Net neutrality gone

[apeiron1234]

Hey where's Endus at?

[Deathcries]

the greed never ends

That people like to make money?

[RobertoCarlos]

"i dont use these roads. Why should i pay for them ?"
Replace roads by anything possible, like vaccine research or children's founding.

The better analogy is giving 2-3 people control over the water pipelines.

Internet is a utility not a service, and no NN essentially hands over complete power and unlimited earning potential and a bottle of lube to a handful of people in boardrooms

- - - Updated - - -

That people like to make money?

When that money being made is exploiting utilities then something is fundamentally wrong with the mega super fantastic capitalism model

or the government isnt doing its job of protecting the people, you can pick

[Kathandira]

"i dont use these roads. Why should i pay for them ?"
Replace roads by anything possible, like vaccine research or children's founding.

Basically. The 'just cause I don't use it, I shouldn't pay for it' argument is pretty weak in my opinion.

[Oneirophobia]

Funny thing is the FCC still has to prove that taking away NN is a good thing in court. With 90% of americans for it. A comment process that was dogged by and not even investigated by the FCC. The blatant disregard for 39+ senators and countless other entities. Not to mention the political ramifications to an already unpopular house and Senate (gop)

They're gonna lose i hope in 2018 pai and the other 2 republicans are investigated for taking bribes. It's obvious they are.

They will probably compromise as opposed to lose, and people will accept an erosion of freedom instead of the whole shebang. They always pull shit like this.

[arandomuser]

Alt right is gonna be crybabing when comcast and verizon block there conspiracy and racist filled websites saying " sjws took away my intrenet free speech" LOL no you voted for trump, god i cant wait, i think im the only liberal who actually loves this change, i dont care if i have to pay an extra 40$ for internet or whatever, i just want to see the tears when the guy they voted for on one issue and none others does exactly as he promised on the campaign and they get salty when it works as intended.

[RobertoCarlos]

They will probably compromise as opposed to lose, and people will accept an erosion of freedom instead of the whole shebang. They always pull shit like this.

They already have their fall guy with ajit pai. Hes gonna be rich, but lifes gonna be tricky for him in the states. Cant be fun being that hated.

Mean while the head executives at viacom, comcast, at&t are rubbing their hands together and drinking Veuve Clicquot

[Grapemask]

The Attorney General of new york wanted to check it out. The FCC didn't cooperate. Now the AG is sueing. That thing might very well be pai's downfall. He already has a lot of people pissed at him and his disregard (and by proxy trumps) for wat the people want. Much like most of the stuff this disastrous administration has done. It'll be shot down in court.

The FCC's entire case is based on already debunked evidence. If i was on the fcc as a lawyer I'd concede the case. There's no way to prove a repeal was warranted or wanted.

The debunked evidence part is great. Ajit Pai and his FCC's primary complaint was that net neutrality caused a decline in investment in internet infrastructure, to which folks like John Oliver cited that ISPs have specifically stated that net neutrality has had no effect on their development. So then FCC/"free market" advocates rebutted with that simply being an erroneous statement on their part, and cited reports that they had dropped investment by 5%.

And to that, this study shows they are filthy liars, and every ISP has increased investment year-over-year by more than 5%. If you really dig into that study, you actually see investment and growth has been on a massive upward trend since Title 2.

[Adam Jensen]

Comcast should not have sold me a service @ 3.5 megs a second then. My service agreement does not state 3.5 megs *except for popular website we want to monetize*. Pulling down 3.5 megs from Netflix is identical to pulling 3.5 megs from Tobylikestacosandburritos.com. Acting like a server at the Netflix headquarters is costing more to send data than a server in the building next door is absolute insanity. You have to know absolutely NOTHING about how the internet works to even buy into that crazy bullshit.

I also had to laugh out loud when you stated that Netflix doesnt pay for bandwidth. I dont even know how to respond to that. /facepalm

Yeah, it's not like Netflix gets "special tubes" routed to its office. It's the same cabling for everyone.

[Machismo]

Nope it isn´t that way it´s just so that everybody has health care and won´t go bancrott everytime they got some injuries (which also helps the industrie because bancrott people normally don´t bay anything).

Then that should be between a person and government, not their employer.

[Exeris]

just a reminder

https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/1...vacy-fire-sale

Here is a list of how much it costs to buy a politician.

Crapo, Mike Republican ID $11,000

Well the name fits looking at what many others got out of this. ^^

[Oneirophobia]

I highly doubt it. The internet is just like gaming. 2 groups that don't like being screwed. This is going to cost the GoP and the FCC dearly assuming congress doesn't step in. Not to mention trump who ain't very popular. As for pai. I wonder how much bodygaurds charge per year? He just made a lot of enemys. I wouldn't wanna be in his shoes having to watch my back 24/7.

I think we underestimate how many people

1) don’t know what’s going on / don’t care
2) how long the negative changes will take to roll out and the amount of people who will remember by then
3) how many people who vote for republicans who hear the term “obama-era” and don’t need more info than that to support the FCC tearing down net neutrality

Your optimism is nice, though.

[Karamaru]

Well the name fits looking at what many others got out of this. ^^

you get what you pay for

[Ehrenpanzer]

I wrote to my Congressmen.

And guess what? The Republican douchebag my state sent to the House still hasn't responded to me.

I know right? It's almost like they dont just sit behind a desk replying to every person that writes them a letter whining or complaining........

[Dsc]

The government isn't needed to solve this, which is why NN is bad. ( There is a reason why a big government, globalist shill, aka BHO and Google/Facebook wanted this sooo badly in the first place.)

First you need to understand how this is all connected. In general, there are 2 types of ISPs. "Last mile carriers" and "Backhaul carriers" This gets a bit muddy because some last mile carriers have backhaul networks, and some backhaul carriers have last mile networks, but for the sake of this discussion we'll keep them in two separate groups.

Last mile carriers are the ISPs that bring the cables (phone line, coax, fiber, wireless, whatever) from their core network to your house. This is the ISP that invoices you and you pay every month for your internet service. This Last mile carrier has something that's referred to as a "border" where they connect their core network with a backhaul carrier.

The backhaul carriers are the BIG companies that built this whole "Internet" thing. They did that by investing trillions of dollars running and continuing to run fiber optic cables EVERYWHERE. These backhaul carriers all got together and realized that they needed to come up with a fair and equitable method and price structure for freely and openly exchanging the information on their networks. Thus the Symmetric Peering Arrangement was born.

The Symmetric Peering Arrangement was basically this. "You have lots of data, and I have lots of data. Let us exchange this data equally, however much data you send me I will send you an equal amount of data and we'll all just agree to not charge each other any money for that exchange." But wait? What if they exchange an unequal amount of data? This is the Asymmetric Peering Arrangement, typically it's the same thing as the Symmetric Peering Arrangement except that the both parties agree to pay for the non-symmetric amounts of data. This is what lead to the internet. Basically all these carriers put all their interconnecting and cross connecting points in free and open spaces, called Internet Exchanges. Anyone who showed up and put a "point of presence" in the Exchange had the ability to talk to anyone else in the Exchange and negotiate peering arrangements or even just ask nicely to exchange traffic or whatever. Here's a guy who setup a peering point in an Internet Exchange and essentially became is own ISP for no other reason that he thought it would be fun.

Now comes Netflix. Remember ANYONE can have a presence at an Internet Exchange including hosting companies, data center providers, whoever the fuck wants to. So that's exactly what Netflix did, they set up POPs at various Internet Exchanges over dark fiber from their data centers (dark fiber is a service where you buy a fiber strand from point A to point B with no actual "service" on it, it's just the fiber and you put your own optical gear on either end.)

Basically when they did this, they talked to everyone there and explained what they were about, that they provide a streaming movie service that's legit and legal and made the case that the carriers downstream last mile ISPs and assorted home subscribers would probably love to have access to their content. They made a good case, and the carriers agreed that peering that content to their downstream customers was probably a good move. So they gave Netflix some 10Gbps and 40Gbps cross connects told them "hey this is on us, no charge" and called it a day. (This is extremely common, so common that there's an entire automated system in place run by the volunteers that operate the Exchanges to facilitate it)

Well, you can probably guess what happened, Netflix grew and became crazy popular and their traffic eventually started beating those cross connects like red headed stepchildren. We're talking 100% full ALL the time. As others have touched on, when a link is 100% full, bad shit happens as one poster described as "a bunch of drunk guys screaming at each other in a bar." The end result of this would be the rest of the Internet works just fine, but Netflix runs like TOTAL SHIT. Stuttering, jitter, buffering, garbled frames, all that stuff. When this happened, Netflix was like "OMG can we please get some additional cross connects?" The carriers (or in the first case of it happening, Verizon) responded with statements to the affect of "Wow, yeah you need some more cross connects, but that's a lot of asymmetric traffic, we're going to have to work out an asymmetric peering arrangement where you pay for the difference in traffic, just like we've done for decades with everyone else we do this with."

Now, you see what happened next was...Netflix didn't respond by saying "Oh ok, sure we'll sit down and work out the details" they responded by being pissed off and demanding that peering for FREE because having to pay for it like EVERYONE else had to do so up to that point was tantamount to an unfair business practice. Now the stories I've heard talking to people over at Verizon was that the business managers were kinda shocked and confused at the response, while the engineering teams nearly herniated themselves from laughing.

Now, looking at the situation, Verizon didn't "throttle" Netflix, they didn't demand payment for a "fast lane", they didn't stroke their bad guy mustache and say "Muhahahaha, we're going to use this situation give our own content delivery platform a market advantage!" It was literally just a standard negotiation for an asymmetric peering agreement with some minor middle manager's assistant in the sub-division handling administrative and sales tasks for that region that the Internet Exchange was in. All it was, was a pretty basic business arrangement between two companies, as Netflix' traffic utilization scaled up, so would the amount they paid to deliver it and the necessary upgrades needed would be funded.

Netflix wasn't having it. Not long after that, the CEO of Netflix did an interview with some trendy tech publication in Silicon Valley (I think it was Gizmodo, but I can't remember for sure) talking about how the big evil Verizon was "throttling" them and how we needed "Net Neutrality" to stop this.

Yes, that was their argument, that them saturating their free interconnects and being required to pay for more capacity was "throttling" and it needed to be "stopped" by the FCC (that's code for using the federal government to force Verizon to give them that capacity for free).

So the conclusion is that the carriers HAVE FIGURED IT OUT. They charged Netflix, and Netflix eventually paid. The Last mile carriers wound doing something similar by instituting data caps and charging extra to those who had high utilization. Then everyone started implementing traffic shaping and management methods and technology to get the Netflix utilization under control at the last mile.

Problem is now solved.

Here's where Net Neutrality comes back in. Netflix and Google and Facebook and whoever all still want it because they want to force peering arrangements beneficial to them. But the end result of Net Neutrality would be to remove the carriers solution of dealing with this problem, namely charging Netflix and Google for their upstream consumption at the peering level, and using traffic shaping and management technologies at the last mile level.

Let me state that again, NET NEUTRALITY WOULD REMOVE THE ALREADY EXITING SOLUTION. It would cut the revenue stream at the peering level, and it would remove the traffic shaping and management at the last mile level. This would INCREASE the strain on the carrier networks, AND reduce the spending on upgrading the carrier networks. It will LITERALLY make EVERYTHING worse.

[igualitarist]

Hey, if its my money, than its ok being greedy. If its your money, than f*ck you for being a greedy bastard !!

Now on a more serious note, all that i see is far too much speculation and doomsaying. Lets give time to time before jumping into conclusions.

Everytime a subject gets too much politicized, we lose grip on reality regarding that subject.

[cparle87]

I'm fine with it being gone. Why should I, who only browses forums and checks email, be charged the same as someone who constantly downloads gigs upon gigs of data? Pay for what you use.

That's not what's going to happen. You're still going to pay your bill every month, same as you always have. You'll now simply be forced to pay more not to have sites you do use throttled (aka slowed deliberately by the ISP). "Hey, we notice you use e-mail. So we're gonna make it take forever for your email to load in unless you buy our "deluxe socializer's package" for only $5 on top of your monthly bill! Buy now!"

[Grapemask]

NET NEUTRALITY WOULD REMOVE THE ALREADY EXITING SOLUTION. It would cut the revenue stream at the peering level, and it would remove the traffic shaping and management at the last mile level. This would INCREASE the strain on the carrier networks, AND reduce the spending on upgrading the carrier networks. It will LITERALLY make EVERYTHING worse.

Most of this is incorrect. Like most anti-net neutrality arguments, particularly those spun by the FCC, it starts from some truthful nuggets and then launches into the adventure of a lifetime through untruthiness. I'm kind of wishing I wasn't currently on my phone so I could go through this bit by bit, but the short of it is, media creators are not the exploitative jackals that this kind of half-true story makes them out to be, and we'r essentially smashing one issue into a semi-related issue to form some bizarre net neutrality affiliation.

A large part of where this breaks down is that Google, Netflix, and Facebook were all very silent about this beyond the social front. They did very little to lobby in the interests of net neutrality. With the peering that was already allowed, removing net neutrality actually helps those companies; they can now eliminate competition with almost surgical precision without net neutrality consumer protections.

[Rhokzor]

The government isn't needed to solve this, which is why NN is bad. ( There is a reason why a big government, globalist shill, aka BHO and Google/Facebook wanted this sooo badly in the first place.)

First you need to understand how this is all connected. In general, there are 2 types of ISPs. "Last mile carriers" and "Backhaul carriers" This gets a bit muddy because some last mile carriers have backhaul networks, and some backhaul carriers have last mile networks, but for the sake of this discussion we'll keep them in two separate groups.

I wish more people would actually do some research instead of relying on info-graphics and paid (probably) fear mongering from your friendly neighborhood social media pages. It's as if the FTC isn't a thing, and that anti-trust laws and other regulations/practices that have been in place since the internet took off don't exist.

[Ivanstone]

Here's where Net Neutrality comes back in. Netflix and Google and Facebook and whoever all still want it because they want to force peering arrangements beneficial to them. But the end result of Net Neutrality would be to remove the carriers solution of dealing with this problem, namely charging Netflix and Google for their upstream consumption at the peering level, and using traffic shaping and management technologies at the last mile level.

Let me state that again, NET NEUTRALITY WOULD REMOVE THE ALREADY EXITING SOLUTION. It would cut the revenue stream at the peering level, and it would remove the traffic shaping and management at the last mile level. This would INCREASE the strain on the carrier networks, AND reduce the spending on upgrading the carrier networks. It will LITERALLY make EVERYTHING worse.

Yes, we know that Net Neutrality is in part just a giant pissing match between two groups of corporations.

However, one group may be underhanded and annoying but still on the side of something that's better for society as a whole. The other group represents some of the most reviled companies in America who're unreliable, uncompetitive and over charge for inferiour service. Which group is which?

PS
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...nd-competition