• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Net Neutrality ruling leading to data caps from service providers

danarhea said:
I have ATT, and yes, I have a cap. It's 150 GB per month. It's enough for everything I want to do. I believe their concern is piracy via torrents. There are some people who have terrabytes of pirated material they make available to others, and for them, running over 150 GB is pretty damn easy to do.
Click to expand...

Dana, I break 150 Gigs by day 10. No thieving torrents here.
 
CMPancake said:
Since no one in their right mind believed that ISPs should further slam consumers with artificial prices they are now finding another way to slam consumers with artificial prices. This is just a short term money grab before the FCC's ruling allows for actual competition in Internet service.
Click to expand...

I have metered internet. I have 10GB for satellite and 10GB for cell. If I exceed the satellite limit they slow me down until the month ends. If I exceed the cell service limit, they charge me more. Welcome to the real world. There are always negative consequences to government meddling in business.
 
dimensionallava said:
If infrastructure is the problem then why dont the cities and states build the infrastructure their citizens want, in order to have better access to the internet, in the major cities, and if a private company wants to expand into rural areas it can.
Click to expand...

I don't live in a city. The cost of making wired internet available to everyone is beyond what is possible for state government to undertake. The private companies certainly won't do it. I make my living on the internet and I've fought this problem since the world wide web appeared.
 
SocialD said:
What it is purely a cost/profit barrier to internet service providers vs a potential cost/profit barrier to steaming services like Netflix. Any other thing that you think net neutrality is is simply the fanciful imaginings of people who haven't a clue about the tech business world.
Click to expand...

Do you even know what Net Neutrality is or how you benefit from it?
 
SocialD said:
So last Month the court ruled in favor of a white house backed position on net neutrality

A federal appeals court Tuesday upheld a White House-supported effort to make internet service providers treat all web traffic equally, delivering a major defeat to cable and telephone companies.
Court upholds Obama-backed net neutrality rules - POLITICO

This month we have a host of articles regarding Comcast, Centurylink, AT&T and other providers implementing and changing data caps.
This is something I saw coming and have told people this would be the alternative. If you cant put limits on the providers of high bandwidth services ( Netflix, Hulu etc etc.. ) then they ( the ISPs ) are going to throttle the end user.
Several articles talking about whats going on below including the last one which talks about a straight up usage based broadband.

Currently ( what providers have already implemented this month ) are extra fees if you go over your data ranging from $30 to $100 dollars more per month depending on your usage or the particular providers method.
I question whether the fight was worth it.

Comcast?s Netflix Deal Could Open a New Front in Net Neutrality War | WIRED
https://consumerist.com/2016/07/19/...in-charging-you-for-going-over-your-data-cap/
CenturyLink charges data overage fees, may disconnect ?excessive? users | Ars Technica
Usage-Based Broadband Picks Up More Steam | Multichannel
Click to expand...


Sorry for the spoilers everyone.

I said from the onset that Net Neutrality will screw up ISP QoS, and they will make up for it with data caps.

ISP QoS was responsible for ISP "burst" speeds that they sold their bandwidth on. Essentially the aggregated maximum potential speed of each customer's equipment far exceeds the maximum bandwidth of the trunk it is connected to. Because of this the ISPs have to limit the data usage per user is one of several different ways. QoS (quality of service) tools have long been responsible for managing this traffic flow. Essentially, if you access the internet during slow hours, when bandwidth is available on your given trunk, the ISP would increase your speed beyond your licensed bandwidth. This is also done with internet content providers to some extent.

Now that Net Neutrality (which is a non-sequitur) is in place there isn't suddenly enough bandwidth to support everyone all the time. The physical limits are still there. The ISPs can no longer be as creative with their QoS in how that bandwidth is split up on demand, and will now have to adopt a rationing scheme much like cellular service does where you get a set amount of data at your desired speed, and then drastically diminishing bandwidth after you hit your maximum. We'll still have all the same bottlenecks at peak hours but it will now effect everyone equally at the cost of higher prices and less service.

Yay! Thanks everyone for pushing the dumbest of all internet management options!
 
SocialD said:
I'm aware of how long its been going on. I worked for a major telecom from 2003-2008 and there was talk of it then.
Click to expand...

So how in blazes does this get blamed on net neutrality?
 
jmotivator said:
Sorry for the spoilers everyone.

I said from the onset that Net Neutrality will screw up ISP QoS, and they will make up for it with data caps.

ISP QoS was responsible for ISP "burst" speeds that they sold their bandwidth on. Essentially the aggregated maximum potential speed of each customer's equipment far exceeds the maximum bandwidth of the trunk it is connected to. Because of this the ISPs have to limit the data usage per user is one of several different ways. QoS (quality of service) tools have long been responsible for managing this traffic flow. Essentially, if you access the internet during slow hours, when bandwidth is available on your given trunk, the ISP would increase your speed beyond your licensed bandwidth. This is also done with internet content providers to some extent.

Now that Net Neutrality (which is a non-sequitur) is in place there isn't suddenly enough bandwidth to support everyone all the time. The physical limits are still there. The ISPs can no longer be as creative with their QoS in how that bandwidth is split up on demand, and will now have to adopt a rationing scheme much like cellular service does where you get a set amount of data at your desired speed, and then drastically diminishing bandwidth after you hit your maximum. We'll still have all the same bottlenecks at peak hours but it will now effect everyone equally at the cost of higher prices and less service.

Yay! Thanks everyone for pushing the dumbest of all internet management options!
Click to expand...

What do you mean there "suddenly" isn't enough bandwidth to support everyone all the time? QoS tools weren't made illegal by net neutrality.

Every person railing against net neutrality seems to wildly misunderstand what it even means.
 
Helix said:
data caps would happen with or without net neutrality because the ISPs can make money off of it. i still fully support net neutrality, and so should everyone else who enjoys sites like DP not being relegated to the slow lane.
Click to expand...

A site like DP will never be regulated to the "slow lane". Which doesn't even technically exist for sites like this. As SocialD mentioned Net Neutrality is mainly for streaming content and that's what the fight boils down to.

We don't use enough traffic. We barely post videos. The site is 90% text based. We are a fly on the wall compared to what other sites do. This is not bashing DP it's just the reality of our standing among internet giants who said this would affect everybody. HINT: They lied to get sympathy votes, but it was really a half-truth to prop up their own importance. "It will affect everyone." Meaning everyone who uses THEIR services.
 
Deuce said:
Every person railing against net neutrality seems to wildly misunderstand what it even means.
Click to expand...

Why is this the go-to defense for people who are for Net Neutrality? Everybody has a different viewpoint on what NN was supposed to accomplish but what it really was about was Billion dollar companies fighting with other billion companies about content rights.
 
Deuce said:
What do you mean there "suddenly" isn't enough bandwidth to support everyone all the time?
Click to expand...

Please reread what I said. I said that the lack of sufficient bandwidth isn't sudden. It has been the case forever. QoS methodologies have been used to balance access to the internet to maintain a free flow of traffic across saturated circuits.

QoS tools weren't made illegal by net neutrality.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that either. I said that the methods of QoS now have to change to meet Net Neutrality requirements. The QoS that is being adopted is data caps like we see with mobile services because more sophisticated bandwidth management schemes that offer variable bandwidth based on aggregated utilization is no longer allowed in the manner we have been using for decades.

Every person railing against net neutrality seems to wildly misunderstand what it even means.
Click to expand...

I've been doing this for 20 years, Deuce, I know what Net Neutrality is. I think a lot of people have been fooled into believing Net Neutrality is something it isn't because they read something extremely misleading on Vox or TPM and took it as gospel. This is why I was able to tell people when this all started that data caps were the future under Net Neutrality and TADA! That is where we are.
 
jmotivator said:
Please reread what I said. I said that the lack of sufficient bandwidth isn't sudden. It has been the case forever. QoS methodologies have been used to balance access to the internet to maintain a free flow of traffic across saturated circuits.



I didn't say that either. I said that the methods of QoS now have to change to meet Net Neutrality requirements. The QoS that is being adopted is data caps like we see with mobile services because more sophisticated bandwidth management schemes that offer variable bandwidth based on aggregated utilization is no longer allowed in the manner we have been using for decades.



I've been doing this for 20 years, Deuce, I know what Net Neutrality is. I think a lot of people have been fooled into believing Net Neutrality is something it isn't because they read something extremely misleading on Vox or TPM and took it as gospel. This is why I was able to tell people when this all started that data caps were the future under Net Neutrality and TADA! That is where we are.
Click to expand...

Show me the regulation that made you stop doing a particular bandwidth management method.

If you have been "doing this for 20 years," surely you're aware that data caps were popping up before net neutrality.
 
Deuce said:
Show me the regulation that made you stop doing a particular bandwidth management method.

If you have been "doing this for 20 years," surely you're aware that data caps were popping up before net neutrality.
Click to expand...

Not to mention lawsuits for breach of contract for same.
 
jmotivator said:
I've been doing this for 20 years, Deuce, I know what Net Neutrality is. I think a lot of people have been fooled into believing Net Neutrality is something it isn't because they read something extremely misleading on Vox or TPM and took it as gospel. This is why I was able to tell people when this all started that data caps were the future under Net Neutrality and TADA! That is where we are.
Click to expand...

From the looks of this thread people are still fooled by the very billion dollar companies that spread pro-NN propaganda in the first place. Isn't it funny that the tier system this was supposed to prevent is still being interpreted as legal by all branches of the government? Billion dollar content acquisition deals still go on along with high profile telecom mergers. From the Pro-NN groups one would have been led to believe that NN would have prevented all this in the name of "fairness."
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Show me the regulation that made you stop doing a particular bandwidth management method.
Click to expand...

Per FCC.gov

* No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
* No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind—in other words, no "fast lanes." This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates.

I'm not sure why you are challenging me on this when you have no apparent functional knowledge of the subject.

If you have been "doing this for 20 years," surely you're aware that data caps were popping up before net neutrality.
Click to expand...

Data caps have been the preferred method with wireless providers since the phone market exploded because phones, unlike home internet, don't have dependable peak and valley usage like a home internet does. A home internet provider can depend on no usage during the day when a customer is at work, or the ebb and flow between the home use and office use. Phone use is harder to predict and pipes are smaller so they were forced into the data cap system by the nature of the business.

Variable home use is a perfect market for the kind of QoS that Net Neutrality just ended.
 
Last edited:
ModerateGOP said:
From the looks of this thread people are still fooled by the very billion dollar companies that spread pro-NN propaganda in the first place. Isn't it funny that the tier system this was supposed to prevent is still being interpreted as legal by all branches of the government? Billion dollar content acquisition deals still go on along with high profile telecom mergers. From the Pro-NN groups one would have been led to believe that NN would have prevented all this in the name of "fairness."
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was the "transparency" argument that really drove the sub-par billing system that we will be getting now.

The issue according to the idiots is that idiots who pay for internet with "burst" speeds up to 100mb will never really know when they are and when they aren't getting that speed so it isn't fair and "transparent". They may be throttled at times in favor of prioritized traffic, don't you know, poor dears... So now we get internet billing for idiots where we all buy blocks of data per month in the name of "transparency". It still does nothing for poor performance during peak hours, though, because it doesn't magically increase the bandwidth.
 
So, bet nutrality easnt the miracle cure we were told it would be?
 
jmotivator said:
It still does nothing for poor performance during peak hours, though, because it doesn't magically increase the bandwidth.
Click to expand...

And it never will. Wait? Are you telling me website content creators don't know a thing about data and bandwidth?? Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Though, that didn't stop them ALL from creating scary propaganda campaigns in order to lull people into the strange cadence that became a rallying cry for "internet fairness" or worse, "Internet freedom." The useful idiots who love to trash the telecoms didn't even begin to think about the beast they were creating and now that it's here no one can honestly say what good came out of it all.

Try searching success of Net Neutrality and all you'll come up with are idealistic articles about how great it is that the law got passed. It's been a couple of months since then and they got no examples about how good it ACTUALLY is...
The reality is much more bleak for those people who supported NN. Nothing really different will happen to the throttle aspect of things. Except I guess Verizon et al, had to have a few more meetings to discuss new tiers for home use. Which will make them more money in the long run anyway.

The concept of NN, to treat all data fairly is so laughable that I find it hard to believe that it was taken as serious as it was, and still is, but we have Donald Trump as a Presidential Nominee now so...
 
Last edited:
ModerateGOP said:
Net Neutrality was always an appeal to an emotional communist view of the world. The problem most of these pro-NN groups had was that they didn't understand data and how it works. It can't be regulated like the Net Neutrality laws say. There is just soo much in the law and it is way too broad with more loopholes than swiss cheese.
Click to expand...

But it gives them a way to exercise power. Its not about achieving anything, but acquiring power, using it as leverage.
 
ModerateGOP said:
Why is this the go-to defense for people who are for Net Neutrality? Everybody has a different viewpoint on what NN was supposed to accomplish but what it really was about was Billion dollar companies fighting with other billion companies about content rights.
Click to expand...

Just ignore them. 'youre ignorant' is not an argument. When they actually post an argument then we can respond.
 
ModerateGOP said:
A site like DP will never be regulated to the "slow lane". Which doesn't even technically exist for sites like this. As SocialD mentioned Net Neutrality is mainly for streaming content and that's what the fight boils down to.

We don't use enough traffic. We barely post videos. The site is 90% text based. We are a fly on the wall compared to what other sites do. This is not bashing DP it's just the reality of our standing among internet giants who said this would affect everybody. HINT: They lied to get sympathy votes, but it was really a half-truth to prop up their own importance. "It will affect everyone." Meaning everyone who uses THEIR services.
Click to expand...

And so what if it was? We could pay more for service, or choose another ISP, or find another way to share information. We dont get 2 day shipping for free either.
 
CMPancake said:
Since no one in their right mind believed that ISPs should further slam consumers with artificial prices they are now finding another way to slam consumers with artificial prices. This is just a short term money grab before the FCC's ruling allows for actual competition in Internet service.
Click to expand...

Congress needs to give the FCC the same power over cable networks that it has over telecomms, seeing as SCOTUS ruled (I believe) that it does not have the same power and therefore could not order cable companies to share cable they'd layed. (In contrast, it can and did force telephone companies to share lines they had previously put up).

If that happened, there would be real competition and cable networks would get around to upgrading their aging infrastructure. They wouldn't need to put in caps on bandwidth because if they upgraded properly, there'd be a hell of a lot more to go around.
 
dimensionallava said:
If infrastructure is the problem then why dont the cities and states build the infrastructure their citizens want, in order to have better access to the internet, in the major cities, and if a private company wants to expand into rural areas it can.
Click to expand...

843d61893bb44421fb6b22e5472f3064.png


My city did.
 
apdst said:
So, bet nutrality easnt the miracle cure we were told it would be?
Click to expand...

I've seen this movie before.

  1. Existing private system does fairly well, vat majority customers receive what they pay for, and fairly satisfied with they they get for their money
  2. A few with little more than theoretical and / or academic knowledge says the system isn't fair, start complaining
  3. The complaining grows louder until the government can't ignore it any longer
  4. The governmnet, also have no more than a theoretical and / or academic knowledge of the technologies involved dictates how it's going to be from then on
  5. The government passes their 'solution' into law, claims it the best thing since sliced bread, and forces it on an unwilling market (the complainers have disappeared by then never to be found again)
  6. The government solution, not being based on any sort of technical reality, completely distorts the market forcing market players to change their business
  7. The market players change their business and the bill comes due. Surprise! It now costs more than it did before, and fewer customers are satisfied
  8. Those that started the complaining can't be found and / or never admit they complained in the first place
  9. Everyone's pissed off and complains that they are paying for and getting less = government in action
Last time something of this significance was when the government broke up Bell, and created the RBOCs (Regional Bell Operating Companies). Same thing then. Prices went up, and customer satisfaction went down. In the intervening years, the Bells have reformed themselves into fewer larger companies, if not a single large company. In fact, the most successful RBOC bought AT&T in recent years, and renamed itself at&t.

When are we going to learn to leave well enough alone, and especially leave the government OUT of it?
 
eohrnberger said:
I've seen this movie before.

  1. Existing private system does fairly well, vat majority customers receive what they pay for, and fairly satisfied with they they get for their money
  2. A few with little more than theoretical and / or academic knowledge says the system isn't fair, start complaining
  3. The complaining grows louder until the government can't ignore it any longer
  4. The governmnet, also have no more than a theoretical and / or academic knowledge of the technologies involved dictates how it's going to be from then on
  5. The government passes their 'solution' into law, claims it the best thing since sliced bread, and forces it on an unwilling market (the complainers have disappeared by then never to be found again)
  6. The government solution, not being based on any sort of technical reality, completely distorts the market forcing market players to change their business
  7. The market players change their business and the bill comes due. Surprise! It now costs more than it did before, and fewer customers are satisfied
  8. Those that started the complaining can't be found and / or never admit they complained in the first place
  9. Everyone's pissed off and complains that they are paying for and getting less = government in action
Last time something of this significance was when the government broke up Bell, and created the RBOCs (Regional Bell Operating Companies). Same thing then. Prices went up, and customer satisfaction went down. In the intervening years, the Bells have reformed themselves into fewer larger companies, if not a single large company. In fact, the most successful RBOC bought AT&T in recent years, and renamed itself at&t.

When are we going to learn to leave well enough alone, and especially leave the government OUT of it?
Click to expand...

It has nothing to with actually making anything better. Its nothing more than an assault on private businesses. I wonder how many of Obama's tech buddies will make billions off this.
 
It's always funny to see people who know nothing about net neutrality try to tell people why it's bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom