Net Neutrality

[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."

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]

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]

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-providers-by-zip-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]

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.

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.

 

[Root]

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).

With this particular example, Comcast and Netflix have multiple direct connections to each other, all over the country. Very little Netflix content traverses the public internet for Comcast customers.

 

[ERD50]

... 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.

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.

I think I see what is happening. Are some people are talking about "Net Neutrality" as a concept, and some talking about the specific bill?

I've been talking about the concept. And I think we should have NN (the concept - ISP does not throttle based on source).

Maybe the NN bill does some other good things. I see no reason why we can't have NN (the concept), and also support some other things through other means.

-ERD50

 

[Hamlet]

With this particular example, Comcast and Netflix have multiple direct connections to each other, all over the country. Very little Netflix content traverses the public internet for Comcast customers.

Okay, substitute "Joe's upstart web streaming service" instead of Netflix.

That actually makes it worse in my mind. The big players will be able to protect their turf by making it very difficult for me to reach their competitors.

 

[jollystomper]

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.

One could argue that certain aspects of the internet are a utility. I think there is a difference between access for knowledge and access for entertainment. It just seems that the majority of the net neutrality arguments are around entertainment access and not knowledge access, since it is the entertainment that starts eating bandwidth.

 

[meierlde]

One could argue that certain aspects of the internet are a utility. I think there is a difference between access for knowledge and access for entertainment. It just seems that the majority of the net neutrality arguments are around entertainment access and not knowledge access, since it is the entertainment that starts eating bandwidth.

Agreed that streaming is the big bandwidth hog. Text would work even with dialup speeds as many of us did in the past. So it is video which IMHO is a far less efficient way of delivering info than text (but then I grew up before videos)
One other commenter here hit it on the head the change means that a meto video streaming service doing movies etc will have a hard time emerging, but then do we really need such services.

 

[Texas Proud]

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.

And yet look what happened.

Again, nothing of substance from you... sure, the vote is going against NN... but that does not mean you cannot say what you like about it...

I see no benefit to the consumer... only to the companies... you seem to have stated that getting rid of NN is a good thing... I just want to know what that good thing is... so enlighten me please....


Edit... I saw your answers and it seem that you are saying something about ISPs and the ability to have them..... that is not NN... so I will ask... why do you think NN is a bad thing?

 

[devans0]

I think I see what is happening. Are some people are talking about "Net Neutrality" as a concept, and some talking about the specific bill?

I've been talking about the concept. And I think we should have NN (the concept - ISP does not throttle based on source).

Maybe the NN bill does some other good things. I see no reason why we can't have NN (the concept), and also support some other things through other means.

-ERD50

I grew up without television. When we finally got tv, I had access to educational tv. I learned to play and read music, a foreign language, and math far beyond what my tiny rural school could provide. Today, I take a couple classes at a local college on occassion, but usually turn to online lesson courses when I want to learn quickly and paying far less money.

I see the parallels of how the promise of information to the masses by tv was usurped and then grew far beyond the initial dreams, and the internet in its present for. I don't see a future for Internet without NN, and it's the nuts and bolts of privatization and unbridled profit seeking that will undo it. That's where the concept and the specific bill clash, and our lawmakers are too old and technical troglodytes. They lack understandin of what they are doing.

 

[MichaelB]

I think I see what is happening. Are some people are talking about "Net Neutrality" as a concept, and some talking about the specific bill?

Not a bill but a regulatory action, but yes, you are correct, there really are two discussions - net neutrality and ISP regulation. They overlap, but are not the same, and this has lent confusion to this discussion.

I would suggest everyone make an effort to depersonalize and keep it friendly.

 

[Root]

Okay, substitute "Joe's upstart web streaming service" instead of Netflix.

That actually makes it worse in my mind. The big players will be able to protect their turf by making it very difficult for me to reach their competitors.

Why does that bother you more? We should encourage companies to work together with out being forced to by legislation. What's to stop "Joe's Streams" from contacting Comcast and working something similar?

 

[travelover]

Why does that bother you more? We should encourage companies to work together with out being forced to by legislation. What's to stop "Joe's Streams" from contacting Comcast and working something similar?

Good point. Why have cops? If Vinnie wants $100 a month to keep my legs from getting broken, I should just work something out with Vinnie. No need for the cops to get involved, we should encourage people to work together without being forced by legislation.

 

[bUU]

Again, nothing of substance from you...

Nonsense. Everything I've posted is substance. Perhaps you just didn't like what I posted.

sure, the vote is going against NN... but that does not mean you cannot say what you like about it...

No one said you couldn't. Stop raising straw men.

I see no benefit to the consumer... only to the companies...

Which seems to be adversely affecting the manner by which some people are addressing themselves to the topic. There are different perspectives. If you're not happy with the way things are, then rest assured that not only is there another perspective, but it is actually a perspective that has prevailed over the one that supports what you want. I'm doing my best to try to help you understand that prevailing perspective.

you seem to have stated that getting rid of NN is a good thing...

No I haven't; I've even said the opposite, as it pertains to me as a consumer:

You're unhappy with how things are. I am, as well...

Stop arguing with me against things I haven't written. Both you and ERD50 have done that in this thread.

Not a bill but a regulatory action, but yes, you are correct, there really are two discussions - net neutrality and ISP regulation. They overlap, but are not the same, and this has lent confusion to this discussion.

I would suggest everyone make an effort to depersonalize and keep it friendly.

I agree. We don't have to agree to have a worthwhile conversation.

And the point about net neutrality and ISP regulation is important: There is inadequate defense for net neutrality. It's just something that consumers want because it is good for them. There is no legal precedent for it. There aren't other commodities for which a similar provision applies.

By contrast, there might be sufficient defense for ISP regulation. For that, a good argument can be made about prevailing public interest.

 

[REWahoo]

This thread is why those who developed the forum software included an ignore thread and ignore poster feature.

On we go...

 

[Texas Proud]

Nonsense. Everything I've posted is substance. Perhaps you just didn't like what I posted.

No one said you couldn't. Stop raising straw men.

Which seems to be adversely affecting the manner by which some people are addressing themselves to the topic. There are different perspectives. If you're not happy with the way things are, then rest assured that not only is there another perspective, but it is actually a perspective that has prevailed over the one that supports what you want. I'm doing my best to try to help you understand that prevailing perspective.

No I haven't; I've even said the opposite, as it pertains to me as a consumer:Stop arguing with me against things I haven't written. Both you and ERD50 have done that in this thread.

I agree. We don't have to agree to have a worthwhile conversation.

And the point about net neutrality and ISP regulation is important: There is inadequate defense for net neutrality. It's just something that consumers want because it is good for them. There is no legal precedent for it. There aren't other commodities for which a similar provision applies.

By contrast, there might be sufficient defense for ISP regulation. For that, a good argument can be made about prevailing public interest.

LOL... like I thought.... not answering the question but writing a lot of nonsense...

As to legal precedent, I would argue that you are wrong... the law that it was based on is Title 2 of the Communications Act .... the telephone companies are regulated (which is kinda like internet providers) and so are other 'common carriers'.... why is the internet different and cannot be regulated?

 

[MichaelB]

Friends can disagree without being disagreeable, and can challenge ideas without criticizing the people that espouse them. We are a friendly group and this thread has become an unfriendly discussion.