Page 9 of 24 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 233

Thread: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

  1. #81
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:16 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,670

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    Up to this point we are in agreement.

    But you lost me here. I simply don't trust the government in this role. I recognize, as you do, how important the Internet is for the future, and I can't see anything but bad things with government's fingers in it.



    Yeah, that's probably true.



    Who's hated more? The telephone company. LOL. The government too.
    I think you've got me there, at least when it comes to congress. At least the cable company pretends to care.

    I don't trust the government either. Fortunately I don't have to in this case. We're not talking about some government bureaucrat going into the ISPs switching station router's firmware and "investigating". But I think that individual providers should have some legal recourse if they're being extorted.

    This is a graph of the average user's connection speed to Netflix by provider. The one to note is Comcast. In October 2013 Comcast was trying to get Netflix to sign a peering deal. Basically, that means that Comcast wanted netflix to pay money additional money to connect directly to individual Comcast ISPs. ie instead of You<->ISP<->INTERNET<->NetFlix... it would instead be just You<->ISP<->Netflix. This is how Google and several other companies have an internet "fast lane". It's actually part of Google's SOP, using large quantities of cheap distributed computing instead of more massive centralized servers.

    What was different here is that Comcast purposefully delayed packets coming from the internet if their header originated from a Netflix IP. After the negotiations concluded and Netflix agreed to peer with comcast, their connection speed went back to what it should have been. That's not a healthy business practice.



    If Netflix decided that the connection through the internet wasn't fast enough, then I don't have a problem with companies choosing to run direct connections to the individual IPs in order to better serve their customers. And I don't have a problem with Comcast charging them extra for it. That's all fine in Net Neutrality.

    Net Neutrality deals with the "FIFO-ness" of packets. That's why essentially everyone in tech wants it. It helps to prevent ISPs from sabotaging emerging content providers.

  2. #82
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,262

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    From what I have read over the last few years, it is actually the private telecommunications companies that are wanting to screw people not the government per say. The whole Netflix thing is a power grab by the ISPs pure and simple. They refuse to expand their capacity to meet demand and must find alternatives to keep that demand down. On way is to slow down Netflix or other services, and hence force Netflix to pay more for content delivery.. this means the ISP not only makes your Netflix more expensive, but it is actually already taking far more from you as the consumer for what it is delivering... because the same rules also apply to you. In your contract it most likely says "unlimited" but in the small print it will clearly state "unless you use effects the quality of service of all".. which in geek speak means.. if you download too much, then we reserve the right to throttle you instead of expanding capacity. Comcast has been caught in doing it a few times.

    What these internet companies want is a tiered pay system, so you pay to get access to Youtube and Netflix and that they dictate what sites you can visit..... that is something everyone should be fighting against, because that will mean even higher prices for internet services.

    Now saying that, instead of "net neutrality", he could just force open up the market instead and you watch how fast the big companies stop their power grab when suddenly the have to actually compete. The US already has some of the highest prices for internet access in the industrialized world and it comes down to lack of competition. And because of this lack of competition, the tele companies think (and can) dictate quality of service and basically screw over the consumer on a daily basis as we have seen with Netflix. That Verizon was allowed to slow down Netflix and say it was not (utter lie)... just shows how much power these 4 or so main internet providers have in the US.
    Doesn't the US govt typically fund upgrades to the main backbone of the Internet infrastructure, or at least subsidize the providers?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  3. #83
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,826
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    I think you've got me there, at least when it comes to congress. At least the cable company pretends to care.

    I don't trust the government either. Fortunately I don't have to in this case. We're not talking about some government bureaucrat going into the ISPs switching station router's firmware and "investigating". But I think that individual providers should have some legal recourse if they're being extorted.
    Agreed. Content providers shouldn't be extorted to avoid a delay to their traffic.

    However, once the government is involved, the only tendency for the bureaucrats is to continue to exert and grow their influence. It's just the nature of that beast.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    This is a graph of the average user's connection speed to Netflix by provider. The one to note is Comcast. In October 2013 Comcast was trying to get Netflix to sign a peering deal. Basically, that means that Comcast wanted netflix to pay money additional money to connect directly to individual Comcast ISPs. ie instead of You<->ISP<->INTERNET<->NetFlix... it would instead be just You<->ISP<->Netflix. This is how Google and several other companies have an internet "fast lane". It's actually part of Google's SOP, using large quantities of cheap distributed computing instead of more massive centralized servers.

    What was different here is that Comcast purposefully delayed packets coming from the internet if their header originated from a Netflix IP. After the negotiations concluded and Netflix agreed to peer with comcast, their connection speed went back to what it should have been. That's not a healthy business practice.
    Agreed. This is most certainly bad behavior from Comcast. I'm not disputing that it isn't. I question what the most effective, and least impactful means for discouraging this sort of thing from the ISPs. Some are arguing that the FCC Net Neutrality regulation is the way to do it. Of this, I'm less certain, specific to the convers about government involvement in the Internet, ISPs, and content providers. It wasn't all that long ago when the FCC had the Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.[1]
    . . .
    Formal revocation


    In June 2011, the Chairman and a subcommittee chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, both Republicans, said that the FCC, in response to their requests, had set a target date of August 2011 for removing the Fairness Doctrine and other "outdated" regulations from the FCC's rulebook.[49]
    On August 22, 2011, the FCC formally voted to repeal the language that implemented the Fairness Doctrine, along with removal of more than eighty other rules and regulations, from the Federal Register following a White House executive order directing a "government-wide review of regulations already on the books", to eliminate unnecessary regulations.[1]
    Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Liberal programming wasn't able to effectively compete in the marketplace of ideas, Air America (radio network) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, so this was used to make the conservative programming carry their burden, and yet get their message out. The same mentality applied to the Internet? I say No!


    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post


    If Netflix decided that the connection through the internet wasn't fast enough, then I don't have a problem with companies choosing to run direct connections to the individual IPs in order to better serve their customers. And I don't have a problem with Comcast charging them extra for it. That's all fine in Net Neutrality.

    Net Neutrality deals with the "FIFO-ness" of packets. That's why essentially everyone in tech wants it. It helps to prevent ISPs from sabotaging emerging content providers.
    Disinformation campaign? The Russian collusion meme pushed by the 'news' media, behaving as a political propaganda organ, hell bent to destroy a legitimately elected president to implement his agenda per the votes of the same electorate. Reference The Big Lie Reference Goebbels

  4. #84
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:16 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,670

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    Agreed. Content providers shouldn't be extorted to avoid a delay to their traffic.

    However, once the government is involved, the only tendency for the bureaucrats is to continue to exert and grow their influence. It's just the nature of that beast.



    Agreed. This is most certainly bad behavior from Comcast. I'm not disputing that it isn't. I question what the most effective, and least impactful means for discouraging this sort of thing from the ISPs. Some are arguing that the FCC Net Neutrality regulation is the way to do it. Of this, I'm less certain, specific to the convers about government involvement in the Internet, ISPs, and content providers. It wasn't all that long ago when the FCC had the Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Liberal programming wasn't able to effectively compete in the marketplace of ideas, Air America (radio network) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, so this was used to make the conservative programming carry their burden, and yet get their message out. The same mentality applied to the Internet? I say No!
    I understand the antipathy and mistrust for government. There are plenty of examples of government overreach. It's human nature, unchecked power will always overreach.

    But this isn't just limited to government. Businesses over-reach as well. Most of the time the market self regulates. But sometimes it doesn't. That's why we have anti-trust and patent law. Net Neutrality is more like those.

  5. #85
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:28 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,976

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue_State View Post
    Name one program where the government hasn't overreached. It is in the government's nature to overreach.
    National parks
    SNAP
    Bank regulations
    Divorce laws
    Allowing AT&T to operate as a monopoly for decades
    Balkans military intervention

    And of course, we can cite lots of examples where self-regulation utterly failed. Here is today's example!
    Banks Fined For Manipulating Foreign Exchange Currency-Trading Market - Business Insider

    And let's not forget the LIBOR manipulation, or astounding examples of mortgage fraud in the mid 2000s, or the havoc wreaked by opaque derivatives, or labor abuses, or e.coli outbreaks or....

    The reality is that we need regulation. Some of it can overreach, but a lot of it doesn't, since the only reason any regulation ever gets put in place is because someone pushed legislators hard enough to overcome corporate resistance.

  6. #86
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:28 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,976

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    Agreed. Content providers shouldn't be extorted to avoid a delay to their traffic.
    Then who should stop ISPs from extorting service/content providers?


    Agreed. This is most certainly bad behavior from Comcast. I'm not disputing that it isn't. I question what the most effective, and least impactful means for discouraging this sort of thing from the ISPs.
    Uh huh

    So the alternative you offer is....?

    By the way, keep in mind that the US government basically set up ICAAN and its predecessor organizations, since the Internet grew out of DOD projects / ARPANET. The Department of Commerce still technically controls the root servers. The idea that the US government had or has nothing to do with the Internet is, to put it mildly, incorrect.


    It wasn't all that long ago when the FCC had the Fairness Doctrine....
    1) Net Neutrality is very different than the Fairness Doctrine.
    2) What's wrong with the Fairness Doctrine?

  7. #87
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,826
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Then who should stop ISPs from extorting service/content providers?



    Uh huh

    So the alternative you offer is....?
    I think that pushing the response to the lowest level of government is the best move. So at the municipality level. Should that not prove to work sufficiently, then it'd be time for the FCC to step in. Each of the ISP / TV providers needs to have an agreement and support with the local municipality. So that'd be the first point of contact between the end user, government, and the ISP. Of course, individual law suits are always an option as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    By the way, keep in mind that the US government basically set up ICAAN and its predecessor organizations, since the Internet grew out of DOD projects / ARPANET. The Department of Commerce still technically controls the root servers. The idea that the US government had or has nothing to do with the Internet is, to put it mildly, incorrect.
    No, that's 100% correct. And it struck me as really odd, that Obama's government gives up the technical naming and addressing responsibility for the Internet, yet wants to inject the government into the regulation of content management (perhaps to prioritize government content uber alles in the future? Hmmmm)

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    1) Net Neutrality is very different than the Fairness Doctrine.
    2) What's wrong with the Fairness Doctrine?
    As I said, unable to compete in the marketplace of ideas, liberal radio fell flat on it's face, and if I recall on a number of different instances. Hence the fairness doctrine, where programming was regulated and manipulated to make sure that the liberal perspective received equal mention.

    Isn't that media manipulation as well?

    Glad that wisdom arrived on scene to dismiss it. Any attempt to force such a thing back into media is a step down the wrong path, IMHO. You want equal mention? Be successful in the marketplace of ideas, and you will.
    Disinformation campaign? The Russian collusion meme pushed by the 'news' media, behaving as a political propaganda organ, hell bent to destroy a legitimately elected president to implement his agenda per the votes of the same electorate. Reference The Big Lie Reference Goebbels

  8. #88
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,217

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    National parks
    SNAP
    Bank regulations
    Divorce laws
    Allowing AT&T to operate as a monopoly for decades
    Balkans military intervention

    And of course, we can cite lots of examples where self-regulation utterly failed. Here is today's example!
    Banks Fined For Manipulating Foreign Exchange Currency-Trading Market - Business Insider

    And let's not forget the LIBOR manipulation, or astounding examples of mortgage fraud in the mid 2000s, or the havoc wreaked by opaque derivatives, or labor abuses, or e.coli outbreaks or....

    The reality is that we need regulation. Some of it can overreach, but a lot of it doesn't, since the only reason any regulation ever gets put in place is because someone pushed legislators hard enough to overcome corporate resistance.

    Regulations based on false narratives were responsible for corrupting the Housing market.

    The Government decided that the decades old standards used to vet lenders were innately discriminatory.

    The Government then subsidized securities fraud on a unprecedented scale and created a near systemic collapse by co-opting the GSEs into buying massive amounts of worthless debt.

    The implicit Government guarantee of securities that were backed with worthless assets allowed out Housing Bubble to extend out into the worlds capital markets.

    The GSEs were the primary consumer of Securities backed by Subprime loans and created demand for a toxic product

    When REAL regulations were attempted it was the Democrat Party that opposed them right up until the GSEs were declared insolvent holding over 5 Trillion dollars in debt.

    Its understandable why some people would question new Regulatory actions by a party that substantial hand in creating the Subprime Bubble.

  9. #89
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:28 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,976

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    I think that pushing the response to the lowest level of government is the best move. So at the municipality level.


    I'm sorry, but that's patently absurd. A city with 40,000 residents is not going to have the resources, experience, know-how, or weight to make a big cable company do anything.

    The ISPs would also crap a brick at the mere idea of negotiating with 10,000 municipalities, even if they got their way most of the time.

    Next...?


    Should that not prove to work sufficiently, then it'd be time for the FCC to step in.
    There's no way it's going to work. So let's just skip it, and have the FCC do what it's supposed to do.


    No, that's 100% correct. And it struck me as really odd, that Obama's government gives up the technical naming and addressing responsibility for the Internet, yet wants to inject the government into the regulation of content management (perhaps to prioritize government content uber alles in the future? Hmmmm)
    They're basically letting ICAAN do the work, and reserving the ability to step in if it's ever necessary.

    More importantly is that the government has been involved with regulating and managing the Internet since before day 1, and doing so does not necessarily result in "overreach."


    As I said, unable to compete in the marketplace of ideas, liberal radio fell flat on it's face....
    OK, but what does that have to do with the Fairness Doctrine or Net Neutrality?

    The Fairness Doctrine basically just meant that broadcasters had to set aside some time for political topics, much in the same way they were required to set aside some time for children's programming. It did not require any broadcasters to carry material by Air America.


    .....Hence the fairness doctrine, where programming was regulated and manipulated to make sure that the liberal perspective received equal mention.
    Please. It did as much to ensure conservative voices as it did liberal ones.

    When broadcasting was a scarce resource, it made more sense. Now that there are substantially more channels for discussion and distribution, it isn't really necessary anymore.


    Glad that wisdom arrived on scene to dismiss it. Any attempt to force such a thing back into media is a step down the wrong path, IMHO. You want equal mention? Be successful in the marketplace of ideas, and you will.
    Net neutrality has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine.

    Oh, and "equal mention" (i.e. Equal Time rule) is not the same thing as the FD, and also has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.

    NN has nothing to do whatsoever with political content. Nothing, nada, zilch, zippo. All it's about is ensuring that ISPs act like utilities, and treat all the data that crosses their lines as equal.

  10. #90
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 04:17 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,032

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post


    I'm sorry, but that's patently absurd. A city with 40,000 residents is not going to have the resources, experience, know-how, or weight to make a big cable company do anything.

    The ISPs would also crap a brick at the mere idea of negotiating with 10,000 municipalities, even if they got their way most of the time.

    Next...?



    There's no way it's going to work. So let's just skip it, and have the FCC do what it's supposed to do.

    .
    Yeah. talk about massive inefficiency! yeesh!

Page 9 of 24 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •