FCC Starts Net Neutrality Protections Rollback

[Giroro]

In the vast majority of the US, it is literally illegal for cable companies to compete with each other.
THAT is the regulation that should be eliminated.
Either there is a true own market where companies are actually allowed to compete, or this critical resource needs to be regulated like a utility. Given that most cable is laid on public land, the utility option is the only thing that makes sense.
The elimination of net neutrality guarantees a closed market of unregulated and abusive monopolies controlling a resource that our entire economy is totally dependant upon. That is a recipe for total economic collapse.
America doesn't make anything physical anymore. If the technology market is allowed to tear itself apart, then we will have nothing left to fall back on.

 

[TMTOWTSAC]

Here's a hot news flash for you: it's already being controlled and censored by Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. And I would challenge ANY ISP to "control" what websites we go to, what news we read, etc. like the aforementioned do. Said ISP would lose customers faster than creamed corn through a goose. You don't mess with people's liberty. The people will vote with their wallets. It's not a new concept by the way.

Actually, that was exactly what was happening before, and one of the reasons the FCC pushed for more regulations. I'm sure everyone here probably remembers this one from back in 2011:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paxfire

This wasn't just the usual mistyped URL search redirects. They were actually DNS hijacking your search results. Let's say you did a Google search. They were actually replacing the expected Google (or Yahoo, or Bing etc) results with results from Paxfire containing only sponsored links, while excluding results from competing companies. This was exactly what the FCC's No Unreasonable Interference or Unreasonable Disadvantage to Consumers or Edge Providers provisions were addressing:

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

Paxfire was sued into oblivion, but the partnering ISP's like Cogent or Frontier or Charter appear to remain firmly within their gooses. Unsurprising given how major ISP's have already admitted to collusion via non-compete, as seen in the proposed Time Warner - Comcast merger filings.

You have to understand the difference between Google influencing Google search results, vs your ISP controlling Google results as well as quite literally everything else you are able to do online.

 

[daworstplaya]

Anyone who voted for Trump and got brought this fool as the head of the FCC has no grounds to complain.

 

[alextheblue]

90% of people I see talking about net neutrality don't understand what it is, which is exactly what you said: all traffic treated equally, no throttling traffic from certain companies or site or prioritizing other companies that pay off the ISPs.

Not all traffic should be treated equally. Stay with me here for a moment, read this objectively, don't fire up the automatic lockdown defense mode. Think about Quality of Service, QoS. Sometimes I call it positive packet discrimination. Real-time high-priority packets (gaming, RT audio/video calls, etc) should get priority over highly asynchronous data that is buffered or otherwise not realtime (email, streaming, FTP etc). The non-realtime traffic needs bandwidth above latency. Realtime traffic must have sufficient bandwidth, but needs excellent latency, or else quality dimishes or it even becomes unusable.

Therefore they should be allowed to prioritize some types of traffic, to maximize user experience. This is especially true during peak usage periods. If a Netflix stream has high latency but sufficient bandwidth, it works perfectly. If you're playing Overwatch and you have sufficient bandwidth but the same high latency as the aforementioned Netflix streams... your experience will be piss-poor. Meanwhile the buffered non-RT stream chugs along fine. There is *no reason* to force RT packets to have the same priority as non-RT packets. But that is how NN works, as of now. It's like taking out a mosquito with a stick of dynamite - sure, you've solved the problem, but there might be some collateral damage!

If they removed that requirement from Net Neutrality, I'd back it. They need to scrap it and write intelligent rules that prohibit predatory throttling of a specific company, but still allow for positive packet discrimination based on the TYPE of traffic. What we need is intelligent and objective control, not this kind of blanket "all traffic is equal" garbage. All traffic is not equal in nature, and should be treated differently based on traffic type.

One final note: All the Chicken Little mediaheads out there are hilarious. They literally think that if we go back to pre-NN internet, it's going to be the end. Really over the top. What we need is something like NN, but bipartisan/nonpartisan that is more intelligent in what and how they regulate - and I don't care if it's the FCC, the FTC, or the ABCDEFG that has the reins.

 

[damric]

90% of people I see talking about net neutrality don't understand what it is, which is exactly what you said: all traffic treated equally, no throttling traffic from certain companies or site or prioritizing other companies that pay off the ISPs.

Not all traffic should be treated equally. Stay with me here for a moment, read this objectively, don't fire up the automatic lockdown defense mode. Think about Quality of Service, QoS. Sometimes I call it positive packet discrimination. Real-time high-priority packets (gaming, RT audio/video calls, etc) should get priority over highly asynchronous data that is buffered or otherwise not realtime (email, streaming, FTP etc). The non-realtime traffic needs bandwidth above latency. Realtime traffic must have sufficient bandwidth, but needs excellent latency, or else quality dimishes or it even becomes unusable.

Therefore they should be allowed to prioritize some types of traffic, to maximize user experience. This is especially true during peak usage periods. If a Netflix stream has high latency but sufficient bandwidth, it works perfectly. If you're playing Overwatch and you have sufficient bandwidth but the same high latency as the aforementioned Netflix streams... your experience will be piss-poor. Meanwhile the buffered non-RT stream chugs along fine. There is *no reason* to force RT packets to have the same priority as non-RT packets. But that is how NN works, as of now. It's like taking out a mosquito with a stick of dynamite - sure, you've solved the problem, but there might be some collateral damage!

If they removed that requirement from Net Neutrality, I'd back it. They need to scrap it and write intelligent rules that prohibit predatory throttling of a specific company, but still allow for positive packet discrimination based on the TYPE of traffic. What we need is intelligent and objective control, not this kind of blanket "all traffic is equal" garbage. All traffic is not equal in nature, and should be treated differently based on traffic type.

One final note: All the Chicken Little mediaheads out there are hilarious. They literally think that if we go back to pre-NN internet, it's going to be the end. Really over the top. What we need is something like NN, but bipartisan/nonpartisan that is more intelligent in what and how they regulate - and I don't care if it's the FCC, the FTC, or the ABCDEFG that has the reins.

You can already schedule your own traffic with software yourself so that point is moot.

 

[jonathan1683]

Well hopefully this will drive people like netflix hulu and google to make their own ISPs google gave up on fiber. Time to ramp it back up.

 

[garrett040]

Remember people, for any net neutrality rules to change, Pai must prove in court that these changes are necessary and prove why they must be changed since 2 years ago. These changes will be viewed as capricious and arbitrary and will never get through court.

Don't be surprised when the people wanting to end net neutrality, turn and wail to congress to "save the internet" then your net neutrality will surely die.

 

[problematiq]

Remember people, for any net neutrality rules to change, Pai must prove in court that these changes are necessary and prove why they must be changed since 2 years ago. These changes will be viewed as capricious and arbitrary and will never get through court.

Don't be surprised when the people wanting to end net neutrality, turn and wail to congress to "save the internet" then your net neutrality will surely die.

Good thing for them they own the courts.

 

[alextheblue]

You can already schedule your own traffic with software yourself so that point is moot.

Oh, so you can control what happens to packets once they leave networks you control and enter networks you don't control? Because the way NN is written, ISPs have to *BY LAW* treat all traffic (consisting of these thingamajigs we call packets) equally. Equal priority. No "evil" discrimination. Millions of Netflix packets: Priority 1. Gaming packet containing that trigger pull on your sniper rifle: Priority 1. Most of the latency issues between you and someone else's server/service are *gasp* within your ISP's domain, rather than your internal network. QoS on YOUR network is great to keep an overworked router prioritizing certain traffic, but you can forget about having influence when the traffic leaves your network. After that you have no say at all.

Or have you secretly deployed a new Quantumnet ISP... unlimited bandwidth.... zero latency. QoS be damned. Bless you, Damric! Bless you!

 

[USAdystopia]

Thank GOD! Only Leftist ideologues could think that the increasing government control over citizens AND the Internet would benefit...either.

 

[damric]

You can already schedule your own traffic with software yourself so that point is moot.

Oh, so you can control what happens to packets once they leave networks you control and enter networks you don't control? Because the way NN is written, ISPs have to *BY LAW* treat all traffic (consisting of these thingamajigs we call packets) equally. Equal priority. No "evil" discrimination. Millions of Netflix packets: Priority 1. Gaming packet containing that trigger pull on your sniper rifle: Priority 1. Most of the latency issues between you and someone else's server/service are *gasp* within your ISP's domain, rather than your internal network. QoS on YOUR network is great to keep an overworked router prioritizing certain traffic, but you can forget about having influence when the traffic leaves your network. After that you have no say at all.

Or have you secretly deployed a new Quantumnet ISP... unlimited bandwidth.... zero latency. QoS be damned. Bless you, Damric! Bless you!

No one cares about your games or your Infowars, Alex Jones.

If you are not getting your advertised bandwidth and latency, then I suggest you contact your ISP and complain. They will tell you that you can pay more to get faster service, and to stop bitching about my Netflix streaming because I also pay for a high bandwidth plan.

 

[alextheblue]

You can already schedule your own traffic with software yourself so that point is moot.

Oh, so you can control what happens to packets once they leave networks you control and enter networks you don't control? Because the way NN is written, ISPs have to *BY LAW* treat all traffic (consisting of these thingamajigs we call packets) equally. Equal priority. No "evil" discrimination. Millions of Netflix packets: Priority 1. Gaming packet containing that trigger pull on your sniper rifle: Priority 1. Most of the latency issues between you and someone else's server/service are *gasp* within your ISP's domain, rather than your internal network. QoS on YOUR network is great to keep an overworked router prioritizing certain traffic, but you can forget about having influence when the traffic leaves your network. After that you have no say at all.

Or have you secretly deployed a new Quantumnet ISP... unlimited bandwidth.... zero latency. QoS be damned. Bless you, Damric! Bless you!

No one cares about your games or your Infowars, Alex Jones.

If you are not getting your advertised bandwidth and latency, then I suggest you contact your ISP and complain. They will tell you that you can pay more to get faster service, and to stop bitching about my Netflix streaming because I also pay for a high bandwidth plan.

You couldn't back up your claims, so you change arguments - nice! I salute you. I personally am fortunate enough to have FiOS and my latency and bandwidth are consistently great. In fact I get better-than-advertised speeds. But I'm not arguing for myself... I'm arguing for all gamers (and other users of real-time services), many of which must rely on less-than-perfect cable/DSL internet built on aging infrastructure, which is much more vulnerable to latency issues under heavy traffic. I'm sorry you care only for yourself. ISP-level QoS wouldn't affect your Netflix at all, by the way. It improves RT experiences without harming non-RT content. It's win/win, but you'd know that if you bothered to read my post and comprehend it.

Also, I have no idea why you brought up Infowars. I do not like him, and I didn't say anything that an intelligent person should construe as partisan. This is a technological issue, and you have chosen to politicize it. Perhaps your stringholders are tugging too hard.

 

[USAdystopia]

You can already schedule your own traffic with software yourself so that point is moot.

Oh, so you can control what happens to packets once they leave networks you control and enter networks you don't control? Because the way NN is written, ISPs have to *BY LAW* treat all traffic (consisting of these thingamajigs we call packets) equally. Equal priority. No "evil" discrimination. Millions of Netflix packets: Priority 1. Gaming packet containing that trigger pull on your sniper rifle: Priority 1. Most of the latency issues between you and someone else's server/service are *gasp* within your ISP's domain, rather than your internal network. QoS on YOUR network is great to keep an overworked router prioritizing certain traffic, but you can forget about having influence when the traffic leaves your network. After that you have no say at all.

Or have you secretly deployed a new Quantumnet ISP... unlimited bandwidth.... zero latency. QoS be damned. Bless you, Damric! Bless you!

No one cares about your games or your Infowars, Alex Jones.

If you are not getting your advertised bandwidth and latency, then I suggest you contact your ISP and complain. They will tell you that you can pay more to get faster service, and to stop bitching about my Netflix streaming because I also pay for a high bandwidth plan.

zzzzzzzzz...zzzzzzzzzzzzz...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

 

[USAdystopia]

Ask THX1138 what he thinks about your BIG BROTHER Internet Control Campaign.

 

[sykozis]

Verizon and Comcast wanted to charge service provides an "access fee" to get to customers...and now they'll be able to. They'll also be able to charge their own customers for access to "competing" services....all while censoring what we see and do....