aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
No it isn't dissimilar and it did exist with the force of law. Maybe you should do some research why the 2015 order came about...
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
The FCC Has Repealed Net Neutrality
- Thread starter Megalith
- Start date
No it isn't dissimilar and it did exist with the force of law. Maybe you should do some research why the 2015 order came about...
Chupachup
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2014
- Messages
- 435
Has anyone yet read about Mark Hamill laying Ted Cruz out like womp rat regarding Net Neutrality?
Oh sure they'll compete but on what playing field? Why doesnt Comcast just offer all the premium channels + sports packages for $20/month? They'd crush the competition if they did right? So why not? Because there's an equilibrium that is eventually established amongst their competitors that sets what pain threshold consumers will tolerate. Hell Comcast/ATT probably have some secret handshaking going on under the table just to fix prices/services so as not to be competing with each other too hard. So now the only competition that exists between major TV providers is just a few free months of HBO and maybe a $10 swing here or there on your bill and thats about it.
You seem to think that a pre-NN era will reign supreme and that with competition we'll get better services, but what you're failing to recognize is that ALL of the isp's will inevitably fall into the same tiered internet structure once people are conditioned to it. NONE OF THEM want a non-discrimination clause in how they offer services, all the way down to the regional ISP's that service certain neighborhoods. They'll all realize how much more lucrative it is to sell people on zero-rated plans, especially since most people probably only visit a handful of websites anyway. Why pay $75/month for 300mbps and access to billions of URL's when all you do is read reddit and facebook? You could buy that for $20/month.
When that mom n' pop shop ISP fantasy springs up in your neighborhood how are you going to get any customers when big ISP is undercutting your margins with cheap tiered packages? They'll have no choice but to do the same, especially if their reliance upon peering contracts exist with Comcast anyway, who will GLADLY screw them because hey, no fucking regulation anymore eh?
Wow.
I came into this thread expecting to find outrage over the repeal of NN.
Instead all I got were mostly right wing nuts talking about left wing fascism (god, stop reading and following that retard Dinesh D'souza who is just mega butt hurt cause he got indicted for campaign finance fraud), and "government imposed" limitations on the internet.
Like honestly, what the fvck?
The above quote just pisses me off. Big business do not want JUST money. They want influence, power, control. The repeal of net neutrality is about being able to control and influence what you can have access to, how much you have to pay to get it, and being able to limit all of the above.
Businesses are neither responsive nor, more importantly, accountable to customers. They're accountable to stakeholders and profits. Government entities are accountable to the people.
The unfortunate reality is that its hard to argue with a point like "faceless entrenched bureaucracy with no accountability" because this is exactly what happens when corrupt politicians who have no business being in politics are elected and appointed by crony capitalists masquerading as presidents, senators, and congressmen. Aka, corporate sluts.
The CT, CBO, FCC, FEC, SEC etc are supposed to help enforce accountability. These are(were) bipartisan groups that are(were, again) designed to operate in good faith.
Unfortunately, Republicans shifting so far to the right and embracing corporate interests over the past ~20 years have really thrown a wrench into this.
Republicans always come into office and dismantle and break the branches down, they repeal regulations and laws, they leave positions un-filled, and they just do all sorts of awkward sh!t that contribute highly to the inefficiencies and problems they so proudly love to point and laugh at.
But hey, make america great again right?
I came into this thread expecting to find outrage over the repeal of NN.
Instead all I got were mostly right wing nuts talking about left wing fascism (god, stop reading and following that retard Dinesh D'souza who is just mega butt hurt cause he got indicted for campaign finance fraud), and "government imposed" limitations on the internet.
Like honestly, what the fvck?
The above quote just pisses me off. Big business do not want JUST money. They want influence, power, control. The repeal of net neutrality is about being able to control and influence what you can have access to, how much you have to pay to get it, and being able to limit all of the above.
Businesses are neither responsive nor, more importantly, accountable to customers. They're accountable to stakeholders and profits. Government entities are accountable to the people.
The unfortunate reality is that its hard to argue with a point like "faceless entrenched bureaucracy with no accountability" because this is exactly what happens when corrupt politicians who have no business being in politics are elected and appointed by crony capitalists masquerading as presidents, senators, and congressmen. Aka, corporate sluts.
The CT, CBO, FCC, FEC, SEC etc are supposed to help enforce accountability. These are(were) bipartisan groups that are(were, again) designed to operate in good faith.
Unfortunately, Republicans shifting so far to the right and embracing corporate interests over the past ~20 years have really thrown a wrench into this.
Republicans always come into office and dismantle and break the branches down, they repeal regulations and laws, they leave positions un-filled, and they just do all sorts of awkward sh!t that contribute highly to the inefficiencies and problems they so proudly love to point and laugh at.
But hey, make america great again right?
Last edited:
Message received loud and clear comrade. Do you favor a Stalinist or Maoist solution? It's completely irrelevant that the American Free Enterprise model created the internet. It's completely irrelevant the highly centralized, socialistic, state regulation of industry, politcal model you are suggesting is associated with oppressive totalitarian states.
There internet was doing just fine before NN. If you don't like Comcast there is Direct PC or AT&T. The last thing in the world I want is progressive SJW's poisoning the internet with their own unique brand of bigotry and oppression. More and more people are "woke" to the insidious nature of the progressive agenda. More and more people want a de-centralized federal government and more power to State and local governments. Ending NN is a step in that direction.
VanGoghComplex
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2016
- Messages
- 2,286
In your own words, what exactly do you think Net Neutrality does? Specifics, please. Technical specifics, if you can muster them, and that probably means you won't be able to parrot your favorite right-winger in your answer: none of their hot air contains any mention of what NN actually does.
PinchedNerve
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2008
- Messages
- 354
So MH talks "Jedi", then gets pissy when he's called "Luke", and The Washington Examiner selectively leaves out the part where Ted Cruze, out Jedi, and re-educates Luke Skywalker .
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-attacks-Mark-Hamill-net-neutrality-feud.html
Do you even know what NN is? It's a preservation measure. You say the internet was doing just fine? GREAT, LETS KEEP IT THAT WAY.
PinchedNerve
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2008
- Messages
- 354
Don't shoot the messenger. See if this satiates you.
https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/-/5-2060848/?page=2&anc=69627481#i69627481
VanGoghComplex
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2016
- Messages
- 2,286
Can you cite a source for Lyin' Ted's claim re: "the FCC declared power to regulate everything said & done on Internet."So MH talks "Jedi", then gets pissy when he's called "Luke", and The Washington Examiner selectively leaves out the part where Ted Cruze, out Jedi, and re-educates Luke Skywalker .
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-attacks-Mark-Hamill-net-neutrality-feud.html
I'll admit I haven't made much of a dent in reading the full document, but so far nothing in the NN laws says anything about regulating internet content - it only seeks to regulate ISPs.
VanGoghComplex
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2016
- Messages
- 2,286
Looks like my kind of forum. While that was technically rich and I thank you for sharing the link, I don't see how it applies to the argument. Maybe I need to read it again.
Without NN, consumers get screwed. With NN, consumers still get screwed, but a little less.
Last-mile carriers are regional monopolies with tremendous power to throttle, accelerate, or outright block content, and being regional monopolies, they have little incentive not to do those things where it suits their potential for profit.
Vermillion
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,414
Actually if you go back and read Hamill wasn't talking about being called Luke. He was talking about how Cruz couldn't spell his twitter handle correctly.
Cruz didn't educate anybody on anything. He's a toolbag shill trumpeting the same bullshit as all the others right now. While again ignoring the fact that the 2015 rules replaced 2010 rules. So we have not rolled back to 2015. We have rolled back to 2010 and given the ISPs the power to fuck us all.
Rolling back NN does NOTHING to help competition as it doesn't open up the last mile to anybody so local monopolies will still exist with no end in sight. My in-laws in Bethany Beach, DE will forever be stuck with Mediacom. My parents will be forever stuck with horrible CenturyLink cable in Moyock, NC and so on and so forth.
Tossing out the NN rules without actually fixing the problem means that only the ISPs benefit. There will be no competition because you can't just drop fiber and turn on a new network like many in here think.
In theory net neutrality prohibits internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon from speeding up, slowing down or blocking any content, applications or websites you want to use. In theory it's a nice idea that is hard to argue with. However "we" see how progressives have corrupted the IRS and FBI and NN empowers progressives to corrupt the internet. As an alternative I support reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government and increasing the power of State and local governments. I guess it is a huge shock to progressives that many, many people regard evil corporations as a lesser evil than a progressive run federal government.
Ending NN ensures neither political party can control the internet to further it's agenda...
NN is government control of the internet instead of control of the internet by free market forces. It's a slippery slope towards the politicization of the internet.
VanGoghComplex
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2016
- Messages
- 2,286
You're missing the point by a mile. If ISPs are allowed to block, throttle, or accelerate customer connections to certain websites or content, that OPENS THE DOOR for them to be bought by the government to control the dissemination of information.
You keep saying "control the internet," just like your Republitard puppet masters keep saying. It's disingenuous because they say "the internet" in a vague reference to the CONTENT of the internet, which NN never sought to regulate. NN seeks to restrain SERVICE PROVIDERS from interfering with the CONTENT of the internet (y'know, where the free market and freedom of speech lives!) in order to advance their bottom line.
The whole reason for this is that internet service providers are MONOPOLIES, and the checks and balances imposed by free market competition do not apply to them. This gives them considerable power to control the delivery of internet content without fear of losing market share.
NeoNemesis
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2004
- Messages
- 2,466
It's a ban on a very specific set of actions and is designed to promote an equal playing field. It is no different than antitrust laws and is NOT a slippery slope.
Also, the free market isn't actually free in this instance because the telecoms don't compete. The barriers to entry into this market are astronomical due to high fixed costs and in some instances people have no choice w/ regards to which ISP they use.
VanGoghComplex
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2016
- Messages
- 2,286
Are you certain you quoted the right post?
You might want to tone down the rhetoric about who you accuse of acting like a totalitarian regime. If democracy was relevant to the process, net neutrality wouldn't be in question since the public largely supports it. Allowing a small group of corporate executives to make their own rules is actually far more "Maoist" than anything being proposed by those who favor a fair playing field.
The internet was doing fine largely because the FCC has always had wide ranging authority to enact a regulatory response when ISPs inevitably start meddling with their customers' content. Net neutrality is about keeping the internet the same. The last thing I want are empty suits creating a tiered system model so they can squeeze us at every turn for no other reason than to increase corporate profits.
Are you certain you quoted the right post?
Haha fixed that.
chockomonkey
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 8,328
And I feel you keep missing the point of the other side of this debate. We all agree there's a problem, we only differ on how to handle it.
So we have this issue with monoplies in the ISP business.
Unlike many, I don't see the solution to this problem lying in government regulation. After all, it was the government which had a big part in creating our current problematic circumstances.
Rather, I'd much prefer the breaking up of these monopolies, shortly followed by actions to promote more private investment into this sector.
Or, you know, we can keep piling shit on top of shit
Like I was suggesting, right now, "government regulation" is an unfortunate double edged sword. I get that. Bipartisan entities are currently corrupt with highly partisan individuals that are backed by campaign contributors and lobbyists. They have vested interests in doing whatever those aforementioned want. So we won't get regulation we'll get partisan favoritism that benefits the wealthy at the end of the day. It's kind of a pipe dream at this point I admit but it can be a thing again if we ever get rid of all these old white farts in power who just want to own and control everything.
Also I don't get what your point is in how the "government had a big part in creating our current problematic circumstances"...the internet was created in the public sector and control of it should be retained by that sector. The internet originated around 1960, spent 35 years in the public domain during the hard creative development period, and then was privatized in 1995. But Washington is not a system of public control, it is a system of corporate control. The internet ought to be free and in public control.
Last edited:
VanGoghComplex
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2016
- Messages
- 2,286
How do you propose to "break up the monopolies?" The only way to have competition in the ISP market is to have multiple providers on the same technology. Basically, you need another cable provider to compete with an existing cable provider.
Even IF there were no shady backroom deals between municipal governments and existing cable providers, it would STILL be economically impossible for another provider to enter the market. They would have to fund the building of a second infrastructure, and they couldn't do that without charging much higher prices than the incumbent provider.
Someday, wireless broadband will probably be robust and developed enough that you could blanket a city with signals from a dozen different providers, each offering at least comparable (and thus competitive) broadband internet service. But we're not there yet. As it stands, every broadband provider in a given area has monopolistic control due to the infrastructure.
NoOther
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 6,468
I haven't read this entire thread, but wanted to quickly summarize something here. In the United States we have actually never had NN to begin with. What we had was a poor bastardization of some old rules to apply only to backhaul carriers and not to last mile ISPs. This is a problem on a number of levels and may be been corrected by some additional legislature that never got passed.
The truth is that NN is only good if the government actually controls the backhaul, which they do not. Adding to the problems of NN are the existence of CDNs, which increase traffic in certain areas creating uneven demand for bandwidth. With Title II, this basically meant that companies like Netflix, Google, and Facebook were able to make themselves backhaul providers for free without having to pay the other backhaul providers for unequal demand. Prior to that, these companies made agreements with the backhaul carriers like L3, Verizon, AT&T, etc. They paid for the access cost of unequal bandwidth delivery, just like L3, Verizon, AT&T, etc had agreed upon between each other for access over their networks. So Title II did not actually improve anything, except blind the consumer to what is going on and paint a false picture. It is the reason why many backhaul carriers decided to slow down upgrades. After all, why would they upgrade their systems to enable Netflix/Google/Amazon/Facebook/etc? I would argue that this is more a temporary thing than a permanent and a removal of Title II is not really going to spur that much innovation until this whole mess gets sorted out.
So basically what article is implying is Netflix, Google, Amazon, Facebook and other content providers bamboozled the government into giving them free unequal bandwidth across the backhaul where previously there was already a model in place to cover that. There was no extra cost to the consumer for this, there were some occurrences of supposed "throttling". Some of that was actually happening and some of it was Netflix/Google/Amazon saturating the link causing existing load balancing methods to take place and try to correct the saturation. This comes across as throttling since it ends up being similar. To keep lanes from being saturated, you have to block traffic. If one source is sending too much traffic, that is the source you end up blocking. Essentially the same kind of thing you do to protect against DDoS, since saturation provides the same net effect of many DDoS attacks.
Also there is a misconception that Title II saves the consumer money. That is a false presumption. There is nothing stopping ISPs from charging you more for their service, except competition. But if all the ISPs now have greater costs for providing that service, they are still going to increase their rates. People bring up the charging for specific services, but that did not happen pre-2015, the backhaul's had setup methods for CDNs to pay for additional cross connect services, they did not charge the consumer for that content. The fact that the content providers started this fight by pushing for "NN" and Title II has now opened the doors for the backhaul carriers to fight back. Although people's perception will now be that the ISPs are the evil ones rather than the content providers.
TL;DR
Content providers (Netflix/Google/Amazon/Facebook) did not want to pay the cost to play like everyone else in the backhaul.
Content providers convinced government to create new rules to allow them to play for free at the expense of backhauls.
Government is stupid and create Title II based on outdated language and did not include all ISPs, only backhaul.
Backhauls slowed innovation because they did not want to pay out of their own pockets to support Content Providers or other last mile ISPs.
FCC Chief wishes to fix problem by removing legislature.
Mass Hysteria erupts over false perceptions about what is going on.
If you really want NN, the government needs to buy out all the backhaul technology (MASSSIVE expenditure that the taxpayers will have to absorb). Then the government can regulate that bandwidth appropriately for last mile ISPs and Content Providers. But in this country you are likely never ever going to see Net Neutrality. Nor are you likely to see it anywhere else, because true NN means the backhaul has to absorb a huge growing cost for infrastructure. There needs to be some negotiation between Content Providers and Infrastructure providers to share some of the cost. And it isn't fair to say a small content provider should share an equal cost as a large content provider who saturates the bandwidth. This again was the whole reason for peering agreements. The peering agreements should be updated for the current climate, as should regulation of the internet as a whole. Title II did not do that, it was a hack job. Something better needs to be put in place now.
aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
And how do you break up these monopolies? Splitting them into smaller regional companies provides no relief. The only other option is to split them vertically. But that doesn't prevent most of the sketchy stuff either nor does it provide competition. So, even if you do a vertical split, it is still going to require government regulation of the dumb pipe providers similar to gas, water, and powerline delivery providers.
The reality is that the market for internet service providers tends towards a natural monopoly at the local level just like with water, power, and gas.
aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
Your entire argument is basically founded on falsehoods. Content providers already paid for backhaul. The point of contention was at the local interconnect level. Title II ISP classification specifically affected local/last mile providers (AKA ISPs), not backhaul/transit providers. In every case, the transit providers had sufficient bandwidth, it was only the local/last mile/ISPs who were throttling.
VanGoghComplex
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2016
- Messages
- 2,286
NoOther
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 6,468
Depends on your area. But competition really has nothing to do with this. Title II doesn't affect the competition point. With or without Title II, lack of competition will still lead to higher prices for you.
No competition amongst LINs.
VanGoghComplex
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2016
- Messages
- 2,286
There's no competition anywhere. There may be multiple ISPs in an area, but they are all based on different infrastructure technologies and thus, do not compete. To say that they do is a little like saying a $50-a-plate hibachi steakhouse competes with McDonald's on the basis that they both serve food.
NoOther
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 6,468
I generalized some information, but did not specifically state any falsehoods. I basically included broadband services with backhaul, which is essentially what the rewriting to Title II did. But, I would challenge you to actually go through and read Title II. It does not apply to all ISPs, only broadband and common carrier. The problem is how ISPs are defined in language elsewhere and then used by Title II. There was actually en effort to get Title II to apply to all ISPs, but that was shot down. There was another effort to put something more effective than Title II, that was also shot down. Again the problem is that Title II is based on old language that hasn't been properly updated for the times. This was known when they first brought it together.
As for your claims about the throttling and what is going on, I would challenge you to look into many of those throttling incidents. There are many misconceptions about the whole thing. And both Verizon and AT&T were accused of throttling and they are backhaul providers. They were accused of throttling between their exchanges.
aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
And more BS. You specifically stated falsehoods arguing that netflix et al didn't pay for backhaul/transit when they very specifically did pay to backhaul and transit. And no that isn't essentially what Title II did. The only ISPs that exist for all practical purposes are broadband providers. And by court ruling for the FCC to have authority to enforce NN, they had to be defined as Title II. That's not being shot down, that's merely legal fact. And Title II is fine, the language is fine.
And that article is basically once again 99% ISP apologist BS. I've looked into many of those throttling incidents and they all boil down to ISPs behaving badly. Neither Verizon nor AT&T were being used as backhaul providers when they were involved in throttling. Both Verizon and ATT's backhaul/transit divisions are largely run separate from their ISP businesses.
Before NN the internet was growing and thriving. There is absolutely nothing to suggest returning to that state will negatively effect the internet. NN implies a distrust of private companies and corporations. Those who support the free enterprise system similarly oppose NN. Marxism is associated with increasing totalitarianism while the free enterprise system has created the wealthiest and most technological advanced nation in the history of the world. NN like marxism sounds beneficent but history warns us to be wary...
VanGoghComplex
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2016
- Messages
- 2,286
There, fixed it for you.
NoOther
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 6,468
I am sorry, but are you actually reading everything I wrote or just perusing. Because I specifically mentioned that Netflix did at one point pay. Your assertion that the only ISPs that exist are Title II is false. They aren't by a long shot. There are many ISPs out there that are not considered broadband. The language for Title II is not fine or there wouldn't have been several measures to adjust it. They rushed through Title II as a response because of the court ruling between FCC and Comcast. They worked on separate legislation after that was completely shot down, and they tried to revise Title II to apply to all ISPs and that was shot down.
I have also looked into a lot of the throttling incidents and they are not all about ISPs behaving properly, some were automated throttling from saturation like I said. I worked in the field of traffic monitoring and remediation for a number of years and have seen what happens when bandwidth gets quickly filled. For instance March Madness. March Madness is basically the same as a DDoS attack on company networks because of the amount of ppl that stream. The company's specifically filter based on that content because of the saturation. Even companies that allow their employees to stream, still throttle it to protect the core network.
As for AT&T and Verzion not 'being used as backhaul', that is not true. When Verizon got called for throttling Netflix, it was first triggered by a saturation alert on their exchange between themselves and AT&T, which started a feud between the companies, but then became an issue with Netflix. This prompted AT&T and Verizon each to confront Netflix about their saturation levels and how to improve them. This in turn prompted Netlix to come up with a solution where they would take their CDNs and rent space at the exchanges from the companies based on usage similar to the peering agreements between themselves. Netflix fought this almost all the way but did not want to be throttled so they caved.
So no, I am not providing falsehoods or BS. I have been involved in some of these situations and not from the side of the ISPs or backhauls.
Don't be surprised that Legere announced this the day before the FCC Vote.
aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
And when was that? Before 2015? Nope, NN was an FCC rule from at least 2010. Prior to 2005? Nope, the majority of the ISPs were under not only Title II but also Local Loop Unbundling. The internet has basically been under NN for 99% of its lifetime.
Also the US isn't a free market or free enterprise system. The US is a regulated market economy.
NoOther
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 6,468
Actually the internet has never been under NN. What it has been under is a bunch of various loosely regulated legislation. That is the problem here, we have never actually had NN and somehow people think it is all going away. Even without Title II there is still a bunch of regulatory legislation in place.
Also the US is very definitely a free market / free enterprise system. Free does not mean there is no regulation and regulation does not directly oppose freedom.
TwistedAegis
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 8,958
The "money shot" is about to get much, much more literal.
TwistedAegis
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 8,958
So VOIP companies blocked by Verizon, because they didn't want competition to their mobile services, weren't "legit"?
A host of small sites, blogs, startups, etc, seeing their costs skyrocket to be able to be viewed at similar speeds as competitors is a good thing?
Enabling massive rent-seeking is a capitalist free-market dream? Gimme a break.
It's actually funny - seeing a huge corporation make a shit ton of money and questioning that isn't socialist/communist. Profits are a sign of an inefficient market, in a true capitalist system you would have very low profits - any enterprise that profitable should see competitors enter the market and drive down margins.
Here is Adam Smith, the economist who coined the "invisible hand" of the market in "Wealth of Nations", had to say in regards to the need for regulation:
Last edited: