Net Neutrality

[bUU]

There is no doubt that net neutrality supporters will be disappointed with whatever the FTC and FCC do now, since that is invariably going to be driven by the reality of the situation, which includes the revocation of the net neutrality provisions, and the actual definitions what words like Monopoly and terms like Restraint of Trade, rather than these personal definitions that net neutrality supporters may have.

The real question is whether or not there is true progress, and true progress must necessarily come in the form of net neutrality supporters realizing they need to change their overall perspective on business, commerce and economics in order to justify the kinds of company behaviors that they wish were the standard. Or perhaps they'll realize that there is a cost to such changes, in terms of their perspective of the impact on the overall, and therefore those changes are not worthwhile from their standpoint even though they are necessary to bring about the kind of changes they want in these small sectors.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bUU ...Or perhaps they'll realize that there is a cost to such changes, ....

I think just about everyone here supporting NN has been upfront about costs - if I'm going to stream 24/7, then sure, if we want our ISP to be a 'pipe', and not charge the sources, I will need to be charged more than the person who checks their email and the weather twice a day. It is realized. And accepted.

You keep putting up straw men.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bUU ...in terms of their perspective of the impact on the overall, and therefore those changes are not worthwhile from their standpoint even though they are necessary to bring about the kind of changes they want in these small sectors.

I do think it is worthwhile to have NN. Other issues can be dealt with separately.

-ERD50

[bUU]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 I think just about everyone here supporting NN has been upfront about costs - if I'm going to stream 24/7, then sure, if we want our ISP to be a 'pipe', and not charge the sources, I will need to be charged more than the person who checks their email and the weather twice a day. It is realized. And accepted.

I was referring to costs in terms of the ramifications of applying the same legal logic to non-essential products and services beyond just Internet service. The point, which I've already made clear previously, is that you are advocating for treatment for this one non-essential that is not even afforded to other, more critically essential, products and services.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 You keep putting up straw men.

Hardly. I keep relaying the reality of the situation, which you happen not to like. You made clear that don't like that net neutrality is gone. You don't like what may result from the revocation. By contrast, rather that projecting that what I like will become reality, my comments, which you don't like, fit with the actual reality. More importantly, things going forward are going to fit with what I've said, and not with what you've said. You don't believe that. I'm okay with that. All we can say at this point is that time will tell. Repeated efforts to claim your wishful thinking will prevail over both status quo and how such things work with other commodities seems like beating a dead horse.

[Chuckanut]

I was just thinking about the current situation with Amazon and Google in regards to how big corporations act even if it hurts the consumers of their products.

Amazon will not allow the sale of Google Home products (like those that compete with the Echo). Type in Google Home on Amazon and you get a list of Echo devices, nothing from Google.

Google won't let the YouTube app run on Amazon's tablets as of January 1 next year.

IMHO this is something to consider.

[retiredunder50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gerntz So far I haven't heard anyone say how they've been affected by NN one way/other, only what might be. There metered use approach sounds like a good idea that neither way - open/nn - deals with.

Netflix was basically forced to pay a premium to Comcast to have their traffic properly stream: https://www.wsj.com/articles/netflix...ing-1393175346
That cost obviously gets passed on to customers.

Verizon recently admitted to throttling: https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/21/1...ality-title-ii

The bottom line for me is that I effectively pay my ISP for a pipe of bandwidth. How I fill it is my concern. If the major internet service providers cannot compete with other video content providers on cost, then they need to get out of content delivery business.

[Hamlet]

Here's something I've been thinking about that hasn't really been brought up in this thread--

We've been focused on the endpoints in this discussion, but there are typically multiple intermediate providers involved when you connect to something on the internet.

Say I want to stream something from Netflix in CA from my home in MN. I pay my local ISP ( in this case Comcast) and Netflix pays their provider (say Cox for argument's sake). The traffic may end up traversing other ISP's to get between us (say Verizon and AT&T for arguments sake).

It's not just Cox and Comcast that have the potential to interfere with my reaching Netflix. Verizon and AT&T may also see an opportunity to extort a little extra money out of me as well. I suspect that we may end up having to pay off each hop in the path to get to the content we want without NN.

Actually, I suspect that Comcast and Time Warner will quickly abuse their customers ( like the scorpion on the frog, it is their nature ) by trying to prevent them from reaching services in competition with their own. I think the screaming of those customers will result in a relatively quick return to NN. I'd put the over under at about 2 years before the ISPs manage to anger enough people that we return to NN.

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bUU I was referring to costs in terms of the ramifications of applying the same legal logic to non-essential products and services beyond just Internet service. The point, which I've already made clear previously, is that you are advocating for treatment for this one non-essential that is not even afforded to other, more critically essential, products and services. Hardly. I keep relaying the reality of the situation, which you happen not to like. You made clear that don't like that net neutrality is gone. You don't like what may result from the revocation. By contrast, rather that projecting that what I like will become reality, my comments, which you don't like, fit with the actual reality. More importantly, things going forward are going to fit with what I've said, and not with what you've said. You don't believe that. I'm okay with that. All we can say at this point is that time will tell. Repeated efforts to claim your wishful thinking will prevail over both status quo and how such things work with other commodities seems like beating a dead horse.

I actually cannot remember you saying anything on what you like about NN going away.... care to say again?

[sengsational]

Quote:

Originally Posted by retiredunder50 The bottom line for me is that I effectively pay my ISP for a pipe of bandwidth. How I fill it is my concern. If the major internet service providers cannot compete with other video content providers on cost, then they need to get out of content delivery business.

You, and 98% of the other unique comments posted when the FCC asked for feedback.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hamlet I'd put the over under at about 2 years before the ISPs manage to anger enough people that we return to NN.

Yeah, something like that. Cable was different. This time, we've all experienced what it's like not to have to buy bundles just to get the one TV show you want. As soon as they start doing that, there will be a stampede on Washington. Might be NN, might be something else, but I doubt people will take it sitting down.

[retiredunder50]

If we really had a healthy choice of multiple suppliers of high-speed internet service, then we might easily be able to deal with the ISPs who start charging tolls and employing throttle techniques to competitor content. However, the nation is pretty much set up with either a monopoly or duopoly choice in terms of local providers. Technology that was developed partially with government R&D dollars and some of the infrastructure that was laid via the approved collection of fees/taxes is basically considered, for business purposes, to be mostly under control of the local ISP. For their part, the big name companies have a long history of weasel practices, overpriced service, and the deserved worst customer service ratings. People already do complain frequently to utility boards, consumer protection agencies, and on social media, and yet, the ISPs are always well represented in the top 10 or 20 worst companies to deal with. Expansion of public municipal networks have been fought off by telecoms and cable provider companies. The US invented the internet and we pay the 7th highest (out of 90 countries) for broadband access. Something is broken. It might be OK to get rid of net neutrality if we can fix what is broken first.

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-livin...ings?itemId=33

[meierlde]

Here is a link to an interesting web site that will tell you by zip code about internet service providers in the zip code including what percent of the area is covered. https://decisiondata.org/internet-pr...-code-plus-tv/
If I take the zip code where I used to live in Houston, there are 2 fiber 3 dsl and 2 other wired providers. Plus the cell companies (although not feasable if you like to stream), As well as the satellite internet provide. Now of course some services are only offered in some addresses but it does look like in general there are at least 2 fixed ISP's in these zip codes (I also checked where I used to live in MI and my sisters address in NM) typically it is the old local exchange telephone operation and the cable company. In addition of course if you live in a single family house there are the satellite operations and suposedly when 5g wireless comes out it will be as fast as some of the wired options, giving folks at least 2 more options.

[bUU]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud I actually cannot remember you saying anything on what you like about NN going away....

That's my point: What I like - and what you like - doesn't matter. You're going on and on about something that has no relevance to how things are or is going to be. I'm not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sengsational You, and 98% of the other unique comments posted when the FCC asked for feedback.

And yet look what happened.

[Dawg52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bUU That's my point: What I like - and what you like - doesn't matter. You're going on and on about something that has no relevance to how things are or is going to be. I'm not. .

So basically there is no point in this thread or forum for that matter.

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawg52 So basically there is no point in this thread or forum for that matter.

You've been a member of this forum for 12 years and just now figured this out?

[bUU]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawg52 So basically there is no point in this thread or forum for that matter.

On the contrary, considering the matter practically and pragmatically has greater value than considering it otherwise. What "point" is there is tilting against windmills? None. However, recognizing the true "enemy" and turning one's attention toward that has great value. The point I've made a couple of times is that ISPs are the windmills. What is it that people *want*? Read through the comments in this thread and if you have any mind for business you can come to understand clearly what people want: They want more affordable and unencumbered Internet service. We even have had people highlight the ideal they're looking for, citing certain parts of Europe, for example. So if you want a "point" to the thread - i.e., something actionable - then logically that means understanding what happens *there* that doesn't happen *here*. That's why I cited the subsidies. I have also highlighted other distinctions of *there* that aren't present here, such as a more pervasive atmosphere of regulation over business, in general, that in turn fosters a more pervasive atmosphere over ISPs. This is a practical and pragmatic view of the matter. It doesn't get lost in what we wish were true. It doesn't try to figuratively hang service providers in effigy to slake some baseless antipathy. It recognizes that the service providers aren't doing anything wrong. They're doing precisely what they should be doing given the way we have crafted our society and economy. And more importantly, it doesn't lead people toward wasting energy on getting upset at service providers when they aren't the problem.

[devans0]

There is a huge discrepancy between what's advertised as available and what is actually delivered. For example 100G is in 100 % of my area but they are down for days at a time in my area, any rain within the last 24-48 hours? Nope.

What we get is 12 - 20 meg. Service people have been out eight times, even re-laying cable lines, to very little improvement. The last one said he could not get an ok signal from our distribution hub.

Any site with pop ups hijacking our screen, logjams and prevents use for a couple minutes. $80 a month for that service! No. But this is the provider I get.

[bUU]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bUU You've really hit on something there: The underlying lack of understanding by many consumers. Of course, throttling refers to intentional slowing of an Internet service to implement a QoS policy, not the natural slowing of an Internet service due to the service reaching its capacity. However, as you said, consumers would mistakenly presume that it is something that their service provider is "doing to them" that should not be "done to them" rather than just a normal, to-be-expected reflection of maxing out a shared resource, in the context of the terms and conditions that express mass-market Internet service performance in terms such as "Actual speeds vary and are not guaranteed."

Quote:

Originally Posted by devans0 There is a huge discrepancy between what's advertised as available and what is actually delivered.

This was discussed earlier in the thread. It isn't the case. What's advertised is, as indicated above, "Actual speeds vary and are not guaranteed." What I think you're pointing out is that you don't want such exculpatory clauses to be legal. That would be nice, but it isn't the way things are, nor the way things are trending. Again, we're back into the same situation I've been discussing with Dawg52 and Texas Proud: There is no reason why Internet service should work the way we want it to work, given that other non-essential services don't work that way.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bUU Quote: Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post I actually cannot remember you saying anything on what you like about NN going away.... That's my point: What I like - and what you like - doesn't matter. You're going on and on about something that has no relevance to how things are or is going to be. I'm not.

That is not an answer. And not a surprise.

And it reminds me why I hesitate to engage with you, it's almost always goes this way. Bye-bye.

-ERD50

[devans0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by meierlde Here is a link to an interesting web site that will tell you by zip code about internet service providers in the zip code including what percent of the area is covered. https://decisiondata.org/internet-pr...-code-plus-tv/

I followed a third party rating to see my coverage. Getting .001 of the service promised "up to" at a fraction of the time of what is promised as 24-7 is not even close. DSL is far faster. The same providers of cable are providing the same level of service as they do to subscription TV customers.

I disagree that internet is an optional device any more. My income depends on having some reliability of service, and I doubt that I am alone in this, even on this forum. as such, my ability to generate income tax is affected. My taxes funded the invention of the internet, my state taxes paid for the lines in my city and across my state. Without that, my sparsely populated state would not have internet. so i do believe that internet is provided as a needed utility. The way that NN is being done away with, figuratively stinks with corruption.

I spend time on campuses. NN is seen as a first amendment buttress, as well as freedom of access to knowledge and research. Repeal of NN will not go well.

[bUU]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 And it reminds me why I hesitate to engage with you, it's almost always goes this way. Bye-bye.

I respect your preference to not engage with perspectives you don't like.

Quote:

Originally Posted by devans0 I disagree that internet is an optional device any more.

As I mentioned before, low-end service truly is becoming essential, yet efforts to get it classified as a utility has failed and trends are in the opposite direction. I cannot imagine having high-end service being treated as essential in any substantive way until low-end service is and has been for a while.

[devans0]

As internet becomes more used in more essential ways, it becomes more of a utility every day. Compared to electricity and landline phones, its adoption is fast. My wife works in schools. The students without internet are being left behind and that is at the first and second grade levels.