.
Holy shit, that sounds like the democrat vote.
This won't change one single vote. Not one. People will go to the polls and they'll vote jobs. They'll vote on guns. They'll vote on abortion. Not a single person will ever vote on Net Neutrality. Not enough to _change_ a vote. Sure, some folks who were already going to vote against Trump and the Republican party (and make no mistake, this is a Republican policy. It's not partisan bickering when the other side overwhelmingly opposes it) will vote for a D or maybe even an L or a G, but they were never going to fall in line with the Rs to begin with.
I've said this before, I'll say it again. Unless we techies start promoting policies that help the working class, especially blue collar types, then things are going to get worse and worse for us and our issues. What we need right now is solidarity. What we've got is a bunch of wedge issues that keep us apart and doing exactly what the aristocracy wants us to do.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Just another example of the baby boomer's: "fuck you I got mine" mentality. People are going to remember this as the moment that America stuffed the tech industry.
No one is coming after your little idea, you don't have any coin in your pocket.
You call yourself a shill with arguments like that??
Nobody else should be charging either of us extra to talk to each other as fast as any other website on the internet.
If anything the opposite should be true.
I have something like 2G of mobile data a month, but some services (e.g. Faceboo, Spotify, SD Netflix) are not metered. When there is competition, making popular services cheaper means their service is more valuable.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
A simple magnet will fix meter issues..
There is no distinction between Cable ISP and Cable TV, it is one company, the can use the fact they are an ISP to kill the competition for the TV. That is what makes this all so dangerous.
Right, but I probably can't use YOUR provider. The fact that these things are all semi-monopolies is the big reason for this concern. I don't have a free market for internet, I have two choices, and both of their wires were run with taxpayer assistance.
Netflix offered. As in, we'll pay for the servers, you'll pay for the rack space. If you let us, we'll both save money by cutting out the middlemen. If that's not agreeable, we'll continue to pay for transit and you'll continue to pay for transit to carry the data that your customers pay you to deliver to their homes.
Nobody needs to provide rack space to Netflix to get the data for free. Netflix peers settlement free at all major internet exchange points. If you don't want to allow Netflix to place their servers all over your network so that you save bandwidth on your own network, get the data at an internet exchange point. You'll have to pay for the port and the rack space for your routers, but at least you'll get to carry the data all the way through your network. Much better deal, isn't it? And you can go one more into shoot-your-own-foot territory: Don't take anything from Netflix directly. Get it all through transit. All the disadvantages of peering directly, but now you get to pay the middlemen too.
And that's why seeing it as anything but an offer is just stupid. Transit isn't cheap, but what Netflix offers is even cheaper. Comcast's customers pay Comcast for access to that data. You'd think Comcast would choose the cheapest way to provide that access.
More like Land of the Corporations. So - you guys gonna fix this cancerous problem you've got going on there, or maybe just change the anthem and stuff?
Holy shit! Reliable credible non conspiracy theory source? Oh right there isn't one. More cases of voter fraud were brought against Republicans than Democrats in 2016s wake.
"that someday I hope to turn into an income-generating company"
It's not a big deal to you. Your idea is that the internet will be wrecked when your "someday" idea happens.
But the internet will be just fine. I dare you to bet money that this will ruin the internet.
Take some meds. Maybe smoke some weed. Relax. Maybe the cell phone companies toll-charge Facebook or Disney some, they have deep pockets.
No one is coming after your little idea, you don't have any coin in your pocket.
Big fish have coin in pocket, big fish like Facebook or Microsoft Skype use lot of bandwidth.
And you don't seem to understand that's exactly his point. Big fish with deep pockets will be able to pay, and those are the entities the bandwidth providers are targeting. Small fish with no pockets will not be able to pay for prioritization, which will prevent their entry to the market. The problem with this lack of neutrality protections for the internet doesn't mean the internet will be destroyed, it means the internet will no longer be allowed to grow. The only people who will be able to introduce any new services will be those already established companies that have plenty of money to ensure they have the bandwidth and response time they need, and of course those that are providing the bandwidth. The fear is that the internet will be become the modern equivalent of 90s era AOL; a managed experience and walled garden without any potential for growth that hasn't been carefully curated.
I think you are mistaken. The next big thing will just happen elsewhere (China, or the EU) where they don't have ISP issues. It'll filter here once/if it gets big enough to be able to afford the fees, so we will only be 5-7 years behind the rest of the world.
Peering is not always free, you stupid fuck
Today's vote was a vote to return to the same regulatory environment that the Internet grew up with. It did just fine being regulated by the FTC before the Obama administration reclassified it as a telecommunications environment thru some dubious procedures and put under the control of the FCC. You could say today's vote returned the Internet to the Free Market.
The ISP's have no reason to censor
Sorry, are you seriously trying to say that Comcast, Time Warner, etc (The majority of ISPs are also TV providers) have no reason at all to want to censor Netflix, Amazon Video, Hulu? They have no reason to try and get people to switch back (or slow down) people from getting out from under their $250+ cable bills?
Wow.
The entire "I'm talking about TV providers, not ISPs" is an incredibly disingenuous straw man.
The comment I responded to was talking about cable TV.
Let me point out that there are lots of ISPs that aren't "cable TV", so complaining about how "cable TV" is going to charge Netflix is ignoring the problem overall and trying to dump it onto one service that Netflix doesn't actually need to exist. Maybe it's just that I'm old enough to remember when "cable TV" was cable TV and not "cable everything", so I am able to differentiate. Maybe youngsters who have never known those austere days don't understand the difference.
Cable TV provider Spectrum loses business to Netflix, so Cable ISP provider Spectrum makes it cost more for Netflix to work
Except it wasn't that Netflix was causing Comcast (the non-hypothetical villain here) to lose business, it was that Netflix traffic was the primary cause of congestion at the border gateway. Everyone wants to pretend that bandwidth is free, but it really isn't. Everyone also wants to pretend that a congested gateway is being selective in what it drops, but it really isn't.
If you are scared that your ISP is going to try charging Netflix to upgrade the interconnect at the border gateway (which is what actually happened), then talk about your ISP. Is it really too much to ask that people in a technology-based discussion group refer to the correct technology?
in order to drive customers to Cable TV provider Spectrum.
I'm still at a loss to figure out how raising rates is going to get more people to become your customer. As you pointed out, most people, you included, do not differentiate between "cable TV" the "tv" and "cable TV" the "internet". Why would they see a higher cost for "the internet" as a reason to buy more from "the company" that provides both? Seems like it would drive folks away. Doesn't seem like it would result in "charge me more and I'll buy more stuff from you!"
The most unpopular decision is thrust down everyone's throat. America is not a democracy. It's Capital dictatorship. Your vote only amounts to picking a front man from the Capital group.
The Federal Reserve is not part of the government. The FCC is.
Because Obama couldn't have found a more RINO person than a Verizon corporate lawyer (the same Verizon that was suing about other rules they didn't like?).
Sorry - Obama also appointed Tom Wheeler who was initially worse than a Verizon corporate lawyer as he held leadership positions at the CTIA & NCTA prior to being nominated to head the FCC. Mr. Wheeler also took up the mantle of net neutrality in 2014 by suggesting paid prioritization. The public comment period of that time had a massive backlash and eventually in 2015 passed what is now termed Obama-era net netutrality. This is after the President spoke out about net neutrality in a previously rarely seen push of an independent agency's decisionmaking.
The one good thing about Obama's FCC under Wheeler is that between secret Whitehouse meetings and a huge public backlash it finally reversed its original stance and came up with something that would probably have served the interests of economic growth and innovation for the foreseeable future.
This time around we don't have the big tech giants and a lot more apathy because Trump is already screwing everything up so caring about NN is just one more thing and hardly as societally important as fixing the public perception of victims of sexual harassment.
We can blame Trump and all the pussy-grabbers in Hollywood for taking up too much of our time to the point that there was none left to give for NN.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler
And industrial revolution happened without basic worker rights and minimum wages. Let's all get back to those eras.
I LOVE IT!
the rest of you idiot communists can suck it.
My speediest.net speed is pretty much always around 170Mbps or a bit higher.
On the fast.com site I linked to, i'm getting between 40-70Mbps, all within a few minutes of each other (I was getting 100Mbps earlier but that may have been an aberration). So anyone who does use that might want to take several samplings and get a good average.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
your name is as accurate as your arguments are the opposite
Yeah, Netflix is big enough to afford the necessary bribes... er... "negotiations" with the cable and telco providers to prevent their traffic from being throttled. It's the little guys trying to compete in niche areas that are going to run into network prioritization problems.
I'm sure that this will eventually go to the courts as an anti-trust issue at some point. It's just sad that we're going to have to put up with a bunch of shit until then.
Oh, I wouldn't say that the FCC is any more corrupt than the government which hosted elections that installed a losing candidate into the office of president. No more corrupt that that, certainly.
I think that the opposite will happen. I think that network providers might throttle video services like Netflix or YouTube to 720p resolution unless you sign up for the "Ultra High Definition" package.
Meanwhile, they'll start offering cheaper 1080p and 4K on-demand streaming of their own video services, and people will start migrating back to the cable companies and telcos for video content.
Do you not remember Comcast and Verizon throttling torrents? Netflix? Purposely treating traffic as different? That was the whole point. It happened. That is why the regulation was put in place. Quit shilling.
That's not really correct. If that's the case every rule it has ever issued under the force of law is moot.
But isn't buying enough transit to carry the data that Comcast's customers paid to access expensive? No, it's ridiculously cheap
That means Comcast would have to pay between $0.30 and $1.50 to actually provide the internet access that Comcast's customers already pay for
Except those numbers are not for "the data that Comcast's customers paid to access", they're for 1/50th of that amount. You can't prove how cheap it is for Comcast to provide the unfettered bandwidth that the customer is being sold by dividing the actual cost by 50 and then saying "look how cheap it is!"
$15 per customer is a huge amount of money. Providing "the internet access that Comcast's customers already pay for" on the off chance that all of them will want to use all of it at the same time is untenable. By using the 1/50 number, you seem to accept that statistical methods to predict maximum load is an acceptable practice. Then comes Netflix which pushes a lot of data one way and skews the statistics. How does any ISP deal with that? Does it shell out the amounts of money it would take to remove the congestion ($15/user using your numbers) and then raise everyone's rates to cover the cost?
For those who have forgotten history, this exact problem happened when dialup modems became popular, along with ISPs and BBSs. The phone company used statistics to predict how much hardware they needed to support voice telephony and normal call rates and durations. Boom! All of a sudden there were people paying for residential service that were making 12 hour phone calls.
Do you accept that telecom companies cannot afford to pay for 100% service levels? If so, then you have to also accept that sometimes there will be congestion. Or that the company will need to find more money to upgrade -- and that money has to come from somewhere.
Could is a very speculative word.
Tell it to my capped internet connection which conveniently excluded the ISP's own movie service.
Tell it to the game servers I ran which conveniently pinged slower than the ISP provided ones despite being co-located at their facility
Tell it to my mobile phone provider who decided that Facebook is free to use locking out smaller entrants into the market by charging customers to access them via a ludicrously low datacap.
"Could" is not speculative or theoretical. It translates to: "can now go back to what they were doing previously"
Veritas video of New York vote fraud.
Right there. On video. By an official. So STFU because you just look like an idiot trying to argue that water isn't wet.
You do know that Netflix can enter into an agreement with ISPs to install content servers in the ISP's network so that the bandwidth for that service doesn't contribute to peering costs, right? I mean, this is /., where people are supposed to be tech-savvy, right? Right??
Or is this another massive overreaction like those looney democrats who starting freaking out about how Trump was going to round them up into concentration camps and exterminate them all?
Welcome back to... AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy! I was really starting to miss the 90's! :D
because of the religious beliefs of the ISP management, customers will no longer be able to access any website that offers medical information about birth control or abortions,
Every time a NN proponent comes up with this kind of ridiculous hypothetical situation, they make their argument look ridiculous. Given that there can be serious, real issues, why do you folks keep trying to go further and further into imaginary-land?
Why not go fully nutzo? As long as the ISP tells you ahead of time that they're coming to confiscate your firstborn male child, they're hunky-dory! And if you don't have a child, yet, as long as they tell you they're going to come rape your wife, they're hunky-dory! And if you don't have a male child, they'll take your girl child and create a male child for you! And then burn your house down! All HUNKY-DORY because they told you in advance.
This didn't happen in 2014. Why do you think it will suddenly become a problem today?
Awesome, go ahead and throw out those strawmen, make sure you engage in the maximum amount of hyperbole to obfuscate the original argument!
One question I always have for NN opponents like yourselves, why do you trust the ISPs? Why do you simply take them at their word that they won't do anything wrong? They have proven in the past they are willing to engage in both anti-competitive and anti-consumer behavior, but you still go on thinking they are on your side, and that they are trustworthy. Why?
The whole point to NN regulations is to ensure there will be legal consequences to anti-consumer behavior, yet you want to just let the "free" market decide. Why do you ignore the evidence that they will not act in your best interest, and throw out any controls that can help ensure they do?
Of course they have reason to want to. Here's the problem. If they did it would be considered abuse of a monopolistic position and would be considered anti-competitive, and beyond the consumer lawsuits, they'd be under one hell of an investigation by the FTC (the group which is now responsible for regulating them). Now, I know you'll say no way that would happen, but that's mostly because your tinfoil hat is too tight.
The amount is no more than $15 per 100Mbps. Comcast is a big ISP and doesn't need to buy transit in small chunks of just 10Gbps. I have it on good authority that transit is much cheaper still at big-ISP scale, but those numbers are not publicly available, whereas $1500/10Gbps/month is.
Even business connections aren't typically provided without oversubscription, because it's not necessary in order to provide congestion-free internet access. Not everybody uses their connection at full speed at the same time. You don't have to buy 1:1 what you sell, but let's say 1:50 isn't working out with everybody on Netflix. Even with a very conservative 1:10 contention ratio, 100Mbps of internet access costs less than $1.50. How much do you pay Comcast for 100Mbps? But I expect that you won't accept a 1:10 contention ratio either. Even though that's entirely unrealistic, let's go with that for a moment. What right does Comcast have to sell 100Mbps when they can't provide 100Mbps? Why is that Netflix's fault? Obviously the right answer is that it isn't Netflix's fault when Comcast can't deliver what it sold. And all of that still ignores that transit, as cheap as it is, is the most expensive way for Comcast to get the data that Comcast's customers are paying Comcast to be able to access. Netflix provides that data for free at all major internet exchange points.
Congestion of transit connections is a red herring. Transit prices have been falling at a breathtaking rate. Transit is cheap because bandwidth is cheap. There is no congestion, just greed.
Hell, I'd pay EXTRA to have an Internet without those 3 invasive, spying, monopolistic assholes on it.
One question I always have for NN opponents like yourselves,
Ask someone else, then. I don't oppose the concept, only the implementation. And I oppose the nonsensical hypothetical "they could do rape and pillage" kinds of pro-NN arguments.
The whole point to NN regulations is to ensure there will be legal consequences to anti-consumer behavior, yet you want to just let the "free" market decide.
How about figuring out the difference between "free market rules" and "the right regulations need to be done the right way?"
Did you encourage your family and friends to do the same? If so, thanks. But there's more to do. We need to take care of the folks in the Rust Belt. Give them jobs and college and health care and a future. Or they're gonna keep voting guys like Trumph in, and it's only going to get worse. I know folks don't like partisanship, but somebody needs to say it, and I've got Karma to burn.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"Trump gets a hard-on "
Hardly, tempi passati.
The ISP is free to pass on the cost of doing business to their customer. What is so difficult to understand?
OMG, Comcast is charging me MORE to be able to connect to Netflix, even though an anonymous coward said that Comcast could pass on the cost of "doing business" to me!
Is there anyway to see if any comments were submitted in your name?
You do know that Netflix has to pay for their own outbound bandwidth, right?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
good. It was always a solution looking for a problem. Especially in light that bandwidth speeds continue to go up at an exponential rate.
blah
Not if the Congress gives it that authority, which it has. The Federal Reserve is not part of the government as the Congress has decided.
What's worse than a regulation?
One that is either selectively enforced, or not enforced at all.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
and they announced bandwidth caps just after Trump got elected and it was clear regulatory pressure would be off. That wasn't a coincidence. As for the rest of the changes, yeah, they're not happening overnight overnight. But it's going to mean the end to innovations. The big players will survive. Middle level players will get swallowed up and finally startups will just be over and done with unless they're evil enough to attract venture capital (Uber, I'm lookin' at you). Take stock of your options for video, purchasing games, working at home on your company's VPN, or any other high bandwidth activity.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Wow, really?
I've been running a mail server at home for 10 years, on 3 different ISPs. I guess you just need to learn how email works.
There's a lot of arguing going on about who's to blame for this. We have the facts (they're repeated on here about 100 times). We need to focus on the point and that is we're screwed if we don't do something.
Wut?
Cable TV and cable ISP are one in the same. At least, they'd really like to be.
And this FCC vote gets them a bit closer to being there - now the cable companies that own content providers (Comcast, Charter / Time Warner / Spectrum, etc.) can make nice two-way peering agreements with each other to fast-lane their content, and put the brakes on anyone that doesn't have ISP subscribers to sell out^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H bring to the bargaining table (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon)
Hey look, quasi-legal collusion to shut out competition. Brought to you by the Telco shill FCC.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
From TFA - "unravels a signature accomplishment of the Obama administration" and from the fact that George Soros is upset - I'm guessing its a double win ;)
Seriously though - what do you think will happen if Comcast decides to fuck with customers Hulu/Netflix/Amazon traffic? or Comcast gets busted fucking with access to websites? Nothing? No market ramifications?
I buy DIA from carriers all the time on behalf of clients - if a carrier even has a whiff of messing with traffic - the first question I will have when the broker hands me the quote is "is this for 'the internet' or whatever it is you call 'the internet'?" - They will get the point REAL fast because they know that DIA is purely a commodity just like utilities and PSTN access
Do you think the market will just say "oh well shucks golly, I guess we cant get what we want ..." - no! The market will punish them ... and they know it
Also - The Obama rules were in place since 2015 - so was the internet seriously fucked up before 2015?
Please help me remember those dystopian pre-2015 horror-show days because nothing jumps to mind at the moment
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
Even when ISPs are throttling and shaping all traffic, they will ALWAYS allow full speed to OOKLA and other speed test providers. Your netflix will be buffering, steam downloads may be going under a meg a second, but those speed tests will always be close to your "Up to" number on your plan.
Dear Superposed,
I thought I'd take the time to enlighten you on the new order of things. Comcast - a 54 year old company with an operating income of 16.85 billion a year - can justifiably "extort" money from the sources you mention because they are often competitors. Think of it like this: Comcast owns the railways and the trains. Netflix has a few trains of its own. Comcast could allow Netflix to run on their rails, but with the repeal of NN they simply no-longer have to.
It's a matter of property rights and liberty. If Comcast so chose, they could limit the content of their service to their excellent Xfinity streaming service, and be totally justified in doing so. If you feel cheated, buy a business connection or download with your favorite non-Xfinity content at work.
Sincerely,
- A. Shill, Public Relations
Aww, poor Comcast, having to actually provide what they are selling to their customers. Boo fucking hoo.
Maybe if they didn't ridiculously oversubscribe their network while charging out the ass for "ultimate" connections that are still capped, they wouldn't have issues delivering services like Netflix? Netflix seems to be able to deliver that content to many more people than just Comcast, so what the fuck is Comcast's problem where they can't deal with a fraction of the traffic?
Yeah, no, sorry, the Internet's form and basic traffic flow rules were shaped in its infancy, when it was a side-effect of government-funded academic R&D programs. Those basic traffic rules of the infant Internet embodied "net neutrality".
As private corporations took over the innards of the Internet, they started coming up with non-neutral ways of monetizing the traffic flow. Government "net neutrality" regulation was intended to take the architecture of the Internet back to closer to its original design and intentions.
Without "allow an actual open internet" regulation, there's a good chance it will degrade toward cable TV (over IP).
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
This policy was pushed through in an extremely corrupt manner.
Kind of like Obamacare? Maybe we should have a system where our representatives can't pull fast ones on us like this. Maybe the government shouldn't intrude into our lives so much, eh?
Saw this article, Net neutrality is gone. Feel the freedom coursing through your veins and thought she summed things up nicely:
“Today is a great day for consumers, for innovation and for freedom.” That is what Commissioner Brendan Carr of the Federal Communications Commission said as he voted to strip net neutrality protections.
Whenever people tell me that we are on the verge of new, undiscovered freedom for consumers, I always feel a little nervous. “Unprecedented freedom for consumers” is usually what people call it right before placing rabid hedgehogs in the stocking stuffer display. Before, you only had the choice of things you wanted that would make appropriate gifts. Now, you might also get a rabid hedgehog! What a day this is for the consumer.
I can't wait to get my rabid hedgehog for Christmas.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Motherboard reports that Washington state representative Drew Hansen yesterday introduced House Bill 2282 to keep network neutrality in Washington State. I imagine other states will follow quickly. NN is as favorable to local businesses as lower taxes, but the cost to the government is much lower.
or Canada, which strongly supports NN
Now only if people voted on FCC commissioners. Oh, I know, vote out the President that appointed these shills... well Mr. Pai was appointed by Obama, and made Chairman by Trump.
Who exactly should we be voting out here? The whole senate that voted to confirm these shills? Good luck with that.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
That Moore is an upstanding and moral christian, and all Democrats are godless heathens seeking to throw God Fearing Republicans into the maw of hell through their satanic government policies :)
Dear USA,
we thank you for your recent decision in regard of the FCC.
Wether it be renewable energy, net neutrality, nature conservation or whatever benefits your population loose; your decisions benefit our inhabitants the most and we practically don't have to do anything!
signed, The Other Countries of the World
and they announced bandwidth caps just after Trump got elected and it was clear regulatory pressure would be off.
So, they announced the caps before the NN laws were repealed - which meant they could have done so anyway, and the loss of the NN regulations has zilch to do with caps.
When did it ever? That's the thing about NN I especially dislike, everyone seemed to assume it did this or that magic thing when the real regulation did almost nothing for anyone.
NN was not at all about caps, it was about even handed use of the internet between me and anything I wanted to access. And nothing has changed today because the NN rules are gone.
P.S. paying extra to exempt some service from counting against your data cap was also perfectly legal under the NN rules. That's the only change I see coming but I don't have a problem with it as it will not impact service, and they will be forced to upgrade the networks further to support it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Trump just approved sucking cock for coke..
News @ 11
To be more specific:The maximum number of commissioners who may be members of the same political party shall be a number equal to the least number of commissioners which constitutes a majority of the full membership of the Commission.
I would love to see a president nominate members of the green, constitution, and libertarian parties, or some independents.
were Pro-DMCA, Pro-TPP, Pro-Surveillance, Pro-DRM.
Net Neutrality was one of the outliers on that whole internet-freedom roadmap, and that should be taken into consideration for EVERYONE who voted Republican or Democrat this past election. If you want a free internet it will be stacking the deck with a bunch of 3rd party whackjobs who happen to agree with you on a short list of issues, like Net Neutrality, anti-surveillance legislation/repeals, fewer IP laws, etc.
As we've already seen thanks to trump, candidates foreign policy stance isn't going to make much difference after the what has been done to it over the past 3+ presidents (all the way back to the first some people might say...)
The opportunities to right this ship are dwindling by the day.
then that means gov doesn't need warrants for man in the middle.
Damn
Popular vote isn't the metric by which Presidents are elected. Stop moving the goalposts and then crying when the outcome isn't what you want.
And the origins of his last name (which I just discovered is in fact Hindu!) Ajit Pai's deference to whiter folk and disregard for the rest of us can be easily summed up by his Hindu beliefs.
It is an interesting read many of you should take, because it coincides nicely with the evangelical christian belief about their superiority and how if you aren't successful it is because you are't pious enough to God. Similiar platform is behind the caste system in hinduism of which Pai is a part.
Religious belittlement of the masses strikes again! It's such a good thing America has so many religions... they make it so easy to choose one that helps you regard others as beneath you, if you weren't indoctrinated into it in the first place :)
Its always about genitalia with you democrats.
You aren't really making a very good case for net neutrality.
There is still hope via DOH. Maybe technology can fix this? https://www.theregister.co.uk/...
If you aren't using a real ISP, then you simply haven't looked. They exist everywhere and your crap service is your own fault for being lazy.
Sorry, are you seriously trying to say that Comcast, Time Warner, etc (The majority of ISPs are also TV providers) have no reason at all to want to censor Netflix, Amazon Video, Hulu?
Censor? No. How could they even do that to encrypted streams.
Throttle? Maybe, though their current approach of oversubscribing networks seems to work well enough as a throttle.
Do you understand that different words mean different things? Or do you actually believe that Comcast will be inserting black bars covering the boobies in your Netflix stream?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
With this news I'm sure that Cox is furiously innovating right now. And growing. I mean with all this internet freedom they are gonna have so much growth. It will be yuge.
You know that the ISP isn't charging YOU more, right?
They are charging the non-ISP owned content provider more for access to you. And that content provider than passes that cost on to you, or doesn't pay and gets choked.
Net effect: you pay more, or get worse service. Bonus for the ISP: the cost difference between their video offering (read: cable TV) is now smaller, or they can advertise on how the quality is so much better than the competition, strangely leaving out the part where the quality problems are their fault.
How everything that is done by people who answer to Trump are all somehow the fault of the guy who was president a year ago.
You do realize Trump could have easily weighed in like he does on everything else correct?
I'm sure all of you who are blaming Obama would have voted for the Alabama pedobear and then blamed his molesting on Obama as well. Drones.
You almost got it.
Comscat owns the rails, the trains. And the factory that makes the stuff moved by the trains.
Netflix makes their own stuff and wants to deliver it.
Sherman Act helped Standard Oil come to their senses in exactly this situation.
Need to enforce the Sherman Act on all ISPs and media companies, right now.
Does this mean no more working from home due to throttling?
initially heaped draconian regulations on a working internet. Maybe you didn't hear because you were busy smoking a bong or protesting something else. The FCC didn't change, the management did, that's how this representative government, deferring to bureaucrats works. If you DON'T LIKE the process, CHANGE the process, quick your bitchin' Snow White.
The internet will be back where it was before obama! We don't need government intervention in the free market!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Internet in 2015.
This is just going to encourage to uptake of traffic anonymising tools and services. That might not sit well with the spies. Someone hasn't thought this through very well.
Or they have and this is just a precursor to "open internet" where you are forced to leave open all you do for all to see.
They are too cowardly to just shut everything down and lock it down in a REAL protest. If they would only cripple the economy by kicking the internet in the dick and bringing it to its knees. But no, they only care about their paycheck like Ajit Pai, and won't do the right thing.
So thank you, and fuck you, internet engineers, admins, and techs. You are the real reason we have to suffer this bullshit.
Cowards.
Because this was never really about net neutrality. That's just the populist excuse the FCC used to get more control on internet access, because the courts kept telling them they weren't legally allowed to. So they came up with this Title II B.S. and said they were doing it for the children, I mean, for the customers, all the while knowing that once the FCC could write rules to manage the Internet, they then had the power to tell ISPs what to do in lots of ways.
So the ISPs and the people smart enough to understand how government regulations actually work (see public choice economics) have been fighting to get the FCC out of creating regulations for the Internet and we just won that battle, at least for now.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
My ISP gives me an unlimited dumb pipe to the internet and that's it. They don't filter, throttle or cap anything. They don't even care if I run servers on the connection and they've stated that they won't be changing even with the end of net neutrality, which I believe because I've had their service since long before net neutrality laws existed and they have always been the same way.
Just because your ISP is complete shit doesn't mean they all are.
Every ISP within 100 miles of me enforces a 10/1 ratio of download to upload. This pretty much prevents most kinds of servers. If you have a good ISP, be thankful. Many people live in places where they already can't get a decent dumb pipe to the internet.
Do you understand that different words mean different things? Or do you actually believe that Comcast will be inserting black bars covering the boobies in your Netflix stream?
No, he's simply worried about there being enough bandwidth available to accommodate the billions of views his blog about the NWO and Illuminati secretly working together to censor his blog posts will receive from across the world, ultimately resulting in an overthrow of the old powers and heralding the birth of a new Global Renaissance.
Quite logical, really.
If ISP's are allowed to filter and shape their traffic based on their own arbitrary rules, this has profound effects on what the Internet is capable of.
Sites can be blocked completely. Protocols can be blocked outright. Attempts to get around those blocks will be seen as violations of the contract between the user and the ISP.
It also means they will, by default, track all protocol sessions and DNS queries. They would have too to make sure people are adhering to the contract rules.
It's not just about having to buy packages of Internet access. It means that certain protocols and address could be removed altogether regardless of how much you spend.
It could also mean them rerouting traffic at will to where ever the ISP's decide you should go.
Your data accessing habits can also be made available to the highest bidder or to government or simply made public at the ISP's discretion.
Which leads to potential blackmail or similar subversion.
People who think it will be a simple matter of using VPNs or equivalents to get around this will find those protocols blocked with deep packet inspection. Bandwidth or ping time concerns will simply not make any difference.
It is the end of a free Internet and other countries will find themselves following suit because of the various vested interests who want to limit and control what people can do.
Reducing government regulation is a good thing, especially in this instance.
Because after all these decades of doing nothing, now that it's GONE we can come up with something better.
I know, everything was such a disaster in 2015. Just horrible. It's no wonder Obama waited years and years after having the power to do something about it, to ... do what the huge corporate donors at places like Google and Amazon wanted him to do.
that's actually not harming anyone
Sure, unless you're, perhaps, a small company trying to set up rural users with fixed wireless service, or some other activity that's very important to people you don't care about.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
This. QoS is about what kind of shit it is. Net non-neutrality is about where from and (possibly) where to.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Like what the torrent protocol did to FTP, NN will do to the yet to emerge protocol in protocol obfuscation war (Protocol Cremation/Decimation?)... How deep can it go? Be sure to ask the rascally rabbit! Anything can be made to look like http/s:80/443/ web traffic. _Anything_
Fuck, I could encrypt data within MIME EASY
It's a joke if anyone could possibly think that burning a protocol makes a lick of difference. It really doesn't. Data can be made to hide ANYWHERE.
Trump is lets his emotions rule him. He isn't making changes based on any kind of logic, he's doing it simply because Obama put things in place and he hates Obama so therefore he has to be against everything Obama did.
Donald Trump is a spoiled child. The only reason he was ever anything is because he was born into wealth.
If they give up common carrier status, doesn't that mean that they are now held responsible for what is on their network. Don't like Comcast or Verizon or whatever; Find something offensive or illegal or immoral posted from their network and sue. Get everyone to do it, and they can die the death of a million cuts. The same would apply to every other ISP out there. Cost them enough money and they will be begging to bring net neutrality and common carrier status back to stop the hemorrhaging. After all, the USA leads the world in Lawyers, so use them for something useful.
Yes, and they already do this. Unfortunately, this solves nothing on the downstream side, past the CDN. The ISP can now say, âoeYeah, we know you paid for this CDN to be installed (and presumably some other associated fees), but itâ(TM)s clogging up our downstream bandwidth (i.e. taking up bandwidth we want reserved for our competing in house streaming service), so weâ(TM)re going to need you to go ahead and pay us $10,000 a week more for each CDN on our network or we will slow you down until your service is unusable, thanks.â
They now only need to notify the FCC they plan to do this, and itâ(TM)s perfectly fine. This will inevitably cause Netflix to raise its rates, which makes the cable companyâ(TM)s service look better by comparison.
Itâ(TM)s clear from the fact that the big ISPs all seem to REALLY want NN gone, and have spent large amounts of money lobbying for its removal, that they must benefit from it being gone. Since no one else in the Internet business wants it gone, it must be giving them an advantage over everyone else. Since they already have government enforced monopolies in most markets, it seems like a terrible idea to give them any additional advantages.
They canâ(TM)t rape or pillage (depending on your definition of pillage), but they can decide to start bundling websites and charging by package. They do it with TV channels. If you want plain old internet like we have now, you might have to pay for thier premium package, at $50 a month more than what you used to pay. If you have no other options for internet service, you might pay it, and they know it. There is no legitimate argument to be made for repealing NN, that doesnâ(TM)t directly benefit large ISPs, at the expense of everyone else.
wtf are you talking about? looked.. nope still no high-speed provider other than Comass or AT&Turd
I hope a Mr. Robot type puts a bullet through this dirty sand n-igger's skull. Another sand n-igger sells out America.
Do you have any idea how many really useful regulations are not actually written into law per se? That's the only way the federal government can function. The congress is sooooo dysfunctional that they relegate the execution of the law to the *gasp* executive branch. If the congress had to agree on changing the decibel level at which hearing protection was required, do you think we would ever get anything done? If it were left to the states, we'd end up with a race to the bottom. I'm all for the 10th amendment, but the states have proven just as corruptible as the federal government.
Yes, I do realize that. And when you're talking about a rule that forces private businesses to give up control of their own communications and property, it calls for actual legislation. Just like actual legislation from congress explicitly sets some boundaries within which the FAA must (and must not) regulate some aspects of remote controlled aircraft.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Enjoy degraded services and higher prices across the board. American ISPs have proven they won't innovate or build their networks out to reduce bandwidth issues. They want to take money but give nothing back.
Prolly the reason so many sexual harrasment and assult claims are against progressives.
Looks like they're going to force me to watch that horrible OnDemand service, instead of getting Netflix or iTunes ... Glad the Repubs can get a few more $ in their pocket. USA! USA!
Exactly, you haven't lifted a finger.
Ad delivery - free !
Add $15 for using ad blockers on your browser
Streaming 4K videos probably puts me over 1TB/month usage. I also shoot and upload a lot of 4K videos. That's probably another 100-200GB/month right there. Downloading games is easily another 100-200GB/month.
But I don't care. I don't need to care. I never have to worry about it. Ever.
Comcast and the other ISPs are the ones generating the traffic and should be paying to upgrade their equipment
Yeah, no. Why should Comcast upgrade their equipment so that parasitic Netflix can make even more money at someone else's (Comcast's) expense?
if they cannot meet their contractual obligations to provide their clients with the bandwidth they are paying for.
There are other contractual agreements as well, such as the peering arrangement Comcast has with Netflix's CDN: Level 3. If Level 3 does not pay for the extra data flowing into Comcast, who will? You're just a typical /. freeloader to assume that Comcast should just allow the extra data and lose the profit it is owed. You assume Comcast is a sucker and a charity.
The ISPs should be paying Netflix and other other content providers on the internet to thank them for creating a market of consumers looking for Internet connections, enabling their business model.
a) Without Netflix, the internet is still useful, so why thank them?
b) Netflix competes with Comcast's cable TV, so why the heck would they thankful for that?
If it weren't for Netflix eating Comcast's TV business, Ajit Pai would probably have not shut down net neutrality. So we should all be thankful to Netflix for ending net neutrality!
no one cares that you use an absurd amount of data, itâ(TM)s not relevant.
Comcast blocks outbound port 25 on consumer class connections. Others play the same BS, all so you have to pay more for business class. This will worsen until the only unfettered connection *is* business class, and the price will raise.
These companies feel entitled to business.
people that tell you, you and everyone else but them, need to slap a helmet on your child and bubble wrap them head to toe so they can go outside supervised. And oh, btw those kids can be up to age 26 now, and you don't need to worry about them getting abortions on command, that's their right.
You're trying to explain your point to radical leftists and George Soros shills. Save your breath or go outside without a helmet or bubble wrap and enjoy the sunshine. :)
You moron, what court case do you think is playing out right now? Why were people asking them to delay the decision until the FTC case was resolved?
If the court rules against the FTC (and it appears likely that it may) then there will be NO agency regulating ISPs. None. Not the FCC. Not the FTC. Which is EXACTLY why they wanted to rush this through.
And now it's too late. We'll get Portugal's internet, where everything is broken down like cable packages. Where ISPs can blatantly block, censor, filter and throttle anything they want (including political coverage and support). Remember Citizens United? Election rules don't apply to ISPs, nor do first amendment protections.
Hope you like propoganda and paying out the ass for shit level service, because that's all your going to get. Just wait until the mid-terms roll around.
~X~
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So why hasn't Trump rolled back any of Obama's police state policies?
So what you're saying is competition does exist?
On one side you have notoriously partisan and incompetent mandarins who will surely use their control over the internet to silence dissent. On the other hand you have notoriously partisan and exploitative plutocrats who will surely use their control over the internet to silence dissent.
Clinton outspent Trump 2 to 1. She *deserves* to be President! What about her donors - don't they deserve a good return on their bribes?
Break up Comcast NOW! Monopolies area bad for the American people, bad for business, bad for freedom. Break up Comcast NOW!
That is simply not true. My service went from non-existent in 2003 to 5mb download speed to now over 120mb download today. It would be even faster if I wanted to pay more than the bare minimum.
T-Mobile only throttles if there is congestion. In my experience very few people actually get throttled. I have a 6 gig cap and go over once or twice a year while on a trip. Never been slowed.
Also have Comcast and have never had a problem. My kids stream a bunch of cartoon s.
You mean like things like this get done in those old school-house rock videos? It does seem like having a âoemoronâ president who doesnâ(TM)t understand all the workarounds and keeps dismantling things that were worked around is bringing us back to that reality.
When it's against a progressive, it's believable. When it's against a dinosaur, fake news, she's a lying whore!
Spare me your moral outrage hypocrite.
drivel... I would hate to think that you actually believed your nonsense.
Trump gets a hard-on every time he gets to undo anything Obama managed to accomplish during his presidency.
This is exactly the point. Trump doesn't know or doesn't care about the topic, only that Obama did it so it must be undone.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Because he agrees with them.
I have a mail server at home and it works fine. You only need to switch off the port 25 blocking that most ISPs have on by default to prevent infected machines from becoming spam bots. That can usually be done on some customer service webpage.
Really, data limits on a domestic internet connection in 2017? Wow. I'm glad I don't live wherever you live.
Comcast gets paid by its customers for internet access at an agreed-upon data rate. Comcast's customers could use that access for anything, but they choose to use it for accessing Netflix. Netflix is the reason they're paying Comcast for internet access. Netflix isn't a parasite, it's the reason why people pay Comcast. This is so painfully obvious that only a complete idiot or a shill would deny it. Are you an idiot?
Don't ever trust a government beurocrat.
If (accused == âoeDemocratâ) {
return âoemust resignâ;
} else {
return âoelying slutâ;
};
Veritas OMG! I didnâ(TM)t think any one would be so stupid as to actually point to that as some type of reliable information. Thatâ(TM)s the funniest shit of the day so far. Who would waste their time on a known liar. Except a trump voter maybe. But really did you forget the sarcasm tag or what? Lol.
I worry about Netflix passing extra charges on to me. Or what if Verizon decides to charge for connections to AWS. That would be an easy way to tax a whole bunch of little websites at once. Itâ(TM)s the craftiness of making us pay for stuff indirectly that worries me Not that I donâ(TM)t worry about the small businesses as well.
Who knew Ajit had even heard of /.?
Welcome to the forums. Why don't you have a seat right over there.
Your sig here!
sure, overlook the republican gerrymandering.
Uh, except that's the entire point of this discussion.
Keep up or GTFO, you illiterate little millennial shit.
Then why the fuck did you start quoting bandwidth caps, you stupid, illiterate fuck? That's not how conversations work. You don't just get to present your side without response, you self-centred millennial shit.
Fuck off and die in a fire, you clueless, know nothing little boy. You're done.
Just wanted to add that there's evidence Comcast did this on purpose in order to put Netflix in a bind. (Customers have alternative choices with Netflix, but not as many with Comcast.) They wanted to force Netflix to either agree to their demands to have their service unusable. Basically, mafia-style "this is a nice store you've got here, it'd be a shame if something happened to it" tactics from an ISP that holds a monopoly in many areas.
Solution: everybody is an ISP. Everyone has access to the backbone. Expensive, but so is the new rules.
Censor? No. How could they even do that to encrypted streams.
...
I'll just ignore your ignorance for now because it's not relevant to the conversation. You are concerned about censoring parts of movies. Try censoring the entirity of netflix. AKA:
route add 35.153.0.0 MASK 255.255.0.0 blackhole
Oh, sorry Mr. Smith, we block netflix to improve customer satisfaction. By eliminating the traffic from netflix (which was using 80% of our bandwidth), our internet ping times and available bandwidth to your email client is vastly improved!
I don't wear a tinfoil hat. But I don't go around with my eyes shut and then decide to open my mouth.
Comcast has already blocked bit torrent for a while. Not just pirates, but the entirety of the protocol (and seriously hampered anything they misidentified as bit torrent), including at the time the update program for a game that 18 million+ people played at the time (World of Warcraft). Yeah, I had to go grab a direct download to bypass their bit torrent block for a few weeks... Until they lifted it after being threatened by the FCC over NN. So blocking entire protocols has already been done.
Comcast, Time Warner already set it up so that their own video on demand services didn't count against your bandwidth limit per month. Again, rolled back because of NN concerns. If I am not mistaken, Verizon is still doing this on their cellular network today.
Killing off Netflix is easy when you drop your bandwidth caps to 50GB per month, but their video services don't count against that limit. You can rent a movie from iTunes for $3.99, but you'll pay $5 in bandwidth "overages" ($8.99), or you can rent it from the ISP for $6.99 and it won't count against your bandwidth usage ($6.99). Yeah, that happened.
Comcast/Verizon routing all netflix traffic through a tiny overallocated route has happened already. And then refuse to reroute part of the traffic around the congestion, AND refuse to upgrade the connection AND also refuse to allow netflix CDN boxes to be installed on thier network (AT NO COST!).
Write your congresscritter. They could make a law to fix this, and they're elected, unlike FCC toadies.
You keep using that word, but I don't think is means what you think it means. "Censorship" is based on content "objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds".
The word you wanted was "blackhole" or "block" or something like that.
Sure, Comcast might try blocking Netflix. It would be nice to see a law preventing that sort of abuse of monopoly. We didn't have that before, though. Of course, if we did something sane like make the last mile a public utility, we could just let the market do it's thing, free of monopolies.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
All consumer internet traffic is unbalanced! If it was balanced Comcast wouldn't be giving me 1gbps down and 75mbps up!
I hope all the Stein and Johnson voters are still finding a way to morally preen over their courage.
Comcast blocks outbound port 25 on consumer class connections. Others play the same BS, all so you have to pay more for business class. This will worsen until the only unfettered connection *is* business class, and the price will raise.
These companies feel entitled to business.
There are also legally binding terms of service that the GP presumably doesn't consider relevant. In a world where guns are outlawed, only the outlaws get to have guns. Why would anybody complain about that situation?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Police state policies!? WTF are you talking about!?
You have to be smarter than the machine you're working with.
So you're saying, trust the mighty Corporation to provide for the good of all?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
WE, THE LIBERTARIAN STATES OF AMERICA, MUST TRUST IN THE MAGIC OF THE MARKET AND IN THE CORPORATION, OUR GOD.....
Yeah, why don't we ban this idiot now? He's too dumb or dishonest to see the harm this will cause downstream. A perfect example of why a once great nation is now setting fire to the things that made it great, In Worship of the Almighty Dollar.
No, the opposite. See, one of the requirements for rent-seeking is for some government official or commission to be able to create rules which govern the company's industry. For example, the FCC's Title II authority to regulate Internet access. That sort of power leads to corporate rent-seeking behavior and corrupts things into say, 400 pages of regulations supposedly to implement a simple concept like net neutrality.
If instead of that, someone were to take away the FCC's ability to issue regulations and do favors, then the companies wouldn't have that avenue for rent-seeking behavior. See also Baptists and Bootleggers.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Haha - you mean, any new AMERICAN start-ups. ...
You see, elsewhere on the planet, we don't follow your fucked-up policies.
In Switzerland and England, Italy and Norway, we have plenty of sensibly-level-playing field legislation, and start-ups don't have these artificial road-blocks. There are dozens of ISP providers in the London market. I have several almost-equal phone and net providers here in Switzerland, no danger of monopolies happening here.
Just sucks to be an American, that's all.
Fuck you guys are stupid, myopic and ignorant sometimes
Comcast would, but their ultimate goal wasn't "provide great service for their customers." It was "how can we kill this Internet Video thing before it cuts into our cable TV profits too much?"
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.