Verizon, The Unintended Catalyst Of Strong Net Neutrality Laws (Op Ed)

[chesteracorgi]

The "spectrum" is limitless so all this molarky about selling sections off is smoke and mirrors. Just as there are infinite numbers between 1 and 10. We are the most advanced society in the world, but because of these companies in control, we are in last place for internet speed while we pay the highest prices for access. That's the bottom line...

Gee, I want the internet speed they get in North Korea, Cuban and/or Iran. They have so much better internet than we do. Oh, to be where the gubment controls all aspects of the internet.

 

[jmonaco5]

Let me give a great example. I own my modem, a Motorola surfboard a few years old. Its capable of 38Mbps, and TWC enters my firmware, and limits something I own down to 15Mbps. The local lines have been tested to 100Mbps and so service is available at that rate, if you pay. So, its not the lines that are limiting your speed, but the ISP.

 

[chesteracorgi]

BTW Shutup, the Puffingtonhost article proves the case against the crony crapitalism of gubment imposing fees on users to achieve its ends. Yes the Bells collected billion$$ in imposed fees on users to provide fast internet, but they turned it into building a barrier to other competitors through regulation and buying politicians to grant their local oligopolies. Then they buy the politicians off when they don't deliver. Kind of like Solyndra.

 

[alextheblue]

THEM choosing how YOUR bandwidth is prioritised is a complete non starter,
Just MHO.
Cheers

You misunderstand. I was referring to the network at large, rather than the bandwidth of an individual home connection. Ever used cable internet in a high-density area during peak streaming hours? Now imagine if the ISPs can't prioritize any traffic.

@Alextheblue
I'm guessing your either an ISP Shill or just flat out ignorant. Packet Shaping is NOT equal to Packet Blocking or Packet Discrimination. Real time, in-order packet delivery, QOS or time sensitive packet prioritization is not what Net Neutrality is, troll. ISP's must treat each packet equal, with no preference to their own service and allow any packet in or out as required by law. Net Neutrality prevents ISP's from screwing you over and leads to a full open internet.

At no time has this ever been about anything less. Your VOIP calls will still be fine, your gaming packets will be fine, and your Netflix will be fine, troll, all at the same time. Nice try, though.

Thanks for the insults. Now explain to me the difference between "packet shaping" and "packet discrimination". QoS is a form of intentional discrimination. Treating every packet equally by definition means NO QoS. So depending on what the FCC does here, the ISPs could lose the ability to lower the priority of extremely hungry streaming services during peak hours even when their network is being overwhelmed by the ever-increasing tide of HD (and soon 4K) streams. I'd rather they were able to give some breathing room to data that needs to go from point to point immediately, like my gaming packets.

Frankly I already have excellent "full open internet". I've never had any problems accessing anything. Netflix's biggest enemy was Cogent, not the ISPs. If they want to bypass Cogent and have Comcast, Verizon, et al set up direct links then they're not going to do that for free. I can't think of any situation Net Neutrality is really going to truly rectify without causing other issues. What upsides are there? Dare we consider the fact that a government-backed plan to wrest control from the ISPs over traffic might POSSIBLY have *gasp* drawbacks? No, just drink the Koolaid.

Now, are there rules they could put in place that would limit their ability to hamper competing services while not hampering their own? Sure. But making it so they can't prioritize any traffic, even important real-time traffic? That's too much, and that's a hint as to really what they're really after - removing the ISPs ability to control their own traffic.

 

[Christopher1]

alextheblue and corgi, you need to wake up. We have given MASSIVE amounts of money to these companies to improve their networks through tax breaks and other things and they just WILL NOT DO IT!
So, it's time to Title II the f' out of them and FORCE them to improve their networks.

 

[alextheblue]

alextheblue and corgi, you need to wake up. We have given MASSIVE amounts of money to these companies to improve their networks through tax breaks and other things and they just WILL NOT DO IT!
So, it's time to Title II the f' out of them and FORCE them to improve their networks.

How does that force them to improve their networks? They sell you a maximum speed, not a guaranteed one. They just wouldn't be allowed to prioritize anymore. Which is a double edged sword, and that is my point. This isn't a cure. Hopefully newer codecs will cut down on the bandwidth required and help offset the increased use of HD and 4K content. HEVC is the best but very demanding. VP9 isn't as good but it's better than VP8 and H.264 and is fairly easy to decode.

 

[sykozis]

The problem is, providers are no longer competing in most cases. In most cases, you have 1-2 ISP's that have pricing and expansion agreements in place to prevent competition. There is no innovation, because there's no requirement to compete.

As for "Obamaphone"....it doesn't exist and never did exist. The program that provides "free" cell phones is the SafeLink program, which started in 2008, prior to Obama being elected President.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

Haven't you seen the youtube film of the woman from Cleveland wanting her Obamaphone? Or do you ever come out of your mother's basement?

And pleeeeeze, tell me that you have signed up for Obamacare.

Yes, I've seen the video. That video doesn't change facts though. Obama didn't actually take office until January 2009. The election was in November 2008. There were even free cellphone deals prior to the Government adopting the SafeLink program.

As for the "Obamacare" statement. Insurance through my employer is $428/week....that's $1,712 per month or $20,544 per year....for an HMO family policy. The alternative is an HSA account that's $219/week or $876 per month or $10,512 per year not including the "deposit" and it includes a nice $10,000 deductible. So, seeing as how I'm a cancer patient and my wife is epileptic, hell yes I signed up. I'm assuming you're among those idiots that think the previous system was perfect? The same system that only covers healthy people and drops coverage for people who get sick. The exact same system that the 3 previous Presidents all tried to get fixed. "Socialized health care is bad because it covers the sick"....lol. Gotta love that idiotic idea. Coincidentally, "Obamacare" is the same bill that Romney promoted when he was a Governor. It was just adapted for national use. So, it's really "Romneycare"....

Now, as for "Net Neutrality", it's all a matter of HOW it's done. Allowing ISP's to self regulate hasn't worked. All it's done is harm consumers (much like allowing health insurance companies to self-regulate). You need regulations that provide some sort of benefit for treating the customer right and enacting honest policies for innovation, not just punishments for being anti-consumer and anti-innovation.

 

[alextheblue]

Now, as for "Net Neutrality", it's all a matter of HOW it's done. Allowing ISP's to self regulate hasn't worked. All it's done is harm consumers (much like allowing health insurance companies to self-regulate). You need regulations that provide some sort of benefit for treating the customer right and enacting honest policies for innovation, not just punishments for being anti-consumer and anti-innovation.

The government created most of our problems by allowing government-sanctioned cable monopolies. Rather than trying to regulate everything down to the last letter, open up competition. In areas where there are multiple options for cable provider, prices are great.

So again, net neutrality won't fix a lack of decent internet in some areas or overcharging customers. I'm stunned by the number of people that think net neutrality = lower prices and faster internet. It has nothing to do with that. It's all about treating all traffic exactly the same (regardless of source or type of traffic), which without competition spurring on additional capacity, actually can become a hindrance.

 

[chesteracorgi]

alextheblue and corgi, you need to wake up. We have given MASSIVE amounts of money to these companies to improve their networks through tax breaks and other things and they just WILL NOT DO IT!
So, it's time to Title II the f' out of them and FORCE them to improve their networks.

Christopher, one of the dissident FCC commissioners has criticized Obama's secret 332 page directive for the FCC to supervise the internet because Grand Poobah Obama refuses to make the directive public before enacting it. See: http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/06/republican-fcc-commissioner-slams-obamas-332-page-plan-to-regulate-the-internet/. I abhor the crony craptialism of the cables and phone companies, but that is exactly what you will get if the FCC starts dictating to the ISPs what they can and cannot do with bandwidth. So your solution is Obamacare for the internet? No thank you.

 

[chesteracorgi]

The problem is, providers are no longer competing in most cases. In most cases, you have 1-2 ISP's that have pricing and expansion agreements in place to prevent competition. There is no innovation, because there's no requirement to compete.

As for "Obamaphone"....it doesn't exist and never did exist. The program that provides "free" cell phones is the SafeLink program, which started in 2008, prior to Obama being elected President.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

Haven't you seen the youtube film of the woman from Cleveland wanting her Obamaphone? Or do you ever come out of your mother's basement?

And pleeeeeze, tell me that you have signed up for Obamacare.

Yes, I've seen the video. That video doesn't change facts though. Obama didn't actually take office until January 2009. The election was in November 2008. There were even free cellphone deals prior to the Government adopting the SafeLink program.

As for the "Obamacare" statement. Insurance through my employer is $428/week....that's $1,712 per month or $20,544 per year....for an HMO family policy. The alternative is an HSA account that's $219/week or $876 per month or $10,512 per year not including the "deposit" and it includes a nice $10,000 deductible. So, seeing as how I'm a cancer patient and my wife is epileptic, hell yes I signed up. I'm assuming you're among those idiots that think the previous system was perfect? The same system that only covers healthy people and drops coverage for people who get sick. The exact same system that the 3 previous Presidents all tried to get fixed. "Socialized health care is bad because it covers the sick"....lol. Gotta love that idiotic idea. Coincidentally, "Obamacare" is the same bill that Romney promoted when he was a Governor. It was just adapted for national use. So, it's really "Romneycare"....

Now, as for "Net Neutrality", it's all a matter of HOW it's done. Allowing ISP's to self regulate hasn't worked. All it's done is harm consumers (much like allowing health insurance companies to self-regulate). You need regulations that provide some sort of benefit for treating the customer right and enacting honest policies for innovation, not just punishments for being anti-consumer and anti-innovation.

Actually the Youtube clip is from 2012. You must not have see it because the Obamadrone rants about Mitt Romney, Hussein's opponent in 2012 not McCain, his royal airheadedness's 2008 opponent (BTW it would then be a 2008, not a 2009 clip).

Net Neutrality is a PR term for more FCC regulation. Now the FCC has done such great things in subsidizing the phone companiues to the tune of $400 billion, and so your solution is to increase their authority into new realms?

As for your Obamacare, it was already illegal for insurance companies to drop insureds who had coverage: they could deny coverage only if you tried to get insurance for pre-existing conditions. Sort of like buying fire insurance after the house is already afire, and the fire department has been called. Obamacare already has raised the costs of medical care by hundreds of Billion$$ and has a hole of over a Trillion$$ over the next decade. Healthcare has been made more unaffodable, but the costs don't come due until the present resident of the White House has vacated the premises.

 

[chesteracorgi]

@Alextheblue
I'm guessing your either an ISP Shill or just flat out ignorant. Packet Shaping is NOT equal to Packet Blocking or Packet Discrimination. Real time, in-order packet delivery, QOS or time sensitive packet prioritization is not what Net Neutrality is, troll. ISP's must treat each packet equal, with no preference to their own service and allow any packet in or out as required by law. Net Neutrality prevents ISP's from screwing you over and leads to a full open internet.

At no time has this ever been about anything less. Your VOIP calls will still be fine, your gaming packets will be fine, and your Netflix will be fine, troll, all at the same time. Nice try, though.

And you are not a shill for the Obama administration in their three pronged attack on opposing views to their socialist utopia? 1: intimidate the conservatives with the IRS. 2: use the FCC to regulate the internet like they were a 30's phone company. 3: Have the FEC regulate any dissenting website through fines, and/or mandate that they take down their websites.

Funny that the FCC comes out with rule making simultaneously with the FEC trying to regulate political speech. It isn't paranoia when the government is actually trying its hand at facism. And they have packaged their sweet poison in the irresistible disguise of Net Neutrality.

For all you neutered Net Neutrality buffs: if Benito Obama is successful expect a slower internet, lack of innovation and the thought police monitoring your every blog entry. They are already initiating internet IDs in Michigan and Pennsylvania where big sister can monitor every thought you post on the internet.

It is 1984, 31 years later.

 

[okcnaline]

All I read from both replies and the actual news itself: DDDDDRRRAMA!!!!

 

[chesteracorgi]

Sad there are brain deads against net neutraility. Like it's ok for internet providers to overcharge or even BLOCK you from websites!!!!!!!!

The only brain deads are those who do not see through the propaganda of net nutteredness. It's OK if they promise me a faster internet, just like they promised me I could keep my Doctor. Their intentions are so gooooood.

Net Neutrality is just part of the Big Lie, and to paraphrase Reichsminister Goebbles said: "if you tell a lie long enough it becomes the truth."

 

[skit75]

Sad there are brain deads against net neutraility. Like it's ok for internet providers to overcharge or even BLOCK you from websites!!!!!!!!

The only brain deads are those who do not see through the propaganda of net nutteredness. It's OK if they promise me a faster internet, just like they promised me I could keep my Doctor. Their intentions are so gooooood.

Net Neutrality is just part of the Big Lie, and to paraphrase Reichsminister Goebbles said: "if you tell a lie long enough it becomes the truth."

Maybe to the person delivering the lie. To any rational, critical thinking person, it is still a lie.

 

[chesteracorgi]

OK, Skit75, please tell me why the FCC and the FEC are suddenly looking to impose new regulations on the internet. Why is the FEC seeking to control political speech? Why is the FCC trying to impose new regulations and taxes on the internet? Why is the resident of the WH trying so hard to impose his will on a populace who soundly rejected his policies in the last election? Does the affirmative action resident fear that his legacy is camel s**t? When will the politically naive awaken to the new reality? Benito Obama will not be finished until he has silenced the opposition. Critical thinking? I think not. The reality is the proposed controls by the present resident of the WH. If you support them then you support the end of critical thinking.

 

[jmonaco5]

Chester, I believe you must listen to Rush Limbaugh a little too often! Or Faux news of which fact checkers have proven to be only 40% truthful in their broadcasts......

 

[chesteracorgi]

Chester, I believe you must listen to Rush Limbaugh a little too often! Or Faux news of which fact checkers have proven to be only 40% truthful in their broadcasts......

Monaco, have you read the 322 page proposal from Zero's commissioners? Of course you haven't. So you like to buy a pig in a poke?

What about the FEC's proposed regulations of the internet? Are you for them?

Please tell me why the IRS stonewalled on the Lois Lerner e-mails. Or perhaps you can explain why the DOJ hacked Sheryl Attkinson's computer.

 

[yoji]

Monaco, have you read the 322 page proposal from Zero's commissioners? Of course you haven't. So you like to buy a pig in a poke?

What about the FEC's proposed regulations of the internet? Are you for them?

Please tell me why the IRS stonewalled on the Lois Lerner e-mails. Or perhaps you can explain why the DOJ hacked Sheryl Attkinson's computer.

Chesteracorgi,
You are using very emotive language.. it is not helping
If you have something to say.. stick to key points you want to make.. and cite relevant sources...
From your (rabid?) rants.. I cant sort the wheat from the chaff
You citing 322 pages reports just proves you have more time on your hands than I do,,
So help us all understand..
Don't lump massive swathes of info into emotive sound bites.. that make you sound like the worst of the tabloid [strike]newspapers[/strike] Rags
Make your point in a dispassionate and objective way.. you will help us (and yourself) to get the points across.

HTH
Cheers

 

[skit75]

OK, Skit75, please tell me why the FCC and the FEC are suddenly looking to impose new regulations on the internet. Why is the FEC seeking to control political speech? Why is the FCC trying to impose new regulations and taxes on the internet? Why is the resident of the WH trying so hard to impose his will on a populace who soundly rejected his policies in the last election? Does the affirmative action resident fear that his legacy is camel s**t? When will the politically naive awaken to the new reality? Benito Obama will not be finished until he has silenced the opposition. Critical thinking? I think not. The reality is the proposed controls by the present resident of the WH. If you support them then you support the end of critical thinking.

Because it is becoming quite common that your neighbor directly across the street from you can swim in bandwidth while you are stuck on the end of an intermittent ADSL 768kbs line that maybe gets 128kbps and the provider(s) won't do anything about it. They don't have to because a hypothetical alternate provider can't even cross the street due to the monopolistic zones they have legislated for each other.

The FCC is "suddenly" looking into NN rules because certain ISP's are trying to become content providers and would be able to create a very unfair playing field for the rest of us who enjoy choice in which apps we use, not just the ones your ISP/Content provider can ram down your throat.

I don't remember reading anything in this Op-Ed about the FEC. You might try a political forum where you can vent that out...

 

[chesteracorgi]

Monaco, have you read the 322 page proposal from Zero's commissioners? Of course you haven't. So you like to buy a pig in a poke?

What about the FEC's proposed regulations of the internet? Are you for them?

Please tell me why the IRS stonewalled on the Lois Lerner e-mails. Or perhaps you can explain why the DOJ hacked Sheryl Attkinson's computer.

Chesteracorgi,
You are using very emotive language.. it is not helping
If you have something to say.. stick to key points you want to make.. and cite relevant sources...
From your (rabid?) rants.. I cant sort the wheat from the chaff
You citing 322 pages reports just proves you have more time on your hands than I do,,
So help us all understand..
Don't lump massive swathes of info into emotive sound bites.. that make you sound like the worst of the tabloid [strike]newspapers[/strike] Rags
Make your point in a dispassionate and objective way.. you will help us (and yourself) to get the points across.

HTH
Cheers

What can be more dispassionate than pointing out the facts that the net-neutrals are ignoring? The FCC Chairman issued a 322 page proposal that he will not release to the public , and has banned any other commissioner from discussing it.

The things about Lois Lerner, Sheryl Attiksson and the FEC are also true. It is not a rant. It is the hard truth for anyone who takes this administration at their word.

 

[chesteracorgi]

OK, Skit75, please tell me why the FCC and the FEC are suddenly looking to impose new regulations on the internet. Why is the FEC seeking to control political speech? Why is the FCC trying to impose new regulations and taxes on the internet? Why is the resident of the WH trying so hard to impose his will on a populace who soundly rejected his policies in the last election? Does the affirmative action resident fear that his legacy is camel s**t? When will the politically naive awaken to the new reality? Benito Obama will not be finished until he has silenced the opposition. Critical thinking? I think not. The reality is the proposed controls by the present resident of the WH. If you support them then you support the end of critical thinking.

Because it is becoming quite common that your neighbor directly across the street from you can swim in bandwidth while you are stuck on the end of an intermittent ADSL 768kbs line that maybe gets 128kbps and the provider(s) won't do anything about it. They don't have to because a hypothetical alternate provider can't even cross the street due to the monopolistic zones they have legislated for each other.

The FCC is "suddenly" looking into NN rules because certain ISP's are trying to become content providers and would be able to create a very unfair playing field for the rest of us who enjoy choice in which apps we use, not just the ones your ISP/Content provider can ram down your throat.

I don't remember reading anything in this Op-Ed about the FEC. You might try a political forum where you can vent that out...

Skit, the local bandwidth is the sole province of the local government monopoly or oligopoly. It is the local municipality who gave that monopoly to the cable or phone company and regulates (or rather doesn't regulate) that they have to provide you with the full bandwidth for which you contracted. Having the FCC use a 1930's statute designed for telegraph and Ma Bell to hammer the internet is not only foolish, it is dangerous. The feds can regulate with the FCC all they want but they will not interfere with the local government monopolies on the last mile of connectivity. What they will do is set arbitrary and foolish rules for packet sharing, ignoring the fact that certain poackets must have priority over others.

If you want to teleconference someone in real time on Skype or any other real time teleconference, you must have priority over something like Hulu or Netflix, which can buffer their streaming to give you a satisfactory experience. You have to prioritize real time gaming over e-mails and web browsing to provide the gamers with a satisfactory gaming environment.

The rules proposed by the FCC are anything but transparent. They are unknown.

The FEC's rules have, however, been revealed by this "most transparent administration in history." They intend to limit the speech that web participants can provide on political matters. Our conversation now may be classified as political and as a contribution to a given candidate. Should your point of view be a contribution to a liberal? Should mine be a contribution to a conservative or libertarian?
Should Salon be banned for promoting Hillary or Warren? Should Drudge be banned for publishing stories that embarrass Hillary or Warren? Should their stories be classified as contributions to the candidates they may support?

The FCC rules were not made in a vacuum. But they are unknown. Would you trust a republican administration making secret rules for the internet?