F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules [A real thread]

[Trappin]

Magicman - Big ISP companies colluded with legislators in a number of states to either make it very difficult for municipalities to operate ISP utilities - or to outright disallow it altogether. Any wonder why I'm a center-right libertarian? Well, that's just one example of hundreds why moderate libertarianism is the path to real social and economic justice.

I love how easy it is to get under the skin of the Lenist-Bolsheviks and nationalist-socialists Euro's here. Some pretty fragile cultural egos here. Your spittle-flecked whining is the chocolate frosting on my Christmas cupcake!

I feel like I just looted your shitty little villages! Thank you!

[Kirche]

[MagicManICT]

Infrastructure is so bad in USA that you will have to rebuild your networks soon anyway.
Maybe get some sane companies to do it this time.

Telecom isn't too bad. Between AT&T, Sprint, and the cellular and cable companies, there's a ton of redundancy.

It's the electrical system that is in real danger. A high altitude EMP device could wipe out over half this nation's power generation. The disaster scenario as I understand it is horrible. (And yet here is another wrongheaded Trump policy chnage. One I won't get into in this thread.) Hell, even the last major blackout was just a power hiccup. We had left something like 70 million people without power for days stretching from the Great Lakes to the Atlantic and Boston to Washington DC (2003 or so, if I recall right). It was simply a cascading failure of switches not working properly to prevent power disruption in the smallest area possible when a single point of failure was the cause for the whole blackout.

Yet another thing that our congress recognizes probably needs fixing but doesn't do anything "because higher taxes," yet will cut taxes to enrich the rich without providing more jobs and work opportunities for the rest of the country.

Magicman - Big ISP companies colluded with legislators in a number of states to either make it very difficult for municipalities to operate ISP utilities - or to outright disallow it altogether. Any wonder why I'm a center-right libertarian? Well, that's just one example of hundreds why moderate libertarianism is the path to real social and economic justice.

Definitely. Cable companies operated as monopolies without legislative oversight for many years because of inside dealing. Only when Dish Network, DirecTV, and other satellite providers became reasonable (18" dish and competitive pricing) did they seriously compete with cable and "regulations" (were little) thrown out. You still won't find more than one cable provider in any given area. AT&T provides a DSL service (U-verse) similar to cable, but in general performs about like other DSL services... if you're not near the switching hub, you have terrible streaming performance.

I really don't want to discuss the general political philosophies here. I know it's all related, but there are too many complications and it's a long discussion on its own. I know there's a couple old threads around here.

[MagicManICT]

@kriche: It's not about Netflix paying more or less than everyone else. They have paid for the bandwidth they use to THEIR ISP. The problem is that Verizon was trying to extort money out of them so Netflix could deliver data over Verizon's network. Don't use shitty charts that gloss over the real information and arguments.

[Kirche]

@kriche: It's not about Netflix paying more or less than everyone else. They have paid for the bandwidth they use to THEIR ISP. The problem is that Verizon was trying to extort money out of them so Netflix could deliver data over Verizon's network. Don't use shitty charts that gloss over the real information and arguments.

then it is exactly that, netflix paying more than everyone else, there's no extortion, they're not entitled to use of infrastructure built and paid for by Verizon.

[Potjeh]

How is it worse for ISP to put through 1Gb of Netflix data than 1Gb of any other data?

[Zampfeo]

@kriche: It's not about Netflix paying more or less than everyone else. They have paid for the bandwidth they use to THEIR ISP. The problem is that Verizon was trying to extort money out of them so Netflix could deliver data over Verizon's network. Don't use shitty charts that gloss over the real information and arguments.

then it is exactly that, netflix paying more than everyone else, there's no extortion, they're not entitled to use of infrastructure built and paid for by Verizon.

Netflix already pays for their access via their ISP and customers already pay Verizon for their access. Both of these are already sold at a fixed amount of bandwidth that both Netflix and customers abide by.

If ISPs can extort money out of other companies, it sets a horrible precedent. The internet works so well because it is open. Imagine a internet where ISPs all had their own lists of blocked and throttled servers. If you thought Chinese internet was bad, that's even worse for both customers and businesses.

Imagine if all roads were privately owned. How would you feel if Roadcast extorted money out of Walmart by threatening to shut down all their roads leading to their stores? It's the same thing. It's unethical and needs to be illegal, enforced by some government body whether it be the FCC or someone else.

[Glorthan]

How is it worse for ISP to put through 1Gb of Netflix data than 1Gb of any other data?

I have yet to hear a coherent argument against this. Heavy usage is heavy usage if it's netflix, youtube, a home server or torrenting.

A bigger problem is the lack of last mile publicly owned network infrastructure, we don't have 3 sets of water pipes, 3 sets of roads, and 3 sets of power lines owned by 3 different companies going to everyone's house...

[shubla]

How would this net neutrality prevent ISP's from rising their prices?


Way to fix internet problems is just to make the internet business restricted.
Government guarantees internet for eveyone, and then competes with companies that can offer it.
Simple and cheap.

Only issue with this is that if EVERYONE Would be guaranteed high speed internet, it gets really expensive to draw cables for that one grandma who lives in middle of nothing.
At least this is the problem with the thought in Finland. At some time they thought if high speed internet is somethign that government should guarantee for everyone, but they decided not to (yet) do it, mainly beacuse of the issue mentioned above. (Building expensive cables to middle of nowhere so a small amount of people gets internet)

[Zampfeo]

A bigger problem is the lack of last mile publicly owned network infrastructure, we don't have 3 sets of water pipes, 3 sets of roads, and 3 sets of power lines owned by 3 different companies going to everyone's house...

That's what I think, too. I'm all for capitalism and trimming government spending, but some things are just inefficient in the private sector. That includes anything that needs a national infrastructure like roads, power, water, and internet. The way the internet is ran with tier 1, 2, and 3 providers only held together by always-changing peering agreements and over redundancy in many areas is not only inefficient, but a threat to our national security when a problem at Level 3 can and often leads to a nation-wide internet blackout. We really don't need more than one line going to people's homes.