Net Neutrality

Chat about just about anything else
wallstreetpirate
Level 1
Level 1
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 4:21 pm

Net Neutrality

Postby wallstreetpirate » Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:50 pm

Subject: Obama: Don't sell us out on net neutrality

Dear Friend,

This is a do or die moment for a free and open Internet, and President Obama needs to decide which side he is on -- ours or the side of the giant telecommunications corporations.

On Wednesday, Obama appointee and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski announced plans to issue weak, industry-friendly regulations when the FCC meets on Dec. 21st. And in a cynical ploy Genachowski is calling the regulations "net neutrality," when they're nothing of the sort.

President Obama, who promised on the campaign trail to be an advocate for net neutrality, can stand up now and call for stronger rules to protect American consumers, or he can sell us out to the narrow interests of the telecoms.

Will you join me in asking Pres. Obama to not sell us out on net neutrality?

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/oba ... &rc=paste1

User avatar
viking777
Level 14
Level 14
Posts: 5126
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 11:21 am

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby viking777 » Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:16 am

I wish you the best of luck with your campaign, over here in the UK net neutrality is already dead, viz this quote from a BT spokesperson a few months ago:

"[A]t the moment with our TV service, BT Vision, we deliver entertainment content, video, at peak time to consumers via our network and we prioritise the traffic in order to be able to do this."


So if you ever needed a reason to not use BT Broadband then that is it, but you won't find a place to run to for long.

If you have ever used mobile broadband you will know for sure how pervasive 'traffic shaping' is. Of course the difference is that most mobile isp's aren't daft enough to tell you how they 'shape' their traffic so you can't actually accuse them of prioritising more commercial products when your connection drops off every night.
Fujitsu Lifebook AH532. Intel i5 processor, 6Gb ram, Intel HD3000 graphics, Intel Audio/wifi. Realtek RTL8111/8168B Ethernet.Lubuntu 13.10,Ubuntu12.10 (Unity), Mint16 (Cinnamon), Manjaro (Xfce).

AlexanderAddisoon
Level 1
Level 1
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2017 7:34 am

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby AlexanderAddisoon » Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:35 am

Will you join me in asking Pres. Obama to not sell us out on net neutrality?


**Update 15 December 2017** – Yesterday’s open meeting on FCC’s proposal to repeal net neutrality protections in 2015 has sadly passed. The implications of this new change include broadband internet being no longer classifiable as a Title II service. As such, the regulations that go along with it will now be replaceable and ISPs will be able to practice paid prioritization, blocking, and throttling. To bypass these new restrictions, it is imperative you invest in a Net Neutrality VPN solution, before they are banned too! Continue reading this blog for more information.
https://www.bestvpnprovider.com/net-neutrality-vpn/

User avatar
majpooper
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 1:56 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby majpooper » Fri Dec 15, 2017 1:46 pm

I have looked into this with a great deal of interest and have a different opinion.

The fact is the internet grew for 20 years (1995-20015) before net neutrality was put in place in 2015 and in reality the many scenarios we are warned of are considered illegal with or without net neutrality.

In the USA, at least, we are protected by the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Clayton Act and the Sherman Act, same as we were prior to net neutrality being passed in 2015 and will continue to be.

The assertion that “ISPs will be able to practice paid prioritization, blocking, and throttling” to limit competition or that some entity has an advantage in streaming their content over the internet because they will pay millions to buy better access is and will still be illegal.

Fact: net neutrality has resulted 18% reduction in investment in the wireless space in the past two years. We need robust investment over the next decade to build out 5G networks and the 1,000 requirements of Title II has created tremendous uncertainty.

DAMIEN1307
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby DAMIEN1307 » Fri Dec 15, 2017 2:23 pm

alexander addison wrote "To bypass these new restrictions, it is imperative you invest in a Net Neutrality VPN solution, before they are banned too!"
if VPN "were" banned it would be to no avail to invest in an imperitive manner as you suggest...they are already banned in china and north korea i believe...if as you think that having such tools before they are banned would help you in any way you are sadly mistaken...your ISP would automatically know your using a vpn and like china and north korea, would immediately report you...a vpn does to quite a degree protect your privacy and to a dgree your anonymity but by no means makes you invisble to your ISP...they may not know what sites your visiting but rest assured the see the fact your using a tunnel...this is a knee jerk reaction to a media hyped "problem" which may not be a "real" problem whatsoever...contrary to popular belief of the tin foil hat crowd, we are not in a totalitarian society as of yet and at least at this stage of the game, i so far side with majpoopers analysis of the situation as stated in his post...he has even using well known statistics and existing laws to prove his points...i seriously doubt that we will see much of any change first off because its just not in the ISPs interest to alienate its customers...they ARE in the game to make money after all and would not be inclined to "throttle" their own financial interests...DAMIEN

DAMIEN1307
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby DAMIEN1307 » Fri Dec 15, 2017 2:31 pm

just as a side point...when i looked at the site you provided, i blocked the 12 different "trackers" and ads that are eagerly awaiting our arrival over this non-issue...also dont count on obama...he is occupied right now in world travel and golf plus former presidents by custom tend not to interfere nor voice opinions very much on the job their successor is involved with or other gov't agencies as they are now out of power and their clout is diminished...just ask bill and hillary,they will tell you just how diminished they have become...DAMIEN

User avatar
all41
Level 11
Level 11
Posts: 3761
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:12 am
Location: Computer, Car, Cage

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby all41 » Fri Dec 15, 2017 2:52 pm

Proud to be a supporter and monthly contributor to Mint.

User avatar
Moem
Level 12
Level 12
Posts: 4384
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2015 9:14 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby Moem » Fri Dec 15, 2017 3:06 pm

DAMIEN1307 wrote:also dont count on obama...

Please note the date on the original post.

And a general remark: this thread cannot become political, or we'll have to close it as per the forum rules. Let's keep that in mind.
Image

If your issue is solved, kindly indicate that by editing the first post in the topic, and adding [SOLVED] to the title. Thanks!

User avatar
BenTrabetere
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2014 12:04 am
Location: Hattiesburg, MS USA

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby BenTrabetere » Fri Dec 15, 2017 3:45 pm

majpooper wrote:The fact is the internet grew for 20 years (1995-20015) before net neutrality was put in place in 2015 and in reality the many scenarios we are warned of are considered illegal with or without net neutrality.

Net neutrality was not an issue prior to 2014. It became an issue because of the Verizon v. FCC decision that determined the FCC had no authority to enforce network neutrality rules as long as service providers were not identified as common carriers.

In the USA, at least, we are protected by the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Clayton Act and the Sherman Act, same as we were prior to net neutrality being passed in 2015 and will continue to be.

The FTC has effectively turned its back on regulating ISPs, content providers, etc. And it is unlikely the current Justice Dept will take on any antitrust investigations.

Fact: net neutrality has resulted 18% reduction in investment in the wireless space in the past two years.

This reports shows investments increased by 5% over the past two years and that the reduction in investment claims are based on manipulated data from ISP analysts.

https://www.freepress.net/press-release/108079/its-working-free-press-documents-historic-levels-investment-and-innovation-fccs

User avatar
majpooper
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 1:56 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby majpooper » Sat Dec 16, 2017 2:18 pm

"This reports shows investments increased by 5% over the past two years and that the reduction in investment claims are based on manipulated data from ISP analysts".

I agree data can be manipulated and usually is - however freepress.net is hardly a reliable source as their political agenda is transparent. On the other hand when it comes to where to invest ones $$$ Wall Street annalists are much more reliable IMHO.

And you also express a real concern that I share - the anti-trust/anti-competition laws are on the books. And like all our laws and regulations having confidence that they will be faithfully enforced by the courts and regulatory agencies . . . well that's a separate issue that transcends net neutrality doesn't it ?

CoffeeFiend
Level 1
Level 1
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2017 8:45 am

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby CoffeeFiend » Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:44 pm

This whole net neutrality argument has really shown group-think in motion, especially among many of the left-leaning "news" articles and comment sections (just stating the facts based on what I have read in the news... not trying to be political or anything :mrgreen: ). Most of those against repealing net neutrality are saying that it is basically rolling out the red carpet for ISPs to "throttle bandwidth" and to give preference for those who pay higher premiums for Internet connectivity, and of course, the good old "now costs are going to skyrocket because the US government won't be able to regulate the ISPs" . Funny, I don't recall those things happening prior to net neutrality. But hey, only time will tell and maybe I'm way off base.
"The best part of waking up, is Folgers in your cup!"

User avatar
trytip
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 942
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:20 pm

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby trytip » Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:52 pm

if i pay for a service i should have control of it. if net neutrality goes away then the internet should be free of charge then they can do what ever the hell they want with it.
net neutrality is like installing a governor in your car and telling you "we will drive your car to the store we choose and if you go somewhere else we will turn off the engine"
I love Windows, they give my walls personality.

User avatar
BenTrabetere
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2014 12:04 am
Location: Hattiesburg, MS USA

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby BenTrabetere » Sat Dec 16, 2017 11:44 pm

CoffeeFiend wrote:Funny, I don't recall those things happening prior to net neutrality. But hey, only time will tell and maybe I'm way off base.

Funny, but some of the issues you raised were the reason for arguments for an open internet and net neutrality. It was discussed at the FCC as far back as 2005, and some of the concerns at that time were ISPs and wireless carriers would throttle service to the 'bandwidth hogs'.

This was codified with the FCC Open Internet Order of 2010 which, among other things, established that internet service providers could not discriminate against content. It also established two classes of internet access: for fixed-line providers and wireless providers.

Then it became an issue again with the Verizon decision, where the court determined the FCC had no authority to enforce network neutrality rules because service providers were not identified as common carriers.

The results from the recent FCC ruling remain to be seen. For consumers things could remain the same or things might get better. But since it now is effectively a self-regulating industry, the safe bet is it will get worse for consumers.

CoffeeFiend
Level 1
Level 1
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2017 8:45 am

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby CoffeeFiend » Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:28 am

BenTrabetere wrote:
CoffeeFiend wrote:Funny, I don't recall those things happening prior to net neutrality. But hey, only time will tell and maybe I'm way off base.

Funny, but some of the issues you raised were the reason for arguments for an open internet and net neutrality. It was discussed at the FCC as far back as 2005, and some of the concerns at that time were ISPs and wireless carriers would throttle service to the 'bandwidth hogs'.

This was codified with the FCC Open Internet Order of 2010 which, among other things, established that internet service providers could not discriminate against content. It also established two classes of internet access: for fixed-line providers and wireless providers.

Then it became an issue again with the Verizon decision, where the court determined the FCC had no authority to enforce network neutrality rules because service providers were not identified as common carriers.

The results from the recent FCC ruling remain to be seen. For consumers things could remain the same or things might get better. But since it now is effectively a self-regulating industry, the safe bet is it will get worse for consumers.


Good information! I also recall some people arguing that killing net neutrality would be handing control of the Internet over to countries like NK, China, and Saudi Arabia and it would result in mass censorship of web content. There is so much disinformation out there that sometimes it makes it difficult to weed out the BS and get the real facts.
By the way, what part of Mississippi are you from? I was born and raised in McComb and lived a few years in Vicksburg.
"The best part of waking up, is Folgers in your cup!"

trapperjohn
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 803
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby trapperjohn » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:17 pm

Once upon a time an internet connection was not needed for equal access to government services. Once connectivity became necessary for public services, it became necessary to regulate it and make it equally available. Note that this is more far reaching than simply providing access to government sites. Government also has a madate to provide equal access to educational resources. How can a kid do his homework if he/she only has the Netflix channel?

Trouble is, most folks just want to know that they can still put pictures of their food on Facebook.

felemur
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 391
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 2:22 pm

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby felemur » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:24 pm

Anyone have any idea how / if this affects Canada?

I don't think it would mean anything, as Canada's CRTC is considered one of the best examples of corporate capture.

borg101
Level 3
Level 3
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 9:00 pm

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby borg101 » Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:26 pm

Trusting in corporations to do the right thing is absolutely folly. Look into the history of the FDA. The whole reason people started caring about what was in food and we, as a people started demanding it be regulated, was basically because people were peddling food either falsely labeled and killing people, or with unsafe chemicals and biproducts which ended up killing people. The "trust people to do the 'right' thing" approach is absolutely folly. We have a ton of adages and expressions in our respective languages and cultures to warn us of this. "Give an inch, take a mile", "Absolute power corrupts absolutely", "The desire of power in excess caused the angels to fall", etc, etc, etc.

The whole reason the discussion of Net Neutrality came around was because in the mid 90s telecom companies were already trying to figure out how they could lobby legislation to in order to increase profits. The FCC tried and lost the "soft touch regulation" battle many times over. The likes of Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, etc have deeper pockets than most. Earlier this decade (~2010...I'm not sure of the exact date) the major mobile carriers in the US banded together to block, successfully I might add, Google Wallet in favor of their own form of branded payment.

If you think private company regulation is a bad thing, it frequently isn't. More often than not, it is proposed by the masses to help protect families and individuals from already experienced strife.
Mobo: ASRock model: Z97E-ITX | CPU: Quad core Intel Core i5-4690 | GPU: NVIDIA GM206 [GeForce GTX 960] | RAM: 16GB DDR3 | SSD/HDD: Total Size: 8251.6GB | OS: Mint 18.2 (Cinnamon)

User avatar
jimallyn
Level 17
Level 17
Posts: 7264
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 7:34 pm
Location: Wenatchee, WA USA

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby jimallyn » Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:39 pm

CoffeeFiend wrote:This whole net neutrality argument has really shown group-think in motion, especially among many of the left-leaning "news" articles and comment sections (just stating the facts based on what I have read in the news... not trying to be political or anything :mrgreen: ). Most of those against repealing net neutrality are saying that it is basically rolling out the red carpet for ISPs to "throttle bandwidth" and to give preference for those who pay higher premiums for Internet connectivity, and of course, the good old "now costs are going to skyrocket because the US government won't be able to regulate the ISPs" . Funny, I don't recall those things happening prior to net neutrality. But hey, only time will tell and maybe I'm way off base.

I'll bookmark this thread so I can say "I told you so" later. If you have an alternative explanation for why the big ISPs lobbied so hard for this, I'd like to hear it. In the meantime, I will continue to believe that it is indeed for the reasons you mention above.
Image

“If the government were coming for your TVs and cars, then you'd be upset. But, as it is, they're only coming for your sons.” - Daniel Berrigan

User avatar
Pierre
Level 16
Level 16
Posts: 6040
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:33 am
Location: Perth, AU.

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby Pierre » Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:59 am

felemur wrote:Anyone have any idea how / if this affects Canada?

I don't think it would mean anything, as Canada's CRTC is considered one of the best examples of corporate capture.


it most likely will only affect the CONUS area, rather than any other Country.
& it will be an interesting thing to watch, in order to see if it does affect any other Countries,
as the Major part of any Internet Traffic is funneled through CONUS & yes - - they do have Fast Servers,
but, that is still a bad bottleneck, to the Internet, as a whole.

Also2: on a side note: when this Fed Gov't stated that it would collect Meta data,,
the the Local Use-age of VPNs spiked by some huge value & stayed way up, too.
ie: the average Joe doesn't really Trust any Gov't or any Corporation . . . .
Image
Please edit your original post title to include [SOLVED] - when your problem is solved!
and DO LOOK at those Unanswered Topics - - you may be able to answer some!.

CoffeeFiend
Level 1
Level 1
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2017 8:45 am

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby CoffeeFiend » Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:23 am

jimallyn wrote:
CoffeeFiend wrote:This whole net neutrality argument has really shown group-think in motion, especially among many of the left-leaning "news" articles and comment sections (just stating the facts based on what I have read in the news... not trying to be political or anything :mrgreen: ). Most of those against repealing net neutrality are saying that it is basically rolling out the red carpet for ISPs to "throttle bandwidth" and to give preference for those who pay higher premiums for Internet connectivity, and of course, the good old "now costs are going to skyrocket because the US government won't be able to regulate the ISPs" . Funny, I don't recall those things happening prior to net neutrality. But hey, only time will tell and maybe I'm way off base.

I'll bookmark this thread so I can say "I told you so" later. If you have an alternative explanation for why the big ISPs lobbied so hard for this, I'd like to hear it. In the meantime, I will continue to believe that it is indeed for the reasons you mention above.


I won't pretend to know why the big ISPs lobbied so hard for it. I can only assume that it was for the very same reason any other big company lobbies for anything... $$$. Of course there is always the threat that ISPs will jack up the costs for users. But there's just as much of a possibility that they won't. Only time will tell, but I certainly hope that in the end the lack of government regulation will actually spur growth and investment in infrastructure that would actually provide the end users with a better overall product. Again, the reasons I listed above are not my own. I was merely summarizing the arguments against the repeal that I have read on various news sites, and the point was that there is so much information out there from both sides of the argument that it is hard to weed out what is fact and what is fiction.
"The best part of waking up, is Folgers in your cup!"


Return to “Open chat”