FCC to vote on scrapping Net Neutrality

[Dontrike]

Scrapping NN isn't going to cause pollution. Now being an ISP is going to be more profitable, creating more incentive to innovate in this space. New internet options and capabilities will be a good thing.

Data hogs will need to better fund the internet if they want the same performance as premium contributers.

Wait....you actually think they'll innovate more when/if NN is gone? Hahahahahahahaha holy shit AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

You can't be that gullible, it's a near impossibility.

[GennGreymane]

Goodbye internet

[CastletonSnob]

March for net neutrality on Wednesday.

https://www.facebook.com/events/397458310684312/

[Kujako]

March for net neutrality on Wednesday.

https://www.facebook.com/events/397458310684312/

How much are each of the marchers giving to Congress? Nothing? Then they don't care.

[Blur4stuff]

I'm expecting in 2018 to see plans popping up for people that only use the internet for certain things. They'll want to make it seem as harmless as possible. A cheaper plan than usual that gives full access to stuff like facebook, but throttles streaming services. Hey, you're only paying for what you really use!

If dems don't put NN back in place in 2020 then we'll start seeing some of the ridiculous shit that people have speculated about. But, I wouldn't put it past comcast to extort money from netflix again in the meantime.

[Lahis]

If dems don't put NN back in place in 2020 then we'll start seeing some of the ridiculous shit that people have speculated about. But, I wouldn't put it past comcast to extort money from netflix again in the meantime.

They won't. They can't.

Once NN has been killed, the ISPs will never allow it to return.

[wunksta]

So, did they vote? What happened?

The vote is on December 14 afaik

Considering the amount of fraud and misinformation with the false comments, there definitely needs to be an investigation and the vote should be postponed.

[PC2]

Goodbye internet

Don't worry, the internet will still be here. Content providers previously had too much power. Now data will have to be managed in accordance with the true value of the data. It's a great move.

[Edge-]

Don't worry, the internet will still be here. Content providers previously had too much power. Now data will have to be managed in accordance with the true value of the data. It's a great move.

What is the "true value" and how is it determined?

What "power" did content providers have over ISP's?

[Draco-Onis]

Don't worry, the internet will still be here. Content providers previously had too much power. Now data will have to be managed in accordance with the true value of the data. It's a great move.

You must work for an ISPs or own a good chunk of their stocks I hope, that's the only I can see anyone being excited about the worse rated companies in America screwing us even more.

- - - Updated - - -

If dems don't put NN back in place in 2020 then we'll start seeing some of the ridiculous shit that people have speculated about. But, I wouldn't put it past comcast to extort money from netflix again in the meantime.

If the past is any indication comcast customers will have it worse than anyone else while other ISPs seem to want to take it slow they can't seem to be able to control their greed.

[Grapemask]

Don't worry, the internet will still be here. Content providers previously had too much power. Now data will have to be managed in accordance with the true value of the data. It's a great move.

Your posts are getting loonier by the minute.

[PC2]

What is the "true value" and how is it determined?

What "power" did content providers have over ISP's?

I would say value is determined by content revenue divided by data packets. For example Netflix is sending vast amounts of data as if the experience of some schmuck watching movies all day is on par with live events or streaming medical data.

[Blur4stuff]

It's wishful thinking that service or prices will end up being better. I expect some of them will offer restrictive plans for less, but if you actually use the internet for something other than facebook (as most of us here probably do), then we're gonna end up paying more.

To make it worse, many places have no real competition. They have no incentive at all to provide a better service. Their customers can't really go anywhere else. I'd have to move to get a different provider.

If it was like fast food and you had 20 different options even in small towns... then it could end up not being as big of a deal. That's just not reality.

[wunksta]

It's wishful thinking that service or prices will end up being better. I expect some of them will offer restrictive plans for less, but if you actually use the internet for something other than facebook (as most of us here probably do), then we're gonna end up paying more.

To make it worse, many places have no real competition. They have no incentive at all to provide a better service. Their customers can't really go anywhere else. I'd have to move to get a different provider.

If it was like fast food and you had 20 different options even in small towns... then it could end up not being as big of a deal. That's just not reality.

Yeah, the ISPs need to be broken into a dozen or more smaller ISPs and forced to compete with several companies in the same area.

[Edge-]

I would say value is determined by content revenue divided by data packets.

And who determines that? What about if an ISP decides that they want to block or throttle "high value" content because it competes with a product/service the ISP provides? Are there mechanisms in place to prevent this behavior, or are we supposed to just hope that they "do the right thing"?

For example Netflix is sending vast amounts of data as if the experience of some schmuck watching movies all day is on par with live events or streaming medical data.

And if Comcast decides to throttle every video service except their own offerings by default?

Do you really think that Netflix is somehow causing medical data to be slowed in transfer, or something?

[PC2]

After Trump is out of office, you should be stuck with all of these great idea. The rest of us can attempt to move on.

One option is that Democrats could run a campaign based on implementing government data regulation. Other than that, I'm not sure what you mean by move on.

[Grapemask]

I would say value is determined by content revenue divided by data packets. For example Netflix is sending vast amounts of data as if the experience of some schmuck watching movies all day is on par with live events or streaming medical data.

This particular argument breaks down quickly.

Like you, Netflix pays for their bandwidth. Your service offers access to their network, probably with X datacap, at Y dollars. Netflix also pays that price in accordance with the data they use. So does the live event service and the medical service. So do the people who access those services. Everyone on every end of this spectrum is paying for the bandwidth they use.

But ISPs realize one particular amount of data is used more than others, and they want to profit off of it. Except the problem is that Netflix is already paying what they're supposed to; there's no physical reason that their data should cost more based on what it is, when the volume has already been paid for. But ISPs have made an argument that appeals to the technologically disinclined: Netflix is somehow abusing their poor networks and disenfranchising everyone, or, everyone's favorite argument that appears in anti-immigration contexts, "it's really your neighbor at fault, not the authority figure!"

That is to say, ISPs have built an inferior network, and rather than invest appropriately to build it out to accommodate the usage, they have realized they can increase their profit margins by spending much less to advocate for charging those who actually use the bandwidth they're paying for. They build networks that can handle 100 connections, then sell it to 1000. Then, they tell you that it's 1 of those 1000 people that's really at fault for why your network for 100 people isn't accommodating 1000.

It's sort of like the way parking works at pretty much every college in the country, but a thousand times worse. Most schools do the same thing: they oversell their lots by 20%, because it's unlikely that all of the students park at the same time on any given day. Except your ISP oversells the lot by 200%, knowing most of those people will show up, then tells you one car - that's perfectly within the lines of his own parking spot that he paid for - is using too much parking and is the reason you can't find a place to park.

[wunksta]

That is to say, ISPs have built an inferior network

This is the crux of the issue. This is what happens when companies don't compete, they don't innovate and develop. ISPs have been fighting Google tooth and nail for those reasons.

[PC2]

This particular argument breaks down quickly.

Like you, Netflix pays for their bandwidth. Your service offers access to their network, probably with X datacap, at Y dollars. Netflix also pays that price in accordance with the data they use. So does the live event service and the medical service. So do the people who access those services. Everyone on every end of this spectrum is paying for the bandwidth they use.

But ISPs realize one particular amount of data is used more than others, and they want to profit off of it. Except the problem is that Netflix is already paying what they're supposed to; there's no physical reason that their data should cost more based on what it is, when the volume has already been paid for. But ISPs have made an argument that appeals to the technologically disinclined: Netflix is somehow abusing their poor networks and disenfranchising everyone, or, everyone's favorite argument that appears in anti-immigration contexts, "it's really your neighbor at fault, not the authority figure!"

That is to say, ISPs have built an inferior network, and rather than invest appropriately to build it out to accommodate the usage, they have realized they can increase their profit margins by spending much less to advocate for charging those who actually use the bandwidth they're paying for. They build networks that can handle 100 connections, then sell it to 1000. Then, they tell you that it's 1 of those 1000 people that's really at fault for why your network for 100 people isn't accommodating 1000.

It's sort of like the way parking works at pretty much every college in the country, but a thousand times worse. Most schools do the same thing: they oversell their lots by 20%, because it's unlikely that all of the students park at the same time on any given day. Except your ISP oversells the lot by 200%, knowing 150% will show up, then tells you one car - that's perfectly within the lines of his own parking spot that he paid for - is using too much parking and is the reason you can't find a place to park.

I'm not talking about bandwidth at all. I'm talking talking about priority execution and better latency which isn't allowed under net neutrality.

[wunksta]

I'm not talking about bandwidth at all. I'm talking talking about priority execution and better latency which isn't allowed under net neutrality.

People aren't really going to get better latency, they will just throttle everyone else to make up for it and make it seem like people are going faster. Everyone would still be using the same hardware and infrastructure.
https://www.wired.com/2014/06/net_neutrality_missing/