Ajit Pai: States Can't Enact Net Neutrality Rules

Gorankar

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
10,480
A shortsighted generalization at best.
Policy takes time to effect but sometimes it happens right away in the most unexpected situations.
This is just one resource on the event. Of coarse you are free to use any alternate facts...
Verizon throttled fire department’s “unlimited” data during Calif. wildfire.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/verizon-firefighter-data-service/
Verizon did exactly as contracted by said fire dept. Tiered phone/data plans are the norm, and were the norm during NN as well. Granted, Verizon prolly should have had a real person override what was undoubtedly an automatic throttling response from it's system when the FD's usage hit the contractually agreed upon limit, but there was no malfeasance there, and it had not a damn thing to do with NN or anything that idgit Ajit has done. The FD should have up sized their plan.

For future reference, using Snopes as source is about as useful as using Alex Jones. All you are going to get is derision from one side or the other.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
773
That video was so bat shit crazy I had to downvote, and write a response telling people that electricity isn't like the internet. Electricity takes resources to create, while internet does not. Especially when we subsidize the crap out of ISPs with tax payer money, and they just never delivered on their promise.

i didnt see the video....but ..

how exactly does the internet not take resources?

there is manufacturing... routers dont grow on trees you know...and lets just take that single point into the realm of pure stupid... even if they DID grow on trees you would still need someone to harvest them.
so, there are resources there, they use electricity which takes resources to create, ISPs require people to fix things and operate things and tell you to restart your router 3 more times even though you already did that 4 times and it clearly shows there is no friggn signal on the line.

your comment may be very related to something in the video you're referencing that i have not seen... but... clearly the internet DOES use resources. it doesnt just exist because god said so.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
773
States rights end at the border of the state. The internet does not end at the border of the state.
so what? thats got absolutely nothing to do with anything

The ability of a state to regulate the internet, by necessity, is limited, to reduce affects on other states. Besides, they can just throttle you at the border.
you are 100% incorrect. it is NOT limited. it was not needed prior to what happened here. there is a huge difference. and to a lesser extent, yes it was limited right up until they gutted the NN rules the way they did and walked off it- then they actively made it something that fell to the states. you can dislike that all you want- but your disliking of that does not change anything at all.

Ajits evil level, how much he was paid off, or what your particular idea of what net neutrality is, (it seems to differ person to person), or the repeal of that version of NN that was not really NN at all that we had, does not change that. If you want NN, you need to get on your elected officials and get them to legislate it. Which is how NN should have been enacted in the first place. Our congess needs to do their damn job.
but they did do their job- and pai is actively trying to undo that job that was already did. are we all supposed to just sit here and twiddle our thumbs about it?

i agree with your point about them needing to do their damn jobs 100%. i dont agree with a hands off approach by the states.

and for what its worth, i dont think you are in favor of or defending any of this mess based on what youve posted, im just responding to some of the points you bring up.
 

ramrod126

Weaksauce
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
127
Cars and trucks flow across many states - we don’t have a federal drivers license, federal car registration, or federal traffic cops. Hasn’t proven to be all that problematic yet....
Pretty sure CDL licenses are federal...just saying.
 

jhymesba

n00b
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
30
Can we get rid of this corrupt shitstain please?
Sure we can! And it's a relatively easy, if time gated process.

Step 1) Vote for Democrats in 2018 to lay the groundwork for Step 2.
Step 2) Vote for Democrats for President, Senate, and House in 2020.
Step 3) Ajit Pai loses the gavel as one of his colleagues or himself is forced to step down in order to make way for the Democrat's POTUS's selection which makes the FCC a 3D/2R organization again.
Step 4) Show up in 2022 and 2024 to ensure this process isn't followed by Team Red to give Pai the gavel back in 2024.
Step 5) Repeat Step 4 for every 4 years going forward.

Easy, right!? :)
 

Mega6

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 13, 2017
Messages
2,745
Sure we can! And it's a relatively easy, if time gated process.

Step 1) Vote for Democrats in 2018 to lay the groundwork for Step 2.
Step 2) Vote for Democrats for President, Senate, and House in 2020.
Step 3) Ajit Pai loses the gavel as one of his colleagues or himself is forced to step down in order to make way for the Democrat's POTUS's selection which makes the FCC a 3D/2R organization again.
Step 4) Show up in 2022 and 2024 to ensure this process isn't followed by Team Red to give Pai the gavel back in 2024.
Step 5) Repeat Step 4 for every 4 years going forward.

Easy, right!? :)

I sort of like that idea, but I need to keep my Capital Gains taxes low too.
 

Uvaman2

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,143
Sure we can! And it's a relatively easy, if time gated process.

Step 1) Vote for Democrats in 2018 to lay the groundwork for Step 2.
Step 2) Vote for Democrats for President, Senate, and House in 2020.
Step 3) Ajit Pai loses the gavel as one of his colleagues or himself is forced to step down in order to make way for the Democrat's POTUS's selection which makes the FCC a 3D/2R organization again.
Step 4) Show up in 2022 and 2024 to ensure this process isn't followed by Team Red to give Pai the gavel back in 2024.
Step 5) Repeat Step 4 for every 4 years going forward.

Easy, right!? :)
Yeah and we might end up like that family guy episode where Al gore won...
 

Gorankar

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
10,480
so what? thats got absolutely nothing to do with anything


you are 100% incorrect. it is NOT limited. it was not needed prior to what happened here. there is a huge difference. and to a lesser extent, yes it was limited right up until they gutted the NN rules the way they did and walked off it- then they actively made it something that fell to the states. you can dislike that all you want- but your disliking of that does not change anything at all.
It was not needed prior to NN either. What the states can do is limited. The lower courts already started to chip away at that with the decision in MN regarding voip. If don't you want multiple states deciding how your internet in your state works, (and that is what would happen if ISP XXX located in multiple states has to abide by those multiple state's laws), then I kindly recommend you rethink inviting the states to individually regulate the internet. Sure the individual states can, and in some cases should regulate a local providers, but the internet itself is outside their purview. Just to remind you, cities and states regulating who can come into a certain area is why we have the dearth of broadband and cable choices in most areas. Government caused the problem of no competition.


but they did do their job- and pai is actively trying to undo that job that was already did. are we all supposed to just sit here and twiddle our thumbs about it?
I am unaware of any federal NN legislation. Just Obama recommending the FCC reclassify it. Which they later did. To no change in service for the end consumer.

i agree with your point about them needing to do their damn jobs 100%. i dont agree with a hands off approach by the states.

and for what its worth, i dont think you are in favor of or defending any of this mess based on what youve posted, im just responding to some of the points you bring up.
I am not even sure what NN is to others. To me it means packet equality, but what the FCC gave us and later took away was not packet equality. It was something the called NN for political reasons, but packlet equality is not what it gave us. NN is about money. Not yours or mine, or even your local ISP's. It was about Netflix's and Googles, and the upstream ISP's money.

No, I do not believe in packet equality. I believe packets that facilitate business or saving lives are more important than some podcast, or game, or general web surfing. Ideally I would prefer the ISP's, (upstream and down), had the capacity to take care of it all with perfection, but I understand why ISP's oversell their capability to deliver. So many cities and states have regulated who can and can't do business in a given area, creating duopolies/monopolies, that there is little business reason to do more than just enough and trickle out the upgrades. The states can fix that. Not with their own NN rules, but by making it illegal for a city/township/parish/county from making exclusivity agreements with downstream ISP's.

I do believe that it should be illegal for my ISP to slow down Netflix intentionally just to try and extort more money out of them, or to make it a less attractive solution than their own streaming service, or less attractive than one that does pay the extortion money. But that is not really NN.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,687
i didnt see the video....but ..

how exactly does the internet not take resources?

there is manufacturing... routers dont grow on trees you know...and lets just take that single point into the realm of pure stupid... even if they DID grow on trees you would still need someone to harvest them.
so, there are resources there, they use electricity which takes resources to create, ISPs require people to fix things and operate things and tell you to restart your router 3 more times even though you already did that 4 times and it clearly shows there is no friggn signal on the line.

your comment may be very related to something in the video you're referencing that i have not seen... but... clearly the internet DOES use resources. it doesnt just exist because god said so.
Take it from someone who has a degree in networking, to make the internet faster doesn't use more resources. To make more electricity does require more coal, gas, or whatever resource you plan to consume to create electricity. ISP's only need to upgrade their infrastructure, which is something they should be doing all the time. Power companies still need to maintain lines, and they still need to replace transformers.

If you let ISPs create fast lanes, then they never need to upgrade their infrastructure. Just impose fast lanes so you don't need to upgrade the infrastructure and make more money by having customers pay more for fast lanes. If you want Australia's internet, this is how you get Australia's internet. And American tax payers subsidize for this infrastructure as well, which makes this fast lanes shit even more stupid. What incentive do ISP's have to increase their infrastructure when they don't have any competition and don't have Net Neutrality?
 

Gorankar

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
10,480
Sure we can! And it's a relatively easy, if time gated process.

Step 1) Vote for Democrats in 2018 to lay the groundwork for Step 2.
Step 2) Vote for Democrats for President, Senate, and House in 2020.
Step 3) Ajit Pai loses the gavel as one of his colleagues or himself is forced to step down in order to make way for the Democrat's POTUS's selection which makes the FCC a 3D/2R organization again.
Step 4) Show up in 2022 and 2024 to ensure this process isn't followed by Team Red to give Pai the gavel back in 2024.
Step 5) Repeat Step 4 for every 4 years going forward.

Easy, right!? :)
I don't believe I can get behind turning the government back over to an even worse group of evil morons than we currently have, just to get something back we never really had in the first place.
 
Last edited:

Mega6

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 13, 2017
Messages
2,745
If you let ISPs create fast lanes, then they never need to upgrade their infrastructure. Just impose fast lanes so you don't need to upgrade the infrastructure and make more money by having customers pay more for fast lanes.

THIS!

You do not want Tiered internet and have to pay extra for the "luxury" of low latency playing COD99, do you? Otherwise all the video ads that pop up on all the crap websites will get priority over your gaming packets. Not even sure why this is even an argument HERE on a Gaming / Hardware site of all places.
 

Gavv

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
10,579
Verizon did exactly as contracted by said fire dept. Tiered phone/data plans are the norm, and were the norm during NN as well. Granted, Verizon prolly should have had a real person override what was undoubtedly an automatic throttling response from it's system when the FD's usage hit the contractually agreed upon limit, but there was no malfeasance there, and it had not a damn thing to do with NN or anything that idgit Ajit has done. The FD should have up sized their plan.

For future reference, using Snopes as source is about as useful as using Alex Jones. All you are going to get is derision from one side or the other.
On this I have to disagree with you.

Verizon was at fault because they failed to make the switch which was agreed upon. Secondly they could have not offered that plan to start with. Thus they were at fault.

Now onto the real topic.

Seems to me Pai is a bit wrong here. We accommodate California rules all the time. Let’s look at emissions compared to everywhere else? How about firearm and ammunition sales?

There’s three things off the top my head that are very different within each state. I am supporter of what he (Pai) did for NN a while back. It needed to be done differently. However I think he is wrong on this one.

I think we can and do make state levels laws that go against Federal stuff. You can also include sanctuary cities, and if those companies want that particular states money they make the needed adjustments
 

Mega6

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 13, 2017
Messages
2,745
For State - Federal Government see "Federalism". Specifically now since the '70s, we are in the stage of what is called "New Federalism" where states are "reclaiming" rights that in the past were given up to the Federal Government.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,687
THIS!

You do not want Tiered internet and have to pay extra for the "luxury" of low latency playing COD99, do you? Otherwise all the video ads that pop up on all the crap websites will get priority over your gaming packets. Not even sure why this is even an argument HERE on a Gaming / Hardware site of all places.
Because a lot of people who support the removal of Net Neutrality are paid by ISPs like Verizon. Corporate trolls are real and will spread propaganda. They send out letters to old people to convince them to be against Net Neutrality cause it might increase the cost of their internet, so why wouldn't they have people on forums to support something that clearly isn't in their best interest? Recently game companies wanted gamers to support them in fighting Belgium to allow loot creates. Why would gamers support something that clearly isn't in their favor?
 

Brian_B

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
3,356
Pretty sure CDL licenses are federal...just saying.
There are minimum federal CDL requirements, but states can (and do) impose additional requirements, and are the ultimate issuing authority. You could not drive on the road with just a CDL, as the first requirement is that you hold a valid state issued non commercial drivers license.
 

Uvaman2

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,143
So potentially they can issue regulations, so long they meet minimum federal regulations?
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
773
Take it from someone who has a degree in networking, to make the internet faster doesn't use more resources. To make more electricity does require more coal, gas, or whatever resource you plan to consume to create electricity. ISP's only need to upgrade their infrastructure, which is something they should be doing all the time. Power companies still need to maintain lines, and they still need to replace transformers.

If you let ISPs create fast lanes, then they never need to upgrade their infrastructure. Just impose fast lanes so you don't need to upgrade the infrastructure and make more money by having customers pay more for fast lanes. If you want Australia's internet, this is how you get Australia's internet. And American tax payers subsidize for this infrastructure as well, which makes this fast lanes shit even more stupid. What incentive do ISP's have to increase their infrastructure when they don't have any competition and don't have Net Neutrality?

no one said FASTER. that was never a point until you tried to make it one.

you cant just snap your fingers and magically your infrastructure upgrades you are referring to magically happen. they DO in fact require resources. all the same resources that i lined out earlier.
the point out power companies needing to maintain lines ect, i assure you ISPs have that as well- why else was ATT digging giant hole in my front yard last week to install the infrastructure to bring fiber to the area? those resources have to come from SOMEWHERE. the idea of fast lanes is only a single example of what *can* happen with a lack of NN rules- and its to be honest a simplified version of many things framed (very correctly) in a way to help people who, while being intelligent people (doctors, nurses, archetects, software developers, microsoft), dont really understand how all this plays together to create a very bad outcome


the comment about creating fast lanes also has absolutely nothing to do with infrastructure. DLSAMs ATMs Routers and cable all age and at some point fail. they MUST be replaced at some point. those replacements DO in fact require resources to build and maintain. what good are these fast lanes if your friggn cable has been eaten through by the elements and whatever wildlife wants to throw at it? you are focused entirely on the data going over the physical infrastructure that you have forgotten an incredibly critical point (that most engineers also forget)- without hardware, infrastructure and labor you have nothing but a neat idea on a piece of paper.

as for what incentives do ISPs have to upgrade? currently very little but, that problem already existed long before NN was gutted. they already in many areas already operated as a defacto monopoly before all of this.... this just makes the already existing problem worse...



by the way- take it from someone that is network certified and does this stuff for an actual living. dont start your arguments with "take it from someone that has a degree". all you do is signal that most of whats about to follow will be wrong and it also makes you come off really douchey
 

trparky

Gawd
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
971
as for what incentives do ISPs have to upgrade? currently very little but, that problem already existed long before NN was gutted. they already in many areas already operated as a defacto monopoly before all of this.... this just makes the already existing problem worse...
And this is where I think 5G will solve this issue. The biggest pain in the ass and THE most expensive part of deploying mass market Internet service is getting said connection to the customer's house. This isn't cheap by any means, it's expensive as hell. One 5G transceiver in an area can serve up to 50 to 100 customers especially in densely packed urban regions thus cutting down on the cost of deploying said service by a huge amount.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,687
no one said FASTER. that was never a point until you tried to make it one.
That is the whole point and you know it. The reason for removing Net Neutrality was to impose "Fast Lanes". Fast = speed
you cant just snap your fingers and magically your infrastructure upgrades you are referring to magically happen. they DO in fact require resources. all the same resources that i lined out earlier.
Yea, and the tax payers paid for that infrastructure through subsidies. ISPs just pocked the money. How many times must I say this?
the point out power companies needing to maintain lines ect, i assure you ISPs have that as well- why else was ATT digging giant hole in my front yard last week to install the infrastructure to bring fiber to the area? those resources have to come from SOMEWHERE. the idea of fast lanes is only a single example of what *can* happen with a lack of NN rules- and its to be honest a simplified version of many things framed (very correctly) in a way to help people who, while being intelligent people (doctors, nurses, archetects, software developers, microsoft), dont really understand how all this plays together to create a very bad outcome
How does $200 BILLION dollars sound? Particularly to lay down fiber cable. And they just pocket that shit like nothing. ISP's have the resources cause we paid for it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6c5e97 https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...t-only-to-get-more-money-from-the-government/
the comment about creating fast lanes also has absolutely nothing to do with infrastructure.
What incentive do ISPs have to not create fast lanes then? If the infrastructure can't handle the traffic, and most can't in America, then fast lanes is a profitable way to be lazy and cash in. If we had true competition in America like in South Korea, then we wouldn't need Net Neutrality. But we don't so we need it.
DLSAMs ATMs Routers and cable all age and at some point fail. they MUST be replaced at some point. those replacements DO in fact require resources to build and maintain. what good are these fast lanes if your friggn cable has been eaten through by the elements and whatever wildlife wants to throw at it? you are focused entirely on the data going over the physical infrastructure that you have forgotten an incredibly critical point (that most engineers also forget)- without hardware, infrastructure and labor you have nothing but a neat idea on a piece of paper.
You make it sound like it costs ISPs everything to maintain their current infrastructure.
as for what incentives do ISPs have to upgrade? currently very little but, that problem already existed long before NN was gutted. they already in many areas already operated as a defacto monopoly before all of this.... this just makes the already existing problem worse...
Net Neutrality was put in place because ISPs had already began to fuck around with connections. Like Verizion with Netflix and T-Mobile was blocking some services. Net Neutrality didn't arise for no reason, cause there was a reason.
by the way- take it from someone that is network certified and does this stuff for an actual living. dont start your arguments with "take it from someone that has a degree". all you do is signal that most of whats about to follow will be wrong and it also makes you come off really douchey
Nothing you said has disproved anything I said. No facts, no statistics, no nothing. Does/did Verizon fuck with Netflix traffic? Did ISPs receive subsidies to lay down that infrastructure, which they never did? You even admit that ISPs have no incentive to improve their infrastructure. You act like Fastlanes have nothing to do with infrastructure without giving an example. You just babble about infrastructure maintenance.

A lot smarter people have argued for Net Neutrality who does indeed work in the field of networking. Watch this video on Wendell and Paul talking about it. You may learn something.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
773
It was not needed prior to NN either. What the states can do is limited. The lower courts already started to chip away at that with the decision in MN regarding voip. If don't you want multiple states deciding how your internet in your state works, (and that is what would happen if ISP XXX located in multiple states has to abide by those multiple state's laws), then I kindly recommend you rethink inviting the states to individually regulate the internet. Sure the individual states can, and in some cases should regulate a local providers, but the internet itself is outside their purview. Just to remind you, cities and states regulating who can come into a certain area is why we have the dearth of broadband and cable choices in most areas. Government caused the problem of no competition.
i disagree it wasnt needed. i do agree that it wasnt a states issue before this. the lower courts are not chipping away anything- they are in fact enforcing the status quo that voip has ALWAYS been an information service under the existing telecommunications act of 1996. in this case the state is overstepping existing and contradicting existing federal guidelines on the classification of voip services and they were in fact right to come to the decision they did (that is of course just personal opinion). ive never said WHY i think the states need to get involved. so let me explain now. i do not believe this is a good idea on its surface, i do agree with the poitns about this creating 50+ (dont forget about territories and DC... its not just states) all creating their own rules. I also believe entire area should reside at the federal level. but when the feds removed their regulation and then walked away saying that because we dont want rules NO ONE can make rules- that just flies in the face of the rule of law. I do not believe that all data services should be information services either- services such as voip should be treated exactly the same way as traditional land lines because that is exactly what they are meant to replace. dont read more into the MN ruling than there really is- everyone is trying to make it out to be something it really isnt.
it also got one thing incredibly wrong which if applied how they decided would literally break nearly all current voice communications- they stated that since charter uses a conversion of TDM to IP (which is incorrect- its TDMoIP small but important difference) then that one fact means that the (incorrectly stated) conversion in and of qualifies it as a data service (note that they said qualifies meaning it can be- not stating it to be such as a fact because of this conversion). Name a single telecom service in the US that does NOT do something over packet switched networks these days? do you really want to apply that same logic to every single voice services carrier? *POOF* they all magically became data services simply because the 8th circuit doesnt understand how telecom actually works and it was left to lawyers to explain it to them how it DOES work. yes that was a long walk to make a point.

now, having laid out all of that, you now will understand why i think that the states stepping in will be good in the LONG RUN (please note- that means NOT IMMEDIATE)- 50+ sets of rules plus some other factors such as the lawsuits that will follow - various courts that do not understand ANY of this, the inevitable political grandstanding, etc- will push the states to have some incredibly strict NN rules at the state level which will cause a TON of problems everywhere and the entire method of fixing what is now happening will ultimately result in abject failure- it cannot possibly work. it also cannot possibly be fixed overnight. eventually this will lead the feds to step back in (even if that is from an unexpected reason.. sayyyy SCOTUS ruling at some point that the feds lacked the authority or acted in a way that was clearly not in the public interest, overturning lower courts rulings for whatever reasons) and everything will go back and we will have concrete rulings in place to help deal with this stuff. im also hoping that the telecommunications act of 1996 gets some much needed re-vamping to define services such as voip.
keep in mind- this is just my personal musings on the topic- is any of that whats actually going to happen? no clue- maybe some will, maybe none will... im just spitballin based on what ive seen happen historically and what id like to see happen. and its not easily relayed well in hardware forum postings.. im really having to edit myself a lot here so we dont wind up with a 4 page article.



I am unaware of any federal NN legislation. Just Obama recommending the FCC reclassify it. Which they later did. To no change in service for the end consumer.
i am not referring to any one member of federal government- i mean all of it- FCC, POTUS, the house, senate- they all at some point played their parts in getting us to where we were right before pai created the current mess. because we had functioning rules- my point is that the elected officials WERE doing their jobs on it all along- maybe some were better than others, and you and i may not even agree on which was better which was worse- but the job was being done in some capacity. pai screwed all of that up with what he did- and he did it in very short order (relatively speaking).
as for existing law and how it relates to all of this, telecoms act of 1996 failed to classify voip at all- again leading to a bunch of mess.. but thats an 8 year old side point really.



I am not even sure what NN is to others. To me it means packet equality, but what the FCC gave us and later took away was not packet equality. It was something the called NN for political reasons, but packlet equality is not what it gave us. NN is about money. Not yours or mine, or even your local ISP's. It was about Netflix's and Googles, and the upstream ISP's money.
i think that is part of the problem too- we dont yet all agree on what it really even is. I agree with you on the part about treating all packets with equality- but only to a point - there are some valid exceptions that i do believe need to be included. your point about NN being about money is half right- in that for ISPs and those major conglomerates, its about making more money and removing oversight so they can find more ways to squeeze that extra dollar out of us. but for you and me on a personal level, its about paying for a service that we dont have much choice in (that being you get traditional telco or traditional cable... and thats it... and you sometimes dont even get a choice between those two). and ensuring that because of that, we dont have to pay extra to get to other resources on the internet. the money part is only added scenery for us in that the services we are forced into taking *COULD* charge us to access those services without having rules in place to prevent that. the problem is thats not the main point we should be looking at- but $$$$ is how you get peoples attention so its been plastered as the poster child for why NN is bad. which is unfortunate.


No, I do not believe in packet equality. I believe packets that facilitate business or saving lives are more important than some podcast, or game, or general web surfing. Ideally I would prefer the ISP's, (upstream and down), had the capacity to take care of it all with perfection, but I understand why ISP's oversell their capability to deliver.
i agree with this

So many cities and states have regulated who can and can't do business in a given area, creating duopolies/monopolies, that there is little business reason to do more than just enough and trickle out the upgrades. The states can fix that. Not with their own NN rules, but by making it illegal for a city/township/parish/county from making exclusivity agreements with downstream ISP's.
This is not entirely correct and it depends on where you are. i can only use where i live in cali as an example and its not correct for all places- the current duopoly that i have is ATT/Comcast. there is a TON of history that im leaving out here but if i included we'd be back to that 4 page article (maybe more). where i live, there are rules about where CABLE companies can light up new services when they move into a new area- they have to cover and roll out all services equally to areas they are moving into. They also have to be chartered to do so and you cannot have two cable carriers chartered for the same area. yes- incredibly stupid rule that was put in place to force comcast to roll the same services to its entire footprint so that both video and data would be available to the largest number of customers. those rules did not apply to existing telco - in my area that was ATT, in other areas that was VZN it was a blanket ruling for all traditional telco providers- they could then cherry pick who they wanted to roll services to and leave cable companies to face a huge uphill climb to compete with them. and then they did. but the rules to force them to compete and ultimately out perform the traditional telcos were never changed leaving us now with the duopoly mess in most of california. until FTTC became a fiscal possibility, there was no reason for ATT to upgrade to anything beyond VDSL in my area which my loop is too long for anyway so until they finish their fiber rollout (which they are doing right now- last week they just dug giant holes in my front yard)- there was no reason to do any upgrades at all because they were not going to see enough ROI. on the cable side however, it was cheaper and thus doable to increase from docsis 1 to docsis2 and then 3- and then they just rollled 3.1. now no one uses ATT which means if they DONT invest in infrastructure, they will be churning off so much customer base to comcast who was forced to do this all along- that they will no longer be able to survive- so now they're rolling fiber and my area will become one of the few places where prices will go down because of it- and none of it has anything at all to do with NN rules or gutting them. so why say it? to highlight how much of the problem in many areas has absolutely nothing to do with NN but people are confusing the two and the message is again getting muddy and watered down.


I do believe that it should be illegal for my ISP to slow down Netflix intentionally just to try and extort more money out of them, or to make it a less attractive solution than their own streaming service, or less attractive than one that does pay the extortion money. But that is not really NN.
i dont think it should be illegal per se. i think it should be unconscionable. but like i said gutting NN for the ISPs is about more money no matter where it comes from- if they think they can get extra money by throttling things- they will do it and consequences of their actions be damned
but thats where NN rules step in- what they should NOT be doing in the first place in order for the internet to function correctly and not result in a fractured mess all over the place takes a back seat to profits. since we cant trust them to not break our stuff so they can make an extra buck- we then have to have rules in order to force them to do the right thing that they should be doing all along in the first place.



sorry for the giant wall of words
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
773
That is the whole point and you know it. The reason for removing Net Neutrality was to impose "Fast Lanes". Fast = speed
no, thats A point. its not the WHOLE point. its a MAJOR point, yes absolutely and from the ISP side thats all they care about yes.

Yea, and the tax payers paid for that infrastructure through subsidies. ISPs just pocked the money. How many times must I say this?
however many it takes for you to feel good about saying something that no one has argued about? notice please- not once did i disagree with this being a fact. i do in fact actually agree with you on that point- but hopping up and down screaming about a point that no one has once said (and i am speaking for only myself in that - not anyone else that may have told you otherwise) doesnt change a single thing. but since you clearly require that it be pointed out that you are in fact correct about that point- here - you have it in writing- i do fully and have always fully agreed with you on this point. it still has nothing to do wtih what i was talking about though.

How does $200 BILLION dollars sound? Particularly to lay down fiber cable. And they just pocket that shit like nothing. ISP's have the resources cause we paid for it.
to me it sounds like a lot- to ATT it sounds like chump change. they flush that much down the toilet every year with their astroturfing. does that mean i agree with them doing it and think its good? no... im not sure why you (at least based on your reaction here) think that i would believe so when i have never said this- or really even addressed the point directly- but again, since you must require this- there ya go- ive addressed it. i did remove the reddit comment to save space, not to be dismissive of it- just in case you decide to flip out about that too.


What incentive do ISPs have to not create fast lanes then? If the infrastructure can't handle the traffic, and most can't in America, then fast lanes is a profitable way to be lazy and cash in. If we had true competition in America like in South Korea, then we wouldn't need Net Neutrality. But we don't so we need it.
i never said they have no incentive- quite the opposite-i have stated several times that without NN rules they have every incentive to do the absolute least amount they can while attempting to completely maximize profits to the detriment of everyone. however, what i said SPECIFICALLY TO YOU was that creating fast lanes DOES. NOT. REMOVE. THE. NEED. FOR. INFRASTRUCTURE. it will NEVER remove the need for infrastructure. and you need to stop saying that it does because that in entirely 100% demonstrably false.

You make it sound like it costs ISPs everything to maintain their current infrastructure.
no, you are trying to maintain that is my position based on the fact that i have presented a factual point that ISPs spend money on infrastructure, that the creation of this infrastructure requires resources and that maintaining (even if at the crappy levels they do) takes resources. not the same thing. read the post i put in before i responded to this one specifically about why the duopoly in my area exists - i explained this very point in that post. and by the way- even in that - its a very small slice of the entire picture- it does NOT mean that i do not believe that tax payer money was pocketed, nor does it mean that i believe the providers are in fact great people and they're doing all they can to make sure we get the best possible experience ever!!!! - i have been very clearly critical of them at every point and its their profit chasing that has really led us to where we are- so please dont try to misconstrue my comments on that again. ty.


Net Neutrality was put in place because ISPs had already began to fuck around with connections. Like Verizion with Netflix and T-Mobile was blocking some services. Net Neutrality didn't arise for no reason, cause there was a reason.
Nothing you said has disproved anything I said. No facts, no statistics, no nothing. Does/did Verizon fuck with Netflix traffic? Did ISPs receive subsidies to lay down that infrastructure, which they never did? You even admit that ISPs have no incentive to improve their infrastructure. You act like Fastlanes have nothing to do with infrastructure without giving an example. You just babble about infrastructure maintenance.
again, you seem to be on some sort of mission to prove you're being treated like a target or something in the way you're trying to hard to prove something that ive agreed with you on the entire time. the point im not agreeing with you on, which is entirely provable- is that ISPs do invest in infrastructure *AND* not all of that money spent on infrastructure comes from ill gotten tax boondoggles. do they neglect infrastructure? sure.... in fact VZN tried to just walk away from wired line services entirely after sandy- ultimately they didnt- and they replaced a lot of what was damaged with fiber. is that not infrastructure cost? when i first started with comcast it was still on docsis1- they just rolled out docsis 3.1 and there were no massive natural disasters forcing them to do so. does this not count as infrastructure improvement? and as ive stated, ATT is RIGHT NOW rolling FTTC in my area digging up my front yard... AGAIN with no natural disasters or laws forcing them to do so. how is this NOT an infrastructure upgrade to the existing VDSL services that have been in place since 2004(ish).
those are facts. i dont really even need to point to anything documentation wise to prove them either- they exist and are very clearly there- so there's some fact for you that you so desperately need.


A lot smarter people have argued for Net Neutrality who does indeed work in the field of networking. Watch this video on Wendell and Paul talking about it. You may learn something.
i watched it.
i did learn some things- one of the things i learned is that paul doesnt really know whats in the original communications act and doesnt know whats in the telecommunications act of 1996 or what it does/means based on words that came out of his own mouth during that very video.
does that mean he isnt smart? not one bit.
does that mean he is not the pinnacle of knowledge when it comes to NN- kinda does yeah.
but then neither am i. nor do i hold myself out to be such. im just some dude on a forum point things out is all.

and at least trying not to talk down to people while i do it.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
773
And this is where I think 5G will solve this issue. The biggest pain in the ass and THE most expensive part of deploying mass market Internet service is getting said connection to the customer's house. This isn't cheap by any means, it's expensive as hell. One 5G transceiver in an area can serve up to 50 to 100 customers especially in densely packed urban regions thus cutting down on the cost of deploying said service by a huge amount.
i have to agree with others that 5g doesnt actually have a place in the conversation. its not the panecea that the wireless companies are holding it out to be. will it be better than 4g? sure, clearly it will be- and i do agree (at least i think this is something you are pointing out here) that it will be cheaper. i dont think the fact that its cheaper will lead to a price drop for customers- i think it will not make a single dent in what i pay for services at the end of the month at all- and while there is a large chunk of money to upgrade- any profits from moving to this will just remain that- profits to that company. so really- no real win for me.
and much like 4g- it will absolutely not replace land line services that just work better on land line services. we have a long LONG way to go before we get to that point.


the biggest thing though is, and the crux of the discussion that DukenukemX and i have been having, this infrastructure is unrelated to the real issues that are underpinning NN to begin with. i think its great that you have the optimism that you do... i also think that i can pretty easily rely on (and i know DukenukemX would agree with me on this one) the major ISPs (and in this case cell carriers) chasing the almighty dollar at every turn meaning all the reasons to have NN rules in the first place are still in play no matter what the underlying equipment in place is or how cheap it is to install/run it.

a greedy bastard is a greedy bastard after all.
 

Donald Bell

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
160
And this is where I think 5G will solve this issue. The biggest pain in the ass and THE most expensive part of deploying mass market Internet service is getting said connection to the customer's house. This isn't cheap by any means, it's expensive as hell. One 5G transceiver in an area can serve up to 50 to 100 customers especially in densely packed urban regions thus cutting down on the cost of deploying said service by a huge amount.
Do you work for Verizon or something? Seriously, 5G in urban areas doesn't make a bit of a difference for net neutrality. Also, Verizon throttles/monitors/sells your data/limits access worse than all the other cell providers with or without NN. Stop talking about 5G in this thread. It isn't relevant. If you continue to bring it up after dozens of people have already told you the same thing, I can only question your motives for continuing insert 5G into this conversation.
 

Donald Bell

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
160
There is so much misinformation in this thread that discussion is basically useless at this point. You all have fun arguing about stuff you found on Google... :rolleyes:
 

trparky

Gawd
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
971
But having 5G will make for more competition which is what we so badly need. Competition will fix the market.
 

trparky

Gawd
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
971
The reason why we have this mess is because we don't have competition in most markets. Get competition and most if not all of the issues we have will simply go away.

If there's competition people have choice and when people have choice prices will go down and service quality will go up. That's how the market should work!
 
Last edited:

aShrubbery!

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
1,024
I want to take a diarrhea dump in that stupid Reese's cup of his
THere's a reason why it's the same cup, and why you can never see what the content is. Someone else does what you were already thinking of doing.
2 guys and a cup!
 

meltdowner

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
96
Im a big fan of Ajit. I think the flak he gets is completely unwarranted. Dont let others control your feelings. Use logic first.
 

nysmo

Gawd
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
945
Everyone said that when Net Neutrality died the Internet as we knew it would die. Here we are almost thirty days later and has the Internet died? Nope. Can I still watch NetFlix? Yep. Amazon Prime Streaming? Crunchyroll? Yep and yep. So where's this Internet apocalypse? It never happened.

Hell... Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile are talking about deploying Gigabit capable 5G fixed wireless Internet access that's going to be completely upending the entire ISP marketplace in ways that Net Neutrality couldn't even hope to do. I very much imagine we're going to have a hell of a lot more choice in the coming years because of 5G wireless. You will have not only your incumbent cable company for Internet but also AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile for fixed home wireless Internet. I don't know about you but that's what I call a MASSIVE win for EVERYONE.
Well since you believe that change happens overnight whats with the delay on 5G? Like why dont they just release it tomorrow?
 

trparky

Gawd
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
971
Well since you believe that change happens overnight whats with the delay on 5G? Like why dont they just release it tomorrow?
When the hell did I say that it was going to be an overnight thing? At no time did I say that! Quit putting damn words in my mouth!

All that I meant is that in the future, perhaps in the next five to six years, we will have far more competition in the ISP marketplace which will solve most if not all of our issues. I'm not denying that we have issues but it's not from a lack of regulations, it's from a lack of competition. Solve that issue by bringing more competitors into the marketplace and the market will fix itself. And 5G has the potential to do just that. It will take time though.

I believe in a free market where there's little government intervention. Look at what ass clowns we have in Congress. Do you really want those ass clowns regulating this shit? The same ass clowns that couldn't find their own damn ass with both hands tied behind their their own fucking backs! Fuck no! Just look at what they did with healthcare with Obama Care. Good God! Healthcare was fine before they fucked it all up. It wasn't great healthcare but at least it worked. Now? LOL
 
Last edited:

triwolf

Gawd
Joined
Dec 19, 2015
Messages
708
So which amendment is it that says the government has absolute control over information? Or is it in the original text somewhere?
They hope you forget this, so they can lie and make a ton of money. It's all the rage in the world. Also they make up laws and rules and hope you don't check that there are not actually laws that they enforce. Aren't people in power nice?
 

triwolf

Gawd
Joined
Dec 19, 2015
Messages
708
I want to keep Pai around, if for no other reason than entertainment, as he triggers assholes all over the internet.

It's almost the same appeal as watching Hell's Kitchen - you don't feel bad about Gordon Ramsey being a dick, because he is bitch slapping other asswipes into the ground.

I think Pai's mug is so large because he is drinking the tears of dumb and easily misled people pissed at his decisions, because some else told them to be pissed.
Ok, I'll bite. And why would you want this? Are you a masochist? You do realize that Pai being a ridiculous dick is going to cause you lots of problems right? You are doing life wrong, you are supposed to do what is best for the group and yourself, not laugh at your and others pain. You really should reevaluate your behavior.
 

triwolf

Gawd
Joined
Dec 19, 2015
Messages
708
Everyone said that when Net Neutrality died the Internet as we knew it would die. Here we are almost thirty days later and has the Internet died? Nope. Can I still watch NetFlix? Yep. Amazon Prime Streaming? Crunchyroll? Yep and yep. So where's this Internet apocalypse? It never happened.

Hell... Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile are talking about deploying Gigabit capable 5G fixed wireless Internet access that's going to be completely upending the entire ISP marketplace in ways that Net Neutrality couldn't even hope to do. I very much imagine we're going to have a hell of a lot more choice in the coming years because of 5G wireless. You will have not only your incumbent cable company for Internet but also AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile for fixed home wireless Internet. I don't know about you but that's what I call a MASSIVE win for EVERYONE.
I hate to break it to you, they boil frogs. It will occur slowly until you pay way more for internet, but it will take a long time. At some point you will be mad, they want to charge you based on priority and all kinds of schemes to drain your wallet.
 

twonunpackmule

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
1,470
Pai is an asshole (by that mug alone), but he's right.
It would be a shitshow of epic proportions were there to be different rules for different States.
Imagine having 50 different Pai-like assholes in 50 different States making their own rules for traffic.

EDIT: I wouldn't assume for one second that if given the power, that States would be all "let's keep thing open, equal, and fair guys!"
It'll be open and fair so long as you are on the correct team/tribe.
 
Top