Net neutrality gone

[Soulwind]

So wouldn’t a vpn prevent your isp from blocking sites that you didn’t pay extra for? Are vpns going to be banned?

The VPN may hide your identity from the end server, but first you have to connect to the VPN through your ISP.

They could easily block access to all VPNs. Or limit the bandwith when connected to one to the point of those connections being useless.

And then sell a Special VPN Package to those individuals who actually need a VPN to work, for a ridiculous fee, of course.

[Draco-Onis]

You misunderstand. They REMOVED the promise, since that would have been legally enforceable according to the FCC should Net Neutrality be rescinded. So they are more or less saying they will throttle.

Thank you for the clarification, comcast customers are going to be reamed the hardest by this they have been waiting for this for a long time.

[AeneasBK]

Net Neutrality being gone is a GOOD thing, because it creates an environment where more COMPETITION can happen, and as more competition happens, quality of service goes up, and price goes down. That's basic economics 101.

I thought (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the issue with your argument is that there is no competition in America for ISPs as the territory is already divided between the various 'giants' and you're pretty much only able to get one ISP in any given area.

[FurryRedVixen]

these anti government 'libertarians' from what i have seen. They think its bad cus the gov has touched it, where as they are protecting us from companies exploiting the working man and the populace.

Do some research in your spare time and look into the early 1900's and late 1800s steel mill and oil industry. Where there was no government restrictions and policies for safety, health and work guidelines. Children under age 13 and lower were working very dangerous and unhealthy jobs, and for pennies to the dime (using this phrase because money at the time was different, but view it as children earning less then 1/10th an adult does, working the same dangerous if not even more dangerous jobs, because kids are smaller and can fit in tighter places to fix/repair mechanical issues.)

I bring this up as just what the government has done to help change and protect the common worker from big company policy and regulation. Without NN they can slow down competitor webpages, block you from visiting websites or using programs that require you to go online.

Lets say for example, google/comcast get into a tiff with disney, suddenly you are not able to view any disney content that is from disney or fox situated websites, and they slow down netflix, which supports Fox/Disney by playing their movies. That can happen, because now the service isps provide is no longer considered a utility but a luxury and is then guided by that companies own rules.

Ever heard of the 'we reserve the right to deny service' ? Well there you go.

[Kujako]

I thought (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the issue with your argument is that there is no competition in America for ISPs as the territory is already divided between the various 'giants' and you're pretty much only able to get one ISP in any given area.

Yup, and the big ISPs have gotten laws passed that more or less prohibit any competition. Towns have tried to setup municipal wifi for example, and been shutdown by the courts for daring to compete with the mighty corporations. None of which has anything to do with Net Neutrality. It's a whole other issue.

[Tabrotar]

Good riddance.

It's amazing how badly the media has gripped the world population by the jugular in making them believe somehow that government regulation of the internet is a good thing. More government regulation only leads to less innovation. A prime example of this is the telecom industry. It wasn't until the government regulations on the telecom industry happened that innovative companies started to change the way the phone industry works. You can thank deregulation for that sweet smart phone you have by your side.

Why should we allow big internet providers maintain their monopoly on internet service? Allowing companies to charge different amounts for the different type of content you consume will only increase competition. As more players enter the internet service provider arena, prices will naturally go down because they will be competing for your business. Forcing service providers to charge the same rate for higher bandwidth usage by defacto eliminates or very severely hampers the ability for competition.

If a smaller "mom and pop" ISP enters the arena and is forced to charge you the same rate for all your internet usage, they couldn't compete with the Comcasts and the Verizons because naturally they don't have economies of scale. But lets say you only needed internet service to check your email, or to do online shopping, and you never went to streaming service websites, and you never used Youtube or did any file sharing downloads... and there are MILLIONS of people like that. And a smaller "mom and pop" ISP could offer their service for $30 bucks a month, but had certain websites as add-on charges, it would allow those people to have a better option for their internet usage than having to pay $70-80 bucks for high speed internet when they aren't going to use the streaming services anyway.

Net Neutrality being gone is a GOOD thing, because it creates an environment where more COMPETITION can happen, and as more competition happens, quality of service goes up, and price goes down. That's basic economics 101.

Oh please shut up you stupid fucker and lick your big companies balls even more maybe then you will post less shit here.

Why do so many of you americans think that companys will not doing this? Never ever heard of monopolys and how they had this little things calles arrengments where they set prices to fuck over competitors/suppliers whatever?

Iif yes then you will know what exactly they will do.

[Rustedsaint]

I’m worried how this might affect Canadians trying to access American sites

[the game]

I’m worried how this might affect Canadians trying to access American sites

Get your own internet.

[Kujako]

I’m worried how this might affect Canadians trying to access American sites

Well... in theory it can effect everyone, everywhere, due to how the internet is decentralized. Since ISPs will be able to alter any packets that go through their routers, you may have problems even if you have a 'fast lane' from your ISP, because your packets route through another ISP that reprioritizes your packets in favor of their own. We really have no way of knowing how bad the ISPs will act.

[Deleted]

Good riddance.

It's amazing how badly the media has gripped the world population by the jugular in making them believe somehow that government regulation of the internet is a good thing. More government regulation only leads to less innovation. A prime example of this is the telecom industry. It wasn't until the government regulations on the telecom industry happened that innovative companies started to change the way the phone industry works. You can thank deregulation for that sweet smart phone you have by your side.

Why should we allow big internet providers maintain their monopoly on internet service? Allowing companies to charge different amounts for the different type of content you consume will only increase competition. As more players enter the internet service provider arena, prices will naturally go down because they will be competing for your business. Forcing service providers to charge the same rate for higher bandwidth usage by defacto eliminates or very severely hampers the ability for competition.

If a smaller "mom and pop" ISP enters the arena and is forced to charge you the same rate for all your internet usage, they couldn't compete with the Comcasts and the Verizons because naturally they don't have economies of scale. But lets say you only needed internet service to check your email, or to do online shopping, and you never went to streaming service websites, and you never used Youtube or did any file sharing downloads... and there are MILLIONS of people like that. And a smaller "mom and pop" ISP could offer their service for $30 bucks a month, but had certain websites as add-on charges, it would allow those people to have a better option for their internet usage than having to pay $70-80 bucks for high speed internet when they aren't going to use the streaming services anyway.

Net Neutrality being gone is a GOOD thing, because it creates an environment where more COMPETITION can happen, and as more competition happens, quality of service goes up, and price goes down. That's basic economics 101.

Yeah have fun paying double in the Futue Lets hope the Rest of the World isnt as Stupid as the US

[Soulwind]

I thought (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the issue with your argument is that there is no competition in America for ISPs as the territory is already divided between the various 'giants' and you're pretty much only able to get one ISP in any given area.

Net Neutrality also doesn't stop ISPs from improving the quality of their service. That's the lie. They can always improve the service, as long as they improve the whole service.

It stops them from making some connections better than others. Say, you pay for 500 Mb/s Internet, but they actually give you 1 Gb/s when accessing their custom streaming service. Or you have a 3GB limit, but accessing that site doesn't consume anything.

This is technically not Net Neutrality, but by itself isn't bad. This is allowed in Europe.

The bad part is that they may very well sell you 500 Mb/s, and then throttle your connection to other streaming services down to 500Kb/s. Making their platform the only one you will use, unless you pay an extra fee to unlock the others.

Or forcing those other companies to pay them in advance. Which Google or Facebook could be forced to do. It's extortion.

[Goobaman]

Good riddance.

It's amazing how badly the media has gripped the world population by the jugular in making them believe somehow that government regulation of the internet is a good thing. More government regulation only leads to less innovation. A prime example of this is the telecom industry. It wasn't until the government regulations on the telecom industry happened that innovative companies started to change the way the phone industry works. You can thank deregulation for that sweet smart phone you have by your side.

Why should we allow big internet providers maintain their monopoly on internet service? Allowing companies to charge different amounts for the different type of content you consume will only increase competition. As more players enter the internet service provider arena, prices will naturally go down because they will be competing for your business. Forcing service providers to charge the same rate for higher bandwidth usage by defacto eliminates or very severely hampers the ability for competition.

If a smaller "mom and pop" ISP enters the arena and is forced to charge you the same rate for all your internet usage, they couldn't compete with the Comcasts and the Verizons because naturally they don't have economies of scale. But lets say you only needed internet service to check your email, or to do online shopping, and you never went to streaming service websites, and you never used Youtube or did any file sharing downloads... and there are MILLIONS of people like that. And a smaller "mom and pop" ISP could offer their service for $30 bucks a month, but had certain websites as add-on charges, it would allow those people to have a better option for their internet usage than having to pay $70-80 bucks for high speed internet when they aren't going to use the streaming services anyway.

Net Neutrality being gone is a GOOD thing, because it creates an environment where more COMPETITION can happen, and as more competition happens, quality of service goes up, and price goes down. That's basic economics 101.

Wow, this sounds like it was written by the FCC themselves.

Telecom giants have lobbied to prevent startups in many places. Google this.

They have lobbied to essentially obtain a pseudo-monopoly in many states.

But you think that by deregulating, they will, what? Stop lobbying to block new ISPs? They will what? Facilitate the growth of "mom and pop ISPs"?

How do you arrive at the conclusion that repealing NN is good in the face of what the Telecom giants ARE doing and have done, all of which directly contradicts whatever shilling is spewed here?

Like, on what planet do you live where you cite the Telecom Lobby and also cite support for mom and pop shops and competition? Have you been under a rock while THE SAME lobby shuts down and kills attempts by CITIES, STATES OR MUNICIPALITIES to set up their own networks, like fiber?

This dude is full of shit on a level where he may actually be Ajit Pai.

[Krigaren]

Good riddance.

Net Neutrality being gone is a GOOD thing, because it creates an environment where more COMPETITION can happen, and as more competition happens, quality of service goes up, and price goes down. That's basic economics 101.

The only way more competition can happen is if the government invests in large-scale development of the internet, and promotes regulations that allow smaller companies access to the same networkwork infrastructure that's currently owned/controlled by the major telecoms.

Back in the early 2000s there were lots of mom and pop internet providers, but they were all either dial-up or DSL. Why? Because public utility phone lines were accessible to small businesses. Cable lines aren't, and fiber is limited and extremely expensive (though I've seen at least one small business try to take advantage of the lack of fiber, though only in a VERY small and limited marketplace).

Stripping net neutrality will do NOTHING to spur private investment or competition with internet providers, because net neutrality regulations have nothing to do with that. The problem is that the economies of scale for the maintenance and development of internet networks is far too tilted in mega telecom's favor, pricing out smaller start-ups.

To give you an idea - Google gave up on expanding their fiber program because it's too expensive. If Google couldn't find the economic advantage, what makes you think Ma and Pa ISP will?

[Silver Forte]

Even if you can afford to pay extra after NN dies, it's a matter of principle. Do you really want to support greedy companies like Time Warner and Comcast more than you already do? Do you REALLY want that, Jaylock? Have you got any dignity?

[Ishayu]

The VPN may hide your identity from the end server, but first you have to connect to the VPN through your ISP.

They could easily block access to all VPNs. Or limit the bandwith when connected to one to the point of those connections being useless.

And then sell a Special VPN Package to those individuals who actually need a VPN to work, for a ridiculous fee, of course.

No, that's actually very, VERY difficult. Just ask China.

[Kujako]

No, that's actually very, VERY difficult. Just ask China.

No, it's really easy. Any router with deep packet inspection can do it. China just often chooses not to.

[Dextroden]

Even if you can afford to pay extra after NN dies, it's a matter of principle. Do you really want to support greedy companies like Time Warner and Comcast more than you already do? Do you REALLY want that, Jaylock? Have you got any dignity?

Honest question. What if they just raise their rates period, as they have been well before this whole thing? Is that still not greedy?

[Krigaren]

I thought (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the issue with your argument is that there is no competition in America for ISPs as the territory is already divided between the various 'giants' and you're pretty much only able to get one ISP in any given area.

It's generally one or two ISPs, yes. It's either AT&T DSL, or Comcast/Time Warner. There are small regional ISPs like Cox, but their markets are similarly limited because the major telecoms have all colluded to partition their services up to prevent too much direct competition. Which, btw, is highly illegal under anti-trust laws, but our politicians have already been bought out by ISP special interests and won't enforce those laws.

The major issue is that the lack of competition allows the ISPs to constantly raise their rates without providing better service, despite being in a contract which the consumer is forced to abide by. Comcast raised my rates and snuck in so many fees to increase my bill so many times during my time with them that my $60 service turned into $140 at the end of it. But I couldn't break the contract without incurring penalties, while Comcast was under no requirement to maintain their end of the pricing agreement. This will not improve with NN gone.

[Zmaniac17]

Just to put in perspective, comcast already removed their internet guidelines and promises section ont heir webpage to not throttle or slow your internet.

This is true, but how long until they cave to pressure from shareholders to make more money? And what about the backbone providers that connect Comcast with everything else such as Level 3. They have no such agreement as far as I know. If this becomes the model for new internet competition there is a lot of different companies that can charge for access and have near monopolistic control in their areas.

"On November 11, 2010 a dispute arose between Level 3 and Comcast, when Level 3 announced that they were "selected to serve as a primary content delivery network (CDN) provider for Netflix, Inc. to support the company's streaming functionality." Apparently, as a result of this distribution agreement, Comcast sought to renegotiate the peering agreement with Level 3 and sought a recurring fee for carrying the increased Level 3 internet traffic to and from Comcast broadband customers. Claims and counter-claims were made as the two companies sought to renegotiate the contract. In December 2010, the New America Foundation submitted information concerning the dispute to the FCC.

On July 16, 2013, Level 3 Communications and Comcast seemingly ended their three-year dispute by issuing a statement that "Level 3 and Comcast have resolved their prior interconnect dispute on mutually satisfactory terms. Details will not be released."[38] On May 21, 2015, Level 3 and Comcast announced a new multi-year bilateral agreement to "enhance their existing network capacity while extending their mutual interconnection agreements, ensuring that both maintain ample capacity to exchange Internet traffic between their networks."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_3_Communications

http://www.level3.com/~/media/files/...twork-map.ashx



"Although there is no authority that defines tiers of networks participating in the Internet, the most common definition of a tier 1 network is one that can reach every other network on the Internet without purchasing IP transit or paying settlements.

By this definition, a tier 1 network is a transit-free network that peers with every other tier-1 network. But not all transit-free networks are tier 1 networks. It is possible to become transit-free by paying for peering or agreeing to settlements."

Here's a list of teir 1 networks

AT&T from USA
Cogent Communications from USA
Centurylink (formerly Qwest and Savvis) from USA
Deutsche Telekom AG from Germany
GTT (formerly Tinet) from USA/Italy
Level 3 Communications from USA
Telecom Italia Sparkle from Italy
Telefonica Global Solutions from Spain
Verizon Business (formerly UUNET) from USA
TeliaSonera International Carrier from Sweden-Finlnd
NTT Communications from Japan
Tata Communications from India
Orange from France
XO Communications from USA
Zayo Group from USA

https://superuser.com/questions/3993...providers-isps


More information - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_1_network

[Soulwind]

No, it's really easy. Any router with deep packet inspection can do it. China just often chooses not to.

Even if new ways of getting around the limitations worked for a few weeks, most people wouldn't want or know how to do it.

You can't just say "well, if the whole country learns to configure a VPN, then the ISPs can't really control their connection speed, so this doesn't matter". Realistically, only a small percentage of their users would be able to outsmart them, and most people would have to accept their bullshit.