Net Neutrality Repeal

Hut
Profile picture for user Hut
Posts
10281
Joined
4/27/2010
Location
USA
Hut 12/15/2017 12:52pm
12/15/2017 12:52pm Edited Date/Time 12/15/2017 12:56pm
1st Amendment wrote:
I love Seattle! I actually love California to. Beautiful land with some great people but the amount of stupidity there is unbearable. But let's be real...
I love Seattle! I actually love California to. Beautiful land with some great people but the amount of stupidity there is unbearable. But let's be real, Washington State is not great because of socialism. Laughing
Though most of the farmers that gain the greatest rewards in Eastern Washington may not admit it; most would never be farming without the Columbia Basin Project. Not to mention the Public Utilities than keep the rates incredibly low.
Pretty basic examples of socialism
1st Amendment 12/15/2017 12:59pm
12/15/2017 12:59pm
akillerwombat wrote:
... since we've seen so many new host networks established for cell phones in the last 10 years.
1st Amendment wrote:
I thought we were discussing internet not cellphones
akillerwombat wrote:
Fucking hell, if you can't draw a parallel between those two IDENTICAL SERVICES, then it's not worth anyones time to debate this with you. Have a...
Fucking hell, if you can't draw a parallel between those two IDENTICAL SERVICES, then it's not worth anyones time to debate this with you.

Have a good weekend dude.
I could care less about cell phone service. I own a flip phone and don't need to be on the internet everywhere I go. Like I said before, I survived without Net neutrality for 17-18 yrs and I could survive with it. But some of you act like it's the end of mankind. Just look at the whole ordeal yesterday with some flakes triggered with some BS security scare over it.
1st Amendment 12/15/2017 1:06pm
12/15/2017 1:06pm Edited Date/Time 12/15/2017 1:07pm
Hut wrote:
Though most of the farmers that gain the greatest rewards in Eastern Washington may not admit it; most would never be farming without the Columbia Basin...
Though most of the farmers that gain the greatest rewards in Eastern Washington may not admit it; most would never be farming without the Columbia Basin Project. Not to mention the Public Utilities than keep the rates incredibly low.
Pretty basic examples of socialism
I get what you're saying and we could literally start a whole new topic off this but I'll stay on que with the OP's topic. There's other reasons Washington is a great state and it has nothing to do with socialism. Now if I talked about the problems in my state and showed factual data I'd get banned for pointing out the real problems.

BTW I don't like the traffic there. Biggest downfall there is besides the weather
Hut
Profile picture for user Hut
Posts
10281
Joined
4/27/2010
Location
USA
Hut 12/15/2017 1:08pm
12/15/2017 1:08pm
1st Amendment wrote:
I get what you're saying and we could literally start a whole new topic off this but I'll stay on que with the OP's topic. There's...
I get what you're saying and we could literally start a whole new topic off this but I'll stay on que with the OP's topic. There's other reasons Washington is a great state and it has nothing to do with socialism. Now if I talked about the problems in my state and showed factual data I'd get banned for pointing out the real problems.

BTW I don't like the traffic there. Biggest downfall there is besides the weather
It’s a big state

The Shop

See All »
JAFO92
Profile picture for user JAFO92
Posts
5732
Joined
3/21/2016
Location
BFE, TX, USA
JAFO92 12/15/2017 1:11pm
12/15/2017 1:11pm
Hut wrote:
It’s a big state
Meh, not that big. Wink Tongue
SKlein
Profile picture for user SKlein
Posts
1507
Joined
3/25/2014
Location
MN, MN, USA
SKlein 12/15/2017 1:22pm
12/15/2017 1:22pm
1st Amendment wrote:
I thought we were discussing internet not cellphones
akillerwombat wrote:
Fucking hell, if you can't draw a parallel between those two IDENTICAL SERVICES, then it's not worth anyones time to debate this with you. Have a...
Fucking hell, if you can't draw a parallel between those two IDENTICAL SERVICES, then it's not worth anyones time to debate this with you.

Have a good weekend dude.
1st Amendment wrote:
I could care less about cell phone service. I own a flip phone and don't need to be on the internet everywhere I go. Like I...
I could care less about cell phone service. I own a flip phone and don't need to be on the internet everywhere I go. Like I said before, I survived without Net neutrality for 17-18 yrs and I could survive with it. But some of you act like it's the end of mankind. Just look at the whole ordeal yesterday with some flakes triggered with some BS security scare over it.
People treat this as a big deal is because this can impact businesses as well. You're insanely dense to think because your flip phone is fine means the rest of the population should be as well.
kongols
Profile picture for user kongols
Posts
24230
Joined
9/22/2009
Location
Riga, LV
kongols 12/15/2017 1:31pm
12/15/2017 1:31pm
Is anyone naive enough to believe big companies will not exploit this?
As to "the end micromanaging internet" FCC head praises, here is something to think about. Now the rules are clear- no one can do it. Now that the law is lifted, big companies will have to go to commission on every issue they have and get a permition. That is double micromanagement + it actually creates bigger government. Chew on that.
1st Amendment 12/15/2017 2:00pm
12/15/2017 2:00pm
akillerwombat wrote:
Fucking hell, if you can't draw a parallel between those two IDENTICAL SERVICES, then it's not worth anyones time to debate this with you. Have a...
Fucking hell, if you can't draw a parallel between those two IDENTICAL SERVICES, then it's not worth anyones time to debate this with you.

Have a good weekend dude.
1st Amendment wrote:
I could care less about cell phone service. I own a flip phone and don't need to be on the internet everywhere I go. Like I...
I could care less about cell phone service. I own a flip phone and don't need to be on the internet everywhere I go. Like I said before, I survived without Net neutrality for 17-18 yrs and I could survive with it. But some of you act like it's the end of mankind. Just look at the whole ordeal yesterday with some flakes triggered with some BS security scare over it.
SKlein wrote:
People treat this as a big deal is because this can impact businesses as well. You're insanely dense to think because your flip phone is fine...
People treat this as a big deal is because this can impact businesses as well. You're insanely dense to think because your flip phone is fine means the rest of the population should be as well.
Well maybe people will go outside and play a little more instead of being drones staring into a box.
NorCal 50+
Profile picture for user NorCal 50+
Posts
1455
Joined
5/31/2017
Location
Grass Valley, CA, USA
NorCal 50+ 12/15/2017 2:49pm
12/15/2017 2:49pm
What freaks me out is what I heard on the radio-- that the internet provider can block certain sites. As if the corporations didn't have enough control already- that's insane. They will definitely take advantage of that.
But people call me crazy when I say anybody who thinks the federal government cares if they are alive or dead- is living in a matrix-type reality.
lestat
Profile picture for user lestat
Posts
1762
Joined
10/3/2008
Location
Piut, RE
lestat 12/15/2017 4:02pm
12/15/2017 4:02pm
NorCal 50+ wrote:
What freaks me out is what I heard on the radio-- that the internet provider can block certain sites. As if the corporations didn't have enough...
What freaks me out is what I heard on the radio-- that the internet provider can block certain sites. As if the corporations didn't have enough control already- that's insane. They will definitely take advantage of that.
But people call me crazy when I say anybody who thinks the federal government cares if they are alive or dead- is living in a matrix-type reality.
The free market wont be picking winners and losers anymore , the providers will . It also opens the door to different levels of censorship .
SKlein
Profile picture for user SKlein
Posts
1507
Joined
3/25/2014
Location
MN, MN, USA
SKlein 12/15/2017 4:41pm
12/15/2017 4:41pm Edited Date/Time 12/15/2017 4:41pm
1st Amendment wrote:
Well maybe people will go outside and play a little more instead of being drones staring into a box.
Yeah, people doing their job should stop exactly that and go outside to play. That's going to solve the worlds problems.
XXVoid MainXX
Profile picture for user XXVoid MainXX
Posts
8105
Joined
5/25/2012
Location
Schenectady, NY, USA
XXVoid MainXX 12/16/2017 7:27am
12/16/2017 7:27am Edited Date/Time 12/16/2017 7:44am
I would argue that traffic prioritization is absolutely necessary for a good operating Internet. For example, every company I have worked at or have dealt with prioritizes their own traffic because it's necessary. Let's say a company has a 1gbps connection to the Internet and they have 1000 users sharing that connection. The users use that pipe for several different types of communication. Email, Web Browsing, IP Phones, and the company web site. If the users are generating more traffic than that 1gbps connection can handle, what do you think happens without prioritization? Answer: Packets start getting dropped, people, start having a hard time reaching the company web site, phone calls get dropped internet browsing slows down, Email shows, although who cares, if it's a few seconds later than normal.

Now, there's a pretty easy way to solve that without actually going out and buying a 10gbps connection. You can prioritize your traffic at your routers. Company web site should be available 100%, top priority. Phone calls should never drop, 2nd or equal priority. Web browsing, 3rd priority, email 4th. Say at the highest traffic period company website only uses 10% of the total 1gbps connection, phones only use 2%, Email 3%, web browsing the other 85%. By guaranteeing the 15% bandwidth of the important things you're only slowing down a bit of the Internet web browsing, and it probably won't even be noticeable to the user. It sure will be noticeable to the customers who use your web site when it's responding 100% of the time and your employees not having their phone calls dropped.

So prioritization is important.

Similarly at the ISP level, they have to build infrastructure out capable of delivering the amount of traffic their customers want to use. I'm not a Netflix user and I don't stream any video. I just use my connection to browse the web and don't use a lot of data. I work from home and remotely connect to work over the internet and I use IP phone. I use a tiny fraction of my provider's bandwidth compared to a person who streams Netflix all night. Why should I have to pay for all the infrastructure that is required to support the Netflix users? They also should be able to prioritize IP phone traffic so calls don't get dropped when the Netflix users are hogging up all the bandwidth. That kind of prioritization most likely won't be noticeable to the Netflix users but the lack of dropped phone calls surely will be noticeable.

So far the providers are saying they don't plan to do this but I would have no problem with them charging Netflix for prioritization, which would get passed along as an increased bill to the Netflix user, which would provide the money necessary to the provider to upgrade their infrastructure, without me having to pay extra for it. Or maybe you would rather them start charging you directly for the amount of data you use? I doubt you would like that.

Pit Row

See All »
bball35
Profile picture for user bball35
Posts
326
Joined
11/20/2017
Location
Lexington, SC, USA
bball35 12/16/2017 7:31am
12/16/2017 7:31am
I know here in SC they were trying to make watching porn illegal
colintrax
Profile picture for user colintrax
Posts
4695
Joined
8/25/2015
Location
Taylorsville, GA, USA
colintrax 12/16/2017 7:38am
12/16/2017 7:38am
XXVoid MainXX wrote:
I would argue that traffic prioritization is absolutely necessary for a good operating Internet. For example, every company I have worked at or have dealt with...
I would argue that traffic prioritization is absolutely necessary for a good operating Internet. For example, every company I have worked at or have dealt with prioritizes their own traffic because it's necessary. Let's say a company has a 1gbps connection to the Internet and they have 1000 users sharing that connection. The users use that pipe for several different types of communication. Email, Web Browsing, IP Phones, and the company web site. If the users are generating more traffic than that 1gbps connection can handle, what do you think happens without prioritization? Answer: Packets start getting dropped, people, start having a hard time reaching the company web site, phone calls get dropped internet browsing slows down, Email shows, although who cares, if it's a few seconds later than normal.

Now, there's a pretty easy way to solve that without actually going out and buying a 10gbps connection. You can prioritize your traffic at your routers. Company web site should be available 100%, top priority. Phone calls should never drop, 2nd or equal priority. Web browsing, 3rd priority, email 4th. Say at the highest traffic period company website only uses 10% of the total 1gbps connection, phones only use 2%, Email 3%, web browsing the other 85%. By guaranteeing the 15% bandwidth of the important things you're only slowing down a bit of the Internet web browsing, and it probably won't even be noticeable to the user. It sure will be noticeable to the customers who use your web site when it's responding 100% of the time and your employees not having their phone calls dropped.

So prioritization is important.

Similarly at the ISP level, they have to build infrastructure out capable of delivering the amount of traffic their customers want to use. I'm not a Netflix user and I don't stream any video. I just use my connection to browse the web and don't use a lot of data. I work from home and remotely connect to work over the internet and I use IP phone. I use a tiny fraction of my provider's bandwidth compared to a person who streams Netflix all night. Why should I have to pay for all the infrastructure that is required to support the Netflix users? They also should be able to prioritize IP phone traffic so calls don't get dropped when the Netflix users are hogging up all the bandwidth. That kind of prioritization most likely won't be noticeable to the Netflix users but the lack of dropped phone calls surely will be noticeable.

So far the providers are saying they don't plan to do this but I would have no problem with them charging Netflix for prioritization, which would get passed along as an increased bill to the Netflix user, which would provide the money necessary to the provider to upgrade their infrastructure, without me having to pay extra for it. Or maybe you would rather them start charging you directly for the amount of data you use? I doubt you would like that.




XXVoid MainXX
Profile picture for user XXVoid MainXX
Posts
8105
Joined
5/25/2012
Location
Schenectady, NY, USA
XXVoid MainXX 12/16/2017 7:49am
12/16/2017 7:49am
Looks like a pretty good business. So why don't you go build yourself a better ISP than Comcast and provide all their customers with a better alternative?
early
Profile picture for user early
Posts
10109
Joined
2/13/2013
Location
University Heights, OH, USA
early 12/16/2017 7:53am
12/16/2017 7:53am
XXVoid MainXX wrote:
I would argue that traffic prioritization is absolutely necessary for a good operating Internet. For example, every company I have worked at or have dealt with...
I would argue that traffic prioritization is absolutely necessary for a good operating Internet. For example, every company I have worked at or have dealt with prioritizes their own traffic because it's necessary. Let's say a company has a 1gbps connection to the Internet and they have 1000 users sharing that connection. The users use that pipe for several different types of communication. Email, Web Browsing, IP Phones, and the company web site. If the users are generating more traffic than that 1gbps connection can handle, what do you think happens without prioritization? Answer: Packets start getting dropped, people, start having a hard time reaching the company web site, phone calls get dropped internet browsing slows down, Email shows, although who cares, if it's a few seconds later than normal.

Now, there's a pretty easy way to solve that without actually going out and buying a 10gbps connection. You can prioritize your traffic at your routers. Company web site should be available 100%, top priority. Phone calls should never drop, 2nd or equal priority. Web browsing, 3rd priority, email 4th. Say at the highest traffic period company website only uses 10% of the total 1gbps connection, phones only use 2%, Email 3%, web browsing the other 85%. By guaranteeing the 15% bandwidth of the important things you're only slowing down a bit of the Internet web browsing, and it probably won't even be noticeable to the user. It sure will be noticeable to the customers who use your web site when it's responding 100% of the time and your employees not having their phone calls dropped.

So prioritization is important.

Similarly at the ISP level, they have to build infrastructure out capable of delivering the amount of traffic their customers want to use. I'm not a Netflix user and I don't stream any video. I just use my connection to browse the web and don't use a lot of data. I work from home and remotely connect to work over the internet and I use IP phone. I use a tiny fraction of my provider's bandwidth compared to a person who streams Netflix all night. Why should I have to pay for all the infrastructure that is required to support the Netflix users? They also should be able to prioritize IP phone traffic so calls don't get dropped when the Netflix users are hogging up all the bandwidth. That kind of prioritization most likely won't be noticeable to the Netflix users but the lack of dropped phone calls surely will be noticeable.

So far the providers are saying they don't plan to do this but I would have no problem with them charging Netflix for prioritization, which would get passed along as an increased bill to the Netflix user, which would provide the money necessary to the provider to upgrade their infrastructure, without me having to pay extra for it. Or maybe you would rather them start charging you directly for the amount of data you use? I doubt you would like that.
That sounds great but the size of the conglomerates that own the major isp's and their related interests point to a direct line to prioritizing not the highest bandwidth services but the services most closely tied to the parent company, among other things. Prioritizing to improve service is one thing, prioritizing to target direct traffic is another. The FCC saying it will not interfere with how an isp directs, filters or provides traffic is a message that can end in a corporate arms race.
XXVoid MainXX
Profile picture for user XXVoid MainXX
Posts
8105
Joined
5/25/2012
Location
Schenectady, NY, USA
XXVoid MainXX 12/16/2017 7:57am
12/16/2017 7:57am
I still go back to my original comment that Net Neutrality was trying to solve a problem that didn't exist, but a "potential" problem. I don't believe that will ever be a significant problem and government should stay out of the way unless they are needed. They jumped on it too soon.
colintrax
Profile picture for user colintrax
Posts
4695
Joined
8/25/2015
Location
Taylorsville, GA, USA
colintrax 12/16/2017 7:57am
12/16/2017 7:57am
XXVoid MainXX wrote:
Looks like a pretty good business. So why don't you go build yourself a better ISP than Comcast and provide all their customers with a better...
Looks like a pretty good business. So why don't you go build yourself a better ISP than Comcast and provide all their customers with a better alternative?
You gonna fund me? I need a solid half billion to get started and be competitive.
XXVoid MainXX
Profile picture for user XXVoid MainXX
Posts
8105
Joined
5/25/2012
Location
Schenectady, NY, USA
XXVoid MainXX 12/16/2017 8:00am
12/16/2017 8:00am
XXVoid MainXX wrote:
Looks like a pretty good business. So why don't you go build yourself a better ISP than Comcast and provide all their customers with a better...
Looks like a pretty good business. So why don't you go build yourself a better ISP than Comcast and provide all their customers with a better alternative?
colintrax wrote:
You gonna fund me? I need a solid half billion to get started and be competitive.
There are a lot of billionaires out there willing to put up some venture capital for good ideas. But, how would you do it? You could go put up your own Wifi towers around the country, wait, that's already happening so you'll have competition there. You could put up your satellite network. Oh wait that's happening too. I guess the good news is you shouldn't be locked into Comcast here shortly if in fact you even are now, which I highly doubt you are.
early
Profile picture for user early
Posts
10109
Joined
2/13/2013
Location
University Heights, OH, USA
early 12/16/2017 8:05am
12/16/2017 8:05am
XXVoid MainXX wrote:
There are a lot of billionaires out there willing to put up some venture capital for good ideas. But, how would you do it? You could...
There are a lot of billionaires out there willing to put up some venture capital for good ideas. But, how would you do it? You could go put up your own Wifi towers around the country, wait, that's already happening so you'll have competition there. You could put up your satellite network. Oh wait that's happening too. I guess the good news is you shouldn't be locked into Comcast here shortly if in fact you even are now, which I highly doubt you are.
So you're saying there were new technologies in motion to enter the market and provide competiton before the repeal of the net neutrality laws? Maybe the governmemt jumped the gun.
XXVoid MainXX
Profile picture for user XXVoid MainXX
Posts
8105
Joined
5/25/2012
Location
Schenectady, NY, USA
XXVoid MainXX 12/16/2017 8:08am
12/16/2017 8:08am
Absolutely there were. In fact there has always been competition as I've mentioned already. The thing is, the "best" option for a lot of people is Comcast. It's not their "only" option.
colintrax
Profile picture for user colintrax
Posts
4695
Joined
8/25/2015
Location
Taylorsville, GA, USA
colintrax 12/16/2017 8:17am
12/16/2017 8:17am
XXVoid MainXX wrote:
There are a lot of billionaires out there willing to put up some venture capital for good ideas. But, how would you do it? You could...
There are a lot of billionaires out there willing to put up some venture capital for good ideas. But, how would you do it? You could go put up your own Wifi towers around the country, wait, that's already happening so you'll have competition there. You could put up your satellite network. Oh wait that's happening too. I guess the good news is you shouldn't be locked into Comcast here shortly if in fact you even are now, which I highly doubt you are.
Trying to imply I'm lying when you can look up what isps are out here. Att, comcast, and hughsnet if you honestly consider that an option. And with att trying to buy comcast.....
FYI I never said comcast was my only option.
https://www.highspeedinternet.com/ga/taylorsville

I'll do it the Google way with fiber. Half billion please
el moto diablo 12/16/2017 9:39am
12/16/2017 9:39am
ISPs should have the right to charge large internet companies like Netflix and Amazon more for the use of their network. These companies are turning it around and feeding you the line that you are going get throttled and denied service. This is a fight between the ISPs and dedicated content providers. The ISPs and telecoms are bearing the brunt of the cost for upgrades and new builds. Just to give you an idea of how costly it is Google scaled back their Google fiber project to almost nothing after capital costs got too high. Net neutrality was hardly neutral, it was favoring one side of the industry over the other under the guise of being pro consumer. The consumer is going to benefit because of right-of-way access. The big telecoms are looking to expand fiber networks in major cities all across the country in order to be able to do this municipalities are making them cut deals to provide public WiFi and more services like smart cities. What the consumer needs to be concerned about is that there's available competition. With 5G and other options coming even rule customers will have more choices because decent internet service will be available through means other than cable.
kongols
Profile picture for user kongols
Posts
24230
Joined
9/22/2009
Location
Riga, LV
kongols 12/16/2017 9:45am
12/16/2017 9:45am Edited Date/Time 12/16/2017 9:54am
I get my internet from my cellphone service. 4G router or whatever you call it. Sold my city apartment with optic fiber 500 Mbit/s internet. Now I have 30 Mbit/s and it`s enough for work and daily browsing. 9 bucks a month, unlimited data.
My phone bill for two phones (mine and my sons) with unlimited data and calls all over Europe is 30 bucks a month.

Post a reply to: Net Neutrality Repeal