Join Early Retirement Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Net Neutrality
Old 02-27-2015, 06:48 PM   #1
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
imoldernu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Peru
Posts: 4,616
Net Neutrality

Anyone? Insights on what this might be? Good? Bad?... for whom?

There must be a lot of info in the 330 page bill, but so far, despite trying to do research, I can't figure out what it will mean to us... us being the end user.

What worries me the most, is the ad that first pops up on Google...

Some expectations from CNet:
http://www.cnet.com/news/7-things-ne...ality-wont-do/

Any thoughts?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Google.jpg (38.0 KB, 14 views)
__________________

__________________
imoldernu is offline  
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 02-27-2015, 07:15 PM   #2
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
- Regulating broadband providers like public utilities will lock in the advantages the big guys already have and make it harder for disruptive new upstarts to get into the game.

- The growth in bandwidth has been amazing. That's because it has paid off. I'd like to see that continue, it's been good for consumers overall.

- Is all data really worth the same to the public? Hundreds of users can be on this board and use less bandwidth than one person watching Honey Boo Boo. If bandwidth gets scarce/constrained, I think the market will help value things appropriately and 1 person might have to suffer slightly lower-than-HD resolution on a 30minute TV show so 1000 people will get their emails on time.

I don't think the presently proposed rules will adversely affect things immediately (since the providers can still charge more for more data or faster data, as long as they don't make any distinctions about what type of data it is).
__________________

__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now  
Old 02-27-2015, 08:25 PM   #3
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,929
I use an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to move packets between places. I'd like them to continue doing that.

It's sort of annoying to find that they're opening the packets, looking at the contents, and determining if I should pay more to send or receive the packets.

Yes, this has actually happened to me. An ISP refused to allow certain packets to move between my private intranet and another node based solely on what they were able to determine from the internal content (not the routing data, TTL stamp, or packet length and checksum, which I would expect any router to examine) The packets were of ordinary size and properly formed, and there weren't that many of them, perhaps a megabyte a day.

They WOULD allow the packets to move between here and there if I bought a higher priced service. NOT more bandwidth capacity, just a more expensive service that would permit the packets to move between here and there.

Given that behavior, throttling behaviors reported by others, and the recent holding of innovative smaller businesses for ransom in exchange for letting their packets cross their networks, I'd say the telecoms have just reaped what they have sown.
__________________
M Paquette is offline  
Old 02-27-2015, 10:39 PM   #4
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 401
It's great news to most users. It ensures that your internet provider can't slow down your access to a specific website because that website won't pay the internet provider for faster access. I honestly don't understand why all internet users aren't for net neutrality...unless of course they're shareholders of companies like Comcast or Verizon who would love to charge companies for the right to have faster access to their website. Net neutrality also gives small startup companies a better chance to survive and thrive on the internet.
__________________
DallasGuy is offline  
Old 02-27-2015, 10:47 PM   #5
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
harley's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Following the nice weather
Posts: 6,428
My biggest issues are the lack of transparency of the decision and the fact that by imposing FCC regulation they are ignoring the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" rule. None of the problems that the FCC are supposedly worried about have actually happened. And if there's anybody that can break something that's already working well, it's the federal govt. Hopefully at some point Congress can pass something that will overrule the FCC's decision. But I doubt it.
__________________
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement." - Will Rogers, or maybe Sam Clemens
DW and I - FIREd at 50 (7/06), living off assets
harley is offline  
Old 02-27-2015, 10:51 PM   #6
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 401
Quote:
Originally Posted by harley View Post
My biggest issues are the lack of transparency of the decision and the fact that by imposing FCC regulation they are ignoring the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" rule. None of the problems that the FCC are supposedly worried about have actually happened. And if there's anybody that can break something that's already working well, it's the federal govt. Hopefully at some point Congress can pass something that will overrule the FCC's decision. But I doubt it.
It was already broken or just about to be broken. Last year Netflix had agreed to pay Comcast for faster access to their website and streaming movies. I'm not sure if that ever went into effect, but that would have just been the start of large internet providers asking for money to provide "fast lanes" to certain websites or they would intentionally slow down that website.

Netflix is paying Comcast for direct connection to network | Ars Technica

This is a line from the article above:

Netflix and Cogent are still at odds with Verizon, apparently resulting in deteriorating quality of streams on Verizon's network.
__________________
DallasGuy is offline  
Old 02-27-2015, 10:51 PM   #7
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
timo2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Rio Rancho
Posts: 1,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by DallasGuy View Post
It's great news to most users. It ensures that your internet provider can't slow down your access to a specific website because that website won't pay the internet provider for faster access. I honestly don't understand why all internet users aren't for net neutrality...unless of course they're shareholders of companies like Comcast or Verizon who would love to charge companies for the right to have faster access to their website. Net neutrality also gives small startup companies a better chance to survive and thrive on the internet.
+1
Allowing the big companies the ability to crush their upstart competition by slowing down their internet speed would indeed hurt small business.

These rules are all Verizon's fault anyway. They are the ones that sued the government over the milder set of rules formerly in place. That suit set off a set of events that resulted in these rules. I guess they got too greedy and it backfired.
__________________
"We live the lives we lead because of the thoughts we think" Michael O’Neill
timo2 is offline  
Old 02-28-2015, 12:00 AM   #8
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,929
For those blissfully unaware, this whole thing is called FCC Proceeding 14-28. That is, it's the 28th proceeding started in 2014 prior to the vote to proceed. This proceeding was referenced by name and number in several thousand news articles over the past year, in everything from Variety to The Nation.

Some 2,054,044 other folks managed to find Proceeding 14-28 and comment on it. At the Proceeding 14-28 website you'll find everything from the initial Public Notice and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to the Agenda for the Panelist Roundtable from the Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis which was streamed live (for those whose ISPs permitted the stream to go through).

It's not exactly as though it was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'

Quote:
VOGON CAPTAIN:
[On Speakers] People of Earth your attention please. This is Prostectic Vogon Jeltz of the Galactic Hyperspace Planet Council. As you no doubt will be aware, the plans for the development of the outlying regions of the western spiral arm of the galaxy require the building of a hyperspace express route through your star system and, regrettably, your planet is one of those scheduled for demolition. The process will take slightly less than two of your Earth minutes thank you very much.

MANKIND:
[Yells of protest]

VOGON CAPTAIN:
There's no point in acting all surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years so you've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaints and its far too late to start making a fuss about it now.

MANKIND:
[Louder yells of protest]

VOGON CAPTAIN:
What do you mean you've never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh for heaven sake mankind it's only four light years away you know! I'm sorry but if you can't be bothered to take an interest in local affairs that's your own regard. Energise the demolition beams! God I don't know…apathetic bloody planet, I've no sympathy at all…
__________________
M Paquette is offline  
Old 02-28-2015, 12:16 AM   #9
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Chuckanut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: West of the Mississippi
Posts: 6,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by harley View Post
None of the problems that the FCC are supposedly worried about have actually happened.
Really?

I know people paying huge amounts of money for internet access and cable TV because they only have one choice. That sounds broken to me. On top of that the cable company owns a big network, so there is an inherent conflict of interest when it comes to carrying other people's content or letting people get that content from a cheaper provider. That sounds broken to me.
__________________
The worst decisions are usually made in times of anger and impatience.
Chuckanut is online now  
Old 02-28-2015, 05:51 AM   #10
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bUU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,914
I think there is a lot of misinformation out there. I disbelieve the conspiracy theories until the objective, documentary evidence is presented and ratified by our legal system. There is simply too much vested interest to prevaricate to believe anything not definitively proven.

Anyway, I think people who supported net neutrality are going to be relatively shocked when they learn what it is they supported. Samclem posted a good summary above. I think the most shocking thing will be the impact on services like Netflix. I wonder if Netflix supported Net Neutrality because they wanted to go back to a situation where they could blame Comcast for how poor their resource-hogging service performs in an environment of reasonable network management within which their traffic is treated the same as Early-Retirement's traffic. That's going to be the initial impact: Without the fast lanes, Netflix becomes just another packet in the network and will be subject to network congestion just like a short all-text email.
__________________
bUU is offline  
Old 02-28-2015, 06:10 AM   #11
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Midpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 11,974
Like a few others here, the idea that one user streaming several HD movies per day could pay the same for Internet access as another user who only emails a few times a week seems unfair. The bandwidth hogs should pay (substantially) more IMO, but I'm no expert...
__________________
No one agrees with other people's opinions; they merely agree with their own opinions -- expressed by somebody else. Sydney Tremayne
Retired Jun 2011 at age 57

Target AA: 60% equity funds / 35% bond funds / 5% cash
Target WR: Approx 2.5% Approx 20% SI (secure income, SS only)
Midpack is online now  
Old 02-28-2015, 07:06 AM   #12
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bUU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,914
The typical counter-argument is that it doesn't make sense to charge people for hogging bandwidth when there is excess bandwidth available. The fact of the matter, though, is that resource-hogging services are those that make it necessary to incur the high cost of expanding capacity in the first place.

The problem is that past trial balloons aiming toward metered service have indicated that standing at the ready is a PR firestorm that would hurt service providers far more than perpetuating the unfairness you outlined. I don't think there is any viable path out of that, not even through government regulation. It isn't as if light users would band together into a class-action suit demanding fairness in pricing.
__________________
bUU is offline  
Old 02-28-2015, 07:06 AM   #13
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Grapetown
Posts: 800
Cable TV options are 95% limited by your local government. They don't want multiple cables, and installations of cables digging up yards or more cables on poles. Check your cable bill; there is usually a local municipal fee or tax. Cable companies also pay local municipalities for exclusive access to it's citizens.


I can't think that a 330 page set of regulations that we citizens were not allowed to see and read, be beneficial to anyone. Anybody remember "You have to pass the law to see what is in it"? And how is that working out?


I can't see how a modern unregulated technology 2015 be regulated as a "communication utility" under a 1934 law, allowing unelected appointees to make choices for me, yet alone GOOD choices for me.


If I choose to pay higher rates for faster speeds, it's my business. I am already paying extra fees against my will to pay for someone else's internet service that they can't afford. I also subsidize someone else's cable and cell phone service. I have the choice with my cable to pay for premium channels (although I don't subscribe.)


And anything that could possibly limit my sources of information is something that I do not like.


Call me a moon bat and hand me my tinfoil hat while you are at it.


I'm sure that this will lead to licensing of web sites, extra fees and extra taxes.
__________________
Winemaker is offline  
Old 02-28-2015, 07:09 AM   #14
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bUU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winemaker View Post
If I choose to pay higher rates for faster speeds, it's my business.
Most of your comment was off-target, complaining about things that simply aren't any part of what's being discussed or what's the reality of the marketplace you're encountering. For example, you are indeed able to pay higher rates for faster speeds, and nothing about this issue has moved for or against that.
__________________
bUU is offline  
Old 02-28-2015, 07:11 AM   #15
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
audreyh1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rio Grande Valley
Posts: 16,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack View Post
Like a few others here, the idea that one user streaming several HD movies per day could pay the same for Internet access as another user who only emails a few times a week seems unfair. The bandwidth hogs should pay (substantially) more IMO, but I'm no expert...
I'm pretty sure they do. People pay up for higher bandwidth so they can stream. That's not affected here. What is affected is whether you have to pay different rates depending on whose content you are streaming.
__________________
Well, I thought I was retired. But it seems that now I'm working as a travel agent instead!
audreyh1 is online now  
Old 02-28-2015, 07:17 AM   #16
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bUU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by audreyh1 View Post
I'm pretty sure they do. People pay up for higher bandwidth so they can stream. That's not affected here. What is affected is whether you have to pay different rates depending on whose content you are streaming.
While this surely prohibits that, it wasn't what was going on, and not really what this was aimed at. What's affected is whether service providers can offer premium treatment for specific services. With that now banned, it means that all services will suffer from network limitations equally, all services will be summarily slowed down the same amount when network utilization is high.
__________________
bUU is offline  
Old 02-28-2015, 07:35 AM   #17
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,455
Thread moved to the "Politics" forum.
__________________
MichaelB is offline  
Old 02-28-2015, 07:45 AM   #18
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by harley View Post
My biggest issues are the lack of transparency of the decision and the fact that by imposing FCC regulation they are ignoring the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" rule. None of the problems that the FCC are supposedly worried about have actually happened. And if there's anybody that can break something that's already working well, it's the federal govt. Hopefully at some point Congress can pass something that will overrule the FCC's decision. But I doubt it.
+1. Frankly, I just don't trust the motivations behind implementing this, and certainly don't trust the long term ramifications. Solution looking for a problem?
__________________
mystang52 is offline  
Old 02-28-2015, 08:54 AM   #19
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 401
Quote:
Originally Posted by mystang52 View Post
+1. Frankly, I just don't trust the motivations behind implementing this, and certainly don't trust the long term ramifications. Solution looking for a problem?
I find it interesting that Comcast and Verizon are against this and you'd rather trust them?? I think that Comcast and Verizon are more concerned about THEIR profits instead of a fair and open internet for the consumer.
__________________
DallasGuy is offline  
Old 02-28-2015, 09:03 AM   #20
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 555
Quote:
Originally Posted by DallasGuy View Post
It was already broken or just about to be broken. Last year Netflix had agreed to pay Comcast for faster access to their website and streaming movies. I'm not sure if that ever went into effect, but that would have just been the start of large internet providers asking for money to provide "fast lanes" to certain websites or they would intentionally slow down that website.
The issue with Netflix has to do with what they call "peering" and involves the provider setting up more ports for connections. This is not throttling the speed. I don't think the new regs address this but I'm not sure. I know some early drafts didn't.

Setting up servers in the ISPs facilities is a solution to this issue and I think this is where they are still butting heads but again, I don't think this is covered in the new regulations.
__________________

__________________
ArkTinkerer is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Net neutrality is dead. Bow to Comcast & Verizon. Midpack Other topics 50 02-19-2014 08:35 PM
The FCC approved net neutrality "lite" MichaelB Other topics 18 12-23-2010 09:34 AM
Updated Net Worth Figures - How Do You Rate? intercst Other topics 0 01-22-2003 07:00 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:17 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.