Net Neutrality Is Really, Officially Dead on Monday

Discussion in '[H]ard|OCP Front Page News' started by Megalith, Jun 10, 2018.

  1. Mut1ny

    Mut1ny [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,572
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2013
    I love love love love love how NN "DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER AT ALL!" yet all the ISP's...for NO REASON AT ALL apparently...were doing their goddamn damndest to GET RID OF IT.

    Now, pray tell, what stops them from charging me extra for using Netflix every month? For charging separately to access certain websites? That shit wasn't propaganda, it's real.

    So to all you Right-wing conservative nutties here how does this jive with your "it doesn't matter" attitude? Seriously. Why were they going after something so hardcore if it doesn't matter? Why are MASSIVE corporations SUING and TRYING TO GET IT BACK IF IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER?!?!

    GodDAMN some of you are so fucking blinded by political siding.
     
    Uvaman2 likes this.
  2. Mut1ny

    Mut1ny [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,572
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2013
    What a weak and pathetic response. I absolutely pity all of you that live in your own little worlds and completely ignore fucking facts. Yeah, NN isn't needed, it was just created for no reason at all.
     
  3. Nobu

    Nobu [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,592
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    It doesn't stop them from charging you extra, they can simply charge more for your internet access in the first place. Without net neutrality, it allows them to charge netflix or youtube instead of you (for a faster tunnel or whatever). The reason net neutrality is good is it prevents discrimination between different website hosts from the isps based on who can pay more, but the problem is that isn't ALL of what it did, and whatever good it did wasn't apparent (so half the populous is against it).

    I still don't know if it did any good, or if it would have done any good. I do know that without it, I won't have to pay as much for internet access, and I may have to pay more for services like netflix, youtube red, amazon prime video, and other streaming packages. It's a trade-off, one I'd rather not have to make.
     
    Armenius, thebufenator and dr.stevil like this.
  4. aaronspink

    aaronspink [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,451
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    LOL, you think they are going to give you a discount if they can charge netflix et al? LOL! That's just extra profit for them, you'll never see it in any way, they'll just increase their own margins and laugh all they way to the bank.
     
  5. penn919

    penn919 n00bie

    Messages:
    53
    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2014
    Correct. What's stopping them from charging at both ends? "Oh, you want to stream your popular content to our customers? Ok, that'll be $$$$$$$$....Oh and you there, you thought you could shortchange us by cutting cable and streaming netflix and hulu instead? LOL, that'll be $$$ more per month. Thanks all for playing."
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2018 at 9:26 AM
  6. schoolslave

    schoolslave Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    484
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    And at the same time we're monetizing your private data!

    Monthly service cost CHECK.
    Content specific cost CHECK.
    Monetize private data CHECK.
    Monetize data caps COMING SOON.
     
  7. Staples

    Staples [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,566
    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    I bet I can go back a few years and these guys were clamoring for net neutrality. Their attitude has changed because they people who pull their strings said that this safe guard was unnecessary. So obviously it is.
     
  8. Spartacus

    Spartacus [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,832
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    My ISP charges me for the bandwidth I want, that's fine. I want fast, I pay for fast.
    It should be the same for the content providers. Netflix, etc. If they want (require) fast, they can pay for fast.

    The ISPs should only charge for and deliver bandwidth. They should NOT be allowed to filter and prioritize content.

    If all that means that Netflix needs to charge more to cover their bandwidth costs then so be it.
    I don't use Netflix that much, I certainly don't want to subsidize the people that do. Let them pay for it.

    There should be minimal but enough regulation to keep both ISPs and content providers from raping the public.

    I have no idea what side of Net Neutrality that puts me on with my views. Seems like you can't trust either side.
    It would be nice if everybody just operated honestly.

    .
     
  9. Biznatch

    Biznatch [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,880
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009


    It puts you on the side of not understanding how the internet actually works between ISPs/CDNs/services. It doesn't work like that at all. What's even worse is the people responsible for passing legislation on this now that the FCC was bought, have even less understanding than this. So they are going to trust the 'industry experts' (read corporate shills) to help guide them in the process of drafting that legislation, that will in the end fuck us more. Plus they'll be sure to add some bullshit to block or require registering VPNs etc, because 'turrorists and 'think of the children'......


    And for the rest of the people laughing how it's wednesday and nothing happened while cheering 'i told you so', you're beyond naive. With all the news/uproar and states passing their own NN laws that will be challenged in court, they are sitting back quietly. Waiting for everyone to forget and the majority forget about the issue as they drool to whatever reality show bullshit they consume, then they'll start slowly. Same way you boil a frog in water, turn the heat up slowly. But when we come back with 'i told you so', we're all already fucked. So I'd much rather be wrong here.
     
    BSmith likes this.
  10. Mut1ny

    Mut1ny [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,572
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2013
    How do you know this and what makes you think it'll happen? They'll continue charging you the same and will just ADD charges on top now.

    How and why do you people think that the most greedy corporations in the world are all of a sudden going to somehow become more fair and not rip you off every chance they get??
     
  11. Darunion

    Darunion Chin Poon Specialist

    Messages:
    2,851
    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2010
    (tin foil hat on my head)

    I could see them charging less and saying it is due to NN going away. So we get all happy and forget about it, then next year start the random fees and different speedway tiered packages.
     
  12. Biznatch

    Biznatch [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,880
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009

    Because they believe F(au)X news on how NN was hurting the poor little ISPs, making them unable to invest in their network and that NN didn't exist before, so it's not needed anyway. The most watch propaganda machine that claims it's not MSM is doing one hell of a job brain washing the knuckle draggers. And no I don't watch CNN/MSNBC or any other 'news' outlets, since I'm sure that's what most of the replies will assume.
     
  13. NeoNemesis

    NeoNemesis 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,236
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    The danger of losing net neutrality is that it allows ISPs to exclude their own services (streaming or whatever) from data caps while excluding competing products. This hurts competition.
     
  14. Armenius

    Armenius [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    13,515
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    I advocate for net neutrality. The rules and regulations put in place at the FCC were not net neutrality. The net neutrality concept is simple: treat all internet traffic the same. But like always, once politicians got their hands in it they bastardized it into something it was never meant to be.
     
    thebufenator and Darunion like this.
  15. thebufenator

    thebufenator Gawd

    Messages:
    865
    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    The simple reality is that streaming media consumes a lot of bandwidth. The cost to Comcast for maintaining high speed streaming Netflix could not be passed onto to Netflix, but only to ALL Comcast susbscribers. Even those not using Netflix.

    But allowing Comcast to charge Netflix, that cost of bandwidth then gets passed on to Netflix consumers, not granny next door who does no Netflix.

    But continue the autistic screeching and wonder why Trump got elected.
     
    GoldenTiger, Sicario and Armenius like this.
  16. Darunion

    Darunion Chin Poon Specialist

    Messages:
    2,851
    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2010
    The problem is we don't hold companies to what they sell. Many companies oversell their capacity. Small numbers but what you get is ISP has a 10gbit line, they should only sell 95% of that to allow wiggle room. But what they actually do is sell lets say 400% of that under the premise that most only utilize a fraction of what they bought. The problems come is when they sell to a group of people that utilize what they bought fully. This then causes slowdowns to the entire group. Now the ISP wants to charge that to the primary bandwidth consumers blaming netflix for it and then that charge comes down to the consumers.

    The isp does this so netflix rates go up, not the consumer isp rates so you don't start looking for competition.

    If we could hold isps to what they sell that would just be better, but they would also then raise their rates dramatically to compensate the loss.

    There really is no winning scenario for the consumers.
     
  17. jpm100

    jpm100 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,913
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    There was never any restriction from Comcast scaling charges to users based on their usage. The un-even use could be passed along. Because if you consume a lot of bandwidth for a movie, you're consuming more total data as well. In fact that's probably the only way to tell, since grandma spike peak throughput to the same level, but just for a moment.

    The Real reason to charge Netflix is to double dip the customer without the average consumer knowing it and dumping the service for an alternative which are general few and crappy, if any.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2018 at 12:54 PM
  18. 777

    777 [H]Lite

    Messages:
    105
    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2015
    From reading this thread, the sky isn't blue in many people's worlds, apparently.
     
  19. Biznatch

    Biznatch [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,880
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009

    No, he got voted in by people making arguments about something they don't actually understand. That is not how the internet works.....

    Your ISP is your INTERNET provider, meaning they are your access to networks OUTSIDE of their own. That is their sole purpose. Provide the infrastructure to move bits between their network and other ISPs/backbone providers. If they wanted to pull this bullshit, they should rename to INTRANET provider. Then they can charge whatever they want for bandwidth crossing their network boundary. But they don't get to advertise as an ISP, then bitch when I'm consuming too much content from their peering networks. It's not my fault they oversubscribed their nodes on the assumption most people wouldn't use their full bandwidth. And I'm already paying for the INTERNET connection for the bandwidth I'm consuming. It shouldn't matter if it's 100% netflix traffic. I'm paying them for a 100Mb pipe to connect to other networks. That bandwidth is already paid for.
     
    schoolslave and Crosshairs like this.
  20. thebufenator

    thebufenator Gawd

    Messages:
    865
    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004

    Try pretending Netflix is on another network as well.

    Are you a network engineer?
     
  21. Spartacus

    Spartacus [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,832
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005

    Thanks professor...... :rolleyes:

    I'm an IT guy, I understand there is some complexity here.
    I was making a simple point that you seemed to have missed.



    Yes, I totally agree with you on this.

    That was really my whole point..... I'm paying my ISP for my bandwidth, let Netflix pay their ISP for their bandwidth.

    And I agree that my ISP should not care if I'm using the bandwidth I paid for by moving Netflix packets, VPN packets, or whatever.
    It's none of their business what packets I'm moving.

    I pay them for connectivity and bandwidth, that's it.

    .
     
  22. Mut1ny

    Mut1ny [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,572
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2013
    This could mean either side depending on how ignorant and right-wing you are...
     
  23. Aireoth

    Aireoth [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,121
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Internet will become cable of yesterday. This is what they wanted.
     
  24. Staples

    Staples [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,566
    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    I think the argument here (well of the rational people and you seem to be one if you support and understand the concept) is that the rules in place were only a halfway solution (it was pretty inclusive although facts are not something partisans like to acknowledge) so we should just scrap the whole thing.
    This is terrible logic. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
    If you scrap it, I want to hear a better solution. But the good folks of the hardforums are not talking about that because obviously net neutrality sucks because Trump says it does.
    Meanwhile, these guys will still complain about Comcast and their cell phone carriers. Talk about mediocrity.
     
  25. Mut1ny

    Mut1ny [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,572
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2013
    This is my take on it as well. Is what we had perfect? No, nothing ever is, let's face it. It will always be fair or unfair for each side in certain circumstances...but to just toss the WHOLE thing out because of this is ignorant and dangerous.

    Now certain people here think that since it's gone LMFAO THAT SOMEHOW THINGS WILL GET BETTER!?? I MEAN GODDAMN! It's insane. I HATE being one of those people that assume things of others but the people that look at NN as being some evil thing that needed to be tossed and are glad it's gone either literally know nothing about what they're talking about, they're just plain stupid, or they work for some ISP or all of the above.

    There is LITERALLY nothing GOOD that will come from this. It was CREATED to prevent the BAD SHIT ISP's were ALREADY doing. Like, what the fuck is so hard to understand about that???
     
  26. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,504
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    So, when you go through airport security as you travel to some other US destination, if you have a problem with the X-Ray machines you should call DHS or the DoT or the FAA maybe? Isn't the FAA supposed to manage air travel.

    Thing is, managing the nation's communications is one thing, but regulating unfair business practices is an entirely different thing isn't it?

    The FCC takes a dim view of people disrupting the airwaves, broadcasting out of approved bands, jamming people's cell phones, etc. But does the FCC get involved with the business aspect of radio stations? Does the FCC tell them what they can and can't do regarding advertising?

    If I make a deal with a big ISP to throttle my competitions speeds so my content reaches customers better, giving me an unfair business edge, is that really something for the FCC to deal with or the FTC?

    I see it as an FTC issue, and if the FTC needs additional legal authority to do it's job then I am probably going to support that. The FCC was always about regulating the physical aspects of communications systems, not what people say or do with them. I'm with Zion Halcyon on this one.
     
    GoldenTiger and Spartacus like this.
  27. dgz

    dgz [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,272
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
  28. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,504
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    There is no comparable FCC regulation in any other communications medium previously regulated by the FCC.

    Find anything like the net neutrality laws that pertains to radio broadcasting or cable television? For instance, is there any FCC regulation that says that a cable provider has to allow any other company to broadcast over their infrastructure, or that they can't prioritize one channels content over another's.

    In the case of cable TV, local franchises and localities exercise far more control than the FCC does.
    The way I see it, when two cable TV companies are looking at a buyout or merger and the deal has to pass the monopoly hurdle for approval, it's the FTC that does this, and it does it because unfair, monopolistic business practices that are predatory or anti-competitive are the FTC's play ground, by law. Law that has no less power than that which establishes the FCC's authority. So when companies work to take advantage of consumers or hamper fair competition, it's the FTC who should be involved regardless what the medium in play is. It doesn't matter if it's over the internet or over a conference table.

    EDITED: https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices
    I can't think of anything that the NN rules were supposed to cover that are not covered here and if anything has been left out than it shouldn't have been a hard thing to fix.

    The FCC essentially seized regulatory control of the internet through Title II classification and in doing this, the FCC cut the FTC's balls off because the law sets an exclusion against FTC oversight for Common Carriers while the FCC has no powers for regulating unfair business practices. But without Title II, ISPs and such loose Common Carrier protections and are again under FTC oversight.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2018 at 3:30 PM
    GoldenTiger likes this.
  29. twonunpackmule

    twonunpackmule [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,053
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    But, that's what the bill was called, "So, you obviously hate it."
     
  30. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,504
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    The NN rules did not protect against "paid fast lanes" or tiered pricing, just saying. I have heard this argument so many times and yet the FCC stated this over and again. Hell we all live with that right now. I pay X dollars for X bandwidth and most all of you do as well, and with broadband, always have.
     
    GoldenTiger likes this.
  31. Darunion

    Darunion Chin Poon Specialist

    Messages:
    2,851
    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2010
    Oh I guess I didnt state it well, i didnt say the rules did protect us from such a thing. I meant that is what is desired but that isn't what actually went into effect at any point. Like I was saying the real root problem is ISPs selling more than they can provide simultaneously, which should be stopped but like I said it would come at a cost.

    I feel like that would more so fall into the FTC jurisdiction than the FCC though but I could be wrong.
     
    lcpiper likes this.
  32. Biznatch

    Biznatch [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,880
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009
    Exactly, you have paid the fee for the bandwidth you are using. Why does it matter where it's coming from or who is providing the original content at the ISP level? The ISP is just there to connect you to the rest of the internet and transfer the data you requested. What you are saying is the equivalent of you ordering from a retailer and paying ups directly for them to deliver it to you, then they proceed to charge the retailer a shipping fee for the item you already paid them to deliver..... That makes zero fucking sense, especially since the internet isn't a physical resource they need to move.......

    Plus, Netflix is already paying for their bandwidth..... Have you ever tried to host content online? You pay for all outbound traffic. So they are paying for their outbound traffic for their CDN. Why should they ALSO have to pay each ISP for allowing that same bandwidth over the peering connections?.....



    Was a system/network engineer at my previous job. Have since moved to devops engineer.

    With the amount of data netflix pushes, I would be very surprised if they weren't using a ridiculously high end CDN that spans most of the backbone providers/networks. They even offered to put a caching device in the ISPs local datacenters for free to limit traffic being sent over their peering connections, which of course was declined. Why would they improve their competitors service if they aren't getting kickbacks?.... It's all about the money.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2018 at 3:53 PM
  33. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,504
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    You mean ISPs essentially overselling their capacity? Like promising more than they can deliver?

    I did misunderstand you, sorry.

    I think if you could reasonably show a misrepresented level of service, like you are paying for say "Gold Service", and the Gold Service tier is advertised as capable of streaming movies and music to up to four devices for the family as well as blah blah ..... And you can't stream a single show without bad buffering ..... yes, the FTC would handle a false advertising claim.
     
    GoldenTiger and Darunion like this.
  34. thejokker

    thejokker Gawd

    Messages:
    746
    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    So sorry comrade that Trump is dismantling the worker's paradise embarked upon by comrade Obama. What a tragedy that the progressive agenda will never be realized now that the unwashed masses have kissed capitalism and they like it?
     
  35. Darunion

    Darunion Chin Poon Specialist

    Messages:
    2,851
    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2010
    Correct. Yes I do feel it would be hard to prove because it is so easy to play the blame game. Just have to say that the service I am downloading from is either not capable of my full bandwidth or a hop between is not capable. It is a hard thing to regulate because it could only reliably be benchmarked from your modem to thier network. Beyond that on either side is a place full of scapegoats.

    They used to blame it on 'prime time congestion' and people just accepted that as a reason and it never should be.

    All companies do it, it is a shame really. Like overselling tickets or parking passes etc, it is just a very dishonest business practice.
     
  36. NoOther

    NoOther [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,918
    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    The problem is identifying what ISPs are overselling. Which ISPs are guaranteeing your bandwidth? They all claim you can get "up to" a certain speed. So if you don't get that at certain times, they aren't actually overselling the bandwidth, just not operating at optimum.

    Also congestion is still a problem. Even if an ISP were to undersell their bandwidth, they cannot control other ISPs bandwidth. So if you are going through another ISPs network to stream a service, you are still at the whim of the secondary ISP and not your own.
     
    Darunion likes this.
  37. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,504
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    I manage storage systems for a customer and their business units and we use Thin Provisioning and over-provision storage capacity all the time, normally the customer is completely unaware because if you do it right, they are never unable to use the capacity they believe they have.

    In short, let's say I am running 100 virtualized desktop computers and each has a single 80GB HD configured. Some people might think that we would section off 8TB for the Virtual Machines, but an OS doesn't take up all that much room, and we can push Home directories with people's desktops and My Docs, etc off onto another storage location, so if I Thin Provision the drives, essentially I am telling the system that they can grow to the size "promised", but they will only use what they are using and not carve out a lot of wasted space. And over-provisioning is simply promising more than you actually have because you know they aren't using it all and you should be watching closely what's going on so you can manage things so nobody ever has a problem.

    Hell, I can even go further, I can create a single "Golden" volume with the OS installed, and then make 100 clones which are all differential clones, meaning each individual "disk" only has the data that is different from the master (Golden volume). That approach can save a hell of a lot of space, like 100 desktops with 80GB drives might take up only 100GB at first. But over time each clone will grow. Still, normally you wind up deploying a new image for the Master (Golden volume) and all new clones long before you risk filling up your provisioned space.

    I would not doubt that the ISPs try and leverage similar approaches with bandwidth requirements, it just probably doesn't work as well as it does with storage systems.
     
    GoldenTiger likes this.
  38. aaronspink

    aaronspink [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,451
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    The FCC has been dealing with unfair biz practices for over a half century starting with the historic Hush-A-Phone and Carterphone ruling dating all the way back to 1956. This stance and regulation authority has been repeatedly upheld by congress. Part of managing a nation's communication is regulations on unfair biz practices using those communications.

    Nor is the FCC regulating pure business practices, it is regulating network management practices.
     
  39. aaronspink

    aaronspink [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,451
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Bullshit, maybe you should study some history of the telephone network a bit...


    FCC has legally mandated and enforceable rule making authority wrt communication networks. FTC does not. QED.

    You cannot seize control of what you already have control of. The FCC has broad power to regulate unfair biz practices wrt communication networks. FTC can't do shit outside of false advertisement. There powers are extremely limited and take literally decades to get through the legal system and are completely unenforceable until a possitive ruling is received. Anyone relying on the FTC for anti-trust and consumer protections is a fool.
     
  40. Nobu

    Nobu [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,592
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Was going to edit and add "may", like my other clause, but I ran out of data and had no WiFi access. Anyway, the short of it is, they won't charge more than they think they can get away with. If customers believe they can charge less for a service, and so refuse to pay (that price) for that service, then they will lower their prices. Especially, if another service or services that many of their customers use (for example, netflix) increases their subscription cost, then they may be forced to lower their service's cost to allow their lowest tier customers to afford it. If the lowest tier price drops, one can reasonably expect higher tiers to drop as well.