Net Neutrality

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: FEMA Camp PI Okanogan, WA 98840

Net Neutrality

#26

Post by SueDB » Sun Feb 23, 2014 7:19 pm

I'm waiting for my ObamaCable. ;) ;) ;) The Federals are all aflutter about trying to ensure everyone has Internet access.


“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Net Neutrality

#27

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sun Feb 23, 2014 7:32 pm

[/break1]wikipedia.org/wiki/Repton_School]Here is an English "Public School" with a tuition of approximately $25,000 per year.Hmmpf. Why go cheap? Go [link]all out,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eton_College[/link].



User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 26823
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Net Neutrality

#28

Post by Foggy » Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:32 am

Raleigh-Durham is on the list for Google Gigabit. :-bd


Welcome, seeker! (There's a seeker born every minute.)

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 8902
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Net Neutrality

#29

Post by Chilidog » Mon Feb 24, 2014 6:04 am

Monopoly or not, Comcast has several tiers of service at different. Have you called them to ask? Thought not.Yes, I did. Three time this weekend. Twice I spoke to the same a-hole who tried to push me into a high priced bundle I didn't want and once to a guy who was almost helpful until he came back from a long hold and told me I would have to call back on Monday. Which leads me to ask. Did Netflix have to sign an agreement with great rates for six months, then it locks them into a long term contract at undisclosed higher rates in the future?



jonbeck
Posts: 1610
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Oceanside, CA

Net Neutrality

#30

Post by jonbeck » Mon Feb 24, 2014 8:06 am

Opting for a lower tier service does not prevent a customer from clogging the highway by watching two seasons of downton abbey over the weekendIf I thought how a companies stock was held was at all relevant I would have said "privately held" :horse:



User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: FEMA Camp PI Okanogan, WA 98840

Net Neutrality

#31

Post by SueDB » Mon Feb 24, 2014 8:16 am

Monopoly or not, Comcast has several tiers of service at different. Have you called them to ask? Thought not.Yes, I did. Three time this weekend. Twice I spoke to the same a-hole who tried to push me into a high priced bundle I didn't want and once to a guy who was almost helpful until he came back from a long hold and told me I would have to call back on Monday. Which leads me to ask. Did Netflix have to sign an agreement with great rates for six months, then it locks them into a long term contract at undisclosed higher rates in the future?As a long time Netflix customer, they have had a couple of "program modifications" such as the streaming versus ordering the DVDs (customer before streaming was big). I felt that their price increases occurred during these "program modifications". While I felt it went up a little, it didn't go up very much - a couple a bucks. They aren't like XFinity who wants to suck you in with the cheap, then gouge you to the maximum extent of state control.


“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8511
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

Net Neutrality

#32

Post by verbalobe » Mon Feb 24, 2014 9:19 am

Comcast/Xfinity is a private company also.Good point.



neonzx
Posts: 4413
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

Net Neutrality

#33

Post by neonzx » Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:16 am

I wrote about this the other day somewheres that this is about the cable providers really underestimating the amount of content people were going to download via Netflix i.e. the binge-watching of whole series like House of Cards ( you know who you are. :sterngard: :xo ) :oops: Season 2, Episode 7, Chapter 20 running in a window at the corner of my screen.



User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31119
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Net Neutrality

#34

Post by mimi » Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:20 am

[*:2zpzab3z]MoJo on the agreement:[*:2zpzab3z] The old "peering" agreements, in which backbone suppliers carried each others' traffic free, wasn't a deep principle of internet operation and has nothing to do with net neutrality. It was just a convenience, back when the amount of incoming and outgoing traffic from each operator really was about equal. It's like two roommates sharing an electricity bill on the assumption that both are using about the same amount of energy because they live in the same apartment. But if one of the roomies gets a big space heater and suddenly starts running up the bill, that agreement might break down. It's the same thing here. There's nothing inherently wrong with charging a big user base don the amount of net data they dump on your network.[*:2zpzab3z] Other big companies like Microsoft and Facebook are already doing this. Netflix isn't breaking any new ground here.[*:2zpzab3z] On the other hand, video is special. In the case of, say, Facebook, it's pretty likely that backbone suppliers really are just charging for data flow and can be trusted to charge competitive prices. But in the case of video, there are reasons to think they might not. Comcast owns a cable TV franchise and doesn't really want competition from internet video services like Netflix. Ditto for Verizon. Will they treat Netflix as just another stream of bits, or will they do whatever they can to degrade Netflix service and overcharge them for access in order to preserve the monopoly profits they get from their own video businesses?The first two of these are reasons not to worry too much about the Netflix deal. It's just a routine business decision that makes sense. The third of these, however, points in the opposite direction. Video is special thanks to cable TV monopolies, and it's not clear if backbone suppliers can be trusted to treat video streams fairly.I'm still noodling over this, and I feel like I need to understand more about the players and their markets before I can really decide what I think about it. In the meantime, this is the basic framework I'm using to think about it.[/list]more:[/break1]motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/02/heres-how-think-about-netflix-comcast-deal]http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 ... mcast-deal



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 27952
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Net Neutrality

#35

Post by Addie » Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:13 pm

[link]Wired,http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/20 ... t-netflix/[/link]: Why the Comcast-Netflix Pact Threatens Our Internet Future


¡Sterngard! come home.

jonbeck
Posts: 1610
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Oceanside, CA

Net Neutrality

#36

Post by jonbeck » Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:36 pm

The Wired article is very good, thanks for posting



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 27952
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Net Neutrality

#37

Post by Addie » Thu Apr 24, 2014 7:44 pm

[link]CNet,http://www.cnet.com/news/fccs-position- ... t-changed/[/link]: Calm down: FCC's position on Net neutrality hasn't changed


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 27952
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Net Neutrality

#38

Post by Addie » Mon Apr 28, 2014 11:15 am

I still don't fully grasp everything, but reading this helped.





[link]dKos,http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/2 ... Neutrality[/link]: Everyday Magic: A Complete Look at Comcast/Netflix/Net Neutrality


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 27952
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Net Neutrality

#39

Post by Addie » Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:35 pm

[link]TPM Cafe,http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/behin ... net-speeds[/link]: Behind The FCC's New Rules On Two-Lane Internet Speeds


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 27952
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Net Neutrality

#40

Post by Addie » Thu May 15, 2014 11:50 am

[link]WaPo,http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... ingtonpost[/link]





FCC approves plan to allow for paid priority on Internet





The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted in favor of advancing a proposal that would dramatically reshape the way consumers experience the Internet, opening the possibility of Internet service providers charging Web sites for higher-quality delivery of their content to American consumers.





The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, could unleash a new economy on the Web where an Internet service provider such as Verizon would charge a Web site such as Netflix for the guarantee of flawless video streaming. ...





The proposal is not a final rule, but the three-to-two vote on Thursday is a significant step forward on a controversial idea that has invited fierce opposition from consumer advocates, Silicon Valley heavyweights, and Democratic lawmakers. ...





"Agencies almost always change their rules from the initial proposal -- that is why we have a whole notice and comment period, so that the agency can hear from the public and be educated into making the right decision (or at least the least bad decision)," said Harold Feld, a vice president at Public Knowledge, a media and technology policy public interest group. "Do not freak about the tentative conclusion and proposed rules."





The next phase will be four months of public comments, after which the commissioners will vote again on redrafted rules that are meant to take into account public opinion. But the enactment of final rules faces significant challenges.


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31119
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Net Neutrality

#41

Post by mimi » Thu May 15, 2014 3:31 pm

So the Tea Party fought net neutrality.But it's Obama's fault if they charge you for faster service now.OAS - WASH DC MAY 16 @ObamaChallenge#impeachobama FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet wapo.st/1g8L11T THIS WILL DESTROY FREE ACCESS #uniteblue #tcot[/break1]com/ObamaChallenge/status/467022162721644544]https://twitter.com/ObamaChallenge/stat ... 2721644544So 'Impeach'!!!And you know the Republicans can twist this around to blame Democrats for exactly what they got the Teabaggers to rally for.



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 27952
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Net Neutrality

#42

Post by Addie » Sat Jun 14, 2014 4:35 pm

[link]The Wire,http://www.thewire.com/technology/2014/ ... at/372801/[/link]





FCC Is Getting Involved in the Netflix 'Slow Internet' Spat





The FCC is continuing its aggressive course by wading into the fight between Netflix and internet service providers (ISPs) about what is causing slow internets. In recent weeks, Netflix has been (publicly) duking it out with Verizon through a campaign of direct shaming about the latter's alleged poor streaming speeds.





Following the posting of disclaimers like the one above, Verizon demanded that Netflix stop doing that. The question is: Who is actually causing the slow internet speeds? Well, the FCC, which has maintained a robust agenda lately from debating net neutrality and contemplating making broadband a public utility, has had enough and is going to get to the bottom of it.





FCC Chair Tom Wheeler said yesterday:





The bottom line is that consumers need to understand what is occurring when the Internet service they've paid for does not adequately deliver the content they desire, especially content they've also paid for."


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8511
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

Net Neutrality

#43

Post by verbalobe » Sat Jun 14, 2014 6:43 pm

Who has imagined forward the likeliest outcomes of a two-lane internet?It seems to me:[*:3d9kngq6]there is X dollars devoted yearly to bandwidth innovation (backbones, "final mile," compression, etc.)[*:3d9kngq6]This will be concentrated in the "fast lane" / "profitable" branch[*:3d9kngq6]The 'slow lane" (even if not "slow" initially by today's standards) will languish....Also:It seems inevitable that with fast-lane delivery hinging on level-of-service agreements, performance will be drawn from the "slow" lane (not fron other fast-lane users).Thoughts?



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 27952
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Net Neutrality

#44

Post by Addie » Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:35 am

[link]The Register,http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/31 ... _throttle/[/link]





You, Verizon. What's with the download throttle? Explain yourself – FCC boss





The head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is demanding an explanation from Verizon over the carrier's decision to throttle LTE speeds for heavy users.





Chairman Tom Wheeler wrote to Verizon CEO Daniel Mead seeking information about the network's plan to deliberately slow data speeds for the top five per cent of unlimited data users when its systems are experiencing heavy traffic.





In [link]the letter [PDF],[/link], obtained by Mashable, Wheeler asks the company to explain the reasoning behind its decision and the technical details behind the policy.





"Reasonable network management concerns the technical management of your network; it is not a loophole designed to enhance your revenue streams," Wheeler writes.





"It is disturbing to me that Verizon Wireless would base its network management on distinctions among its customers' data plans, rather than on network architecture or technology."


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 27952
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Net Neutrality

#45

Post by Addie » Mon Nov 10, 2014 11:19 am

LA Times











Obama calls on FCC to toughen proposed net-neutrality rules



President Obama on Monday called on federal regulators to toughen proposed net-neutrality rules for Internet traffic, including taking the controversial step of changing the way the law treats broadband providers so they are subject to stricter utility-like regulation.



In a two-page statement and a two-minute online video, Obama came out in favor of the toughest possible regulation of Internet service providers on an issue that has flooded the Federal Communications Commission with a record of more than 4 million public comments.



"Ever since the Internet was created, it's been organized around basic principles of openness, fairness and freedom," Obama said in the video posted on the White House website.



"There are no gatekeepers deciding which sites you get to access. There are no toll roads on the information superhighway," he said. "Abandoning these principals would threaten to end the Internet as we know it."



In May, the FCC voted to begin a formal rule-making process to consider regulations on Internet traffic after previous net neutrality rules were largely struck down by a federal court.








¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31119
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Net Neutrality

#46

Post by mimi » Mon Nov 10, 2014 11:25 am

Therefore, Tea Party will be fighting to slow down and jam up the internet



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 27952
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Net Neutrality

#47

Post by Addie » Mon Nov 10, 2014 11:47 am

Hiya, Mims :wave:


¡Sterngard! come home.

ducktape
Posts: 5334
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:09 pm

Net Neutrality

#48

Post by ducktape » Mon Nov 10, 2014 11:49 am

To me, this is the only thing that makes sense for society in the US. When the phone companies were allowed to hold local monopolies, it was because they were common carriers, essentially utilities.



Cable companies were allowed monopolies as well, but as city franchises because of promises they made when they bid on service for that community. That was when there actually was competition in the cable industry.



Now, I have only two choices for Internet: Verizon DSL, or Time-Warner Cable (soon to be Comcast). Both are bad. An LTE hotspot may be ok for checking your email and accessing The Fogbow (with the images turned off, because the huge GIFs and pictures can eat up your bandwidth allotment in a hurry), but use it for ordinary web surfing or watching videos or Pandora and it gets really expensive in a hurry. Ditto for satellite Internet, which is even worse for bandwidth caps and costs.



There are a lot of things that Verizon, Comcast, and the others who control the Internet can do if they wish, unless they are regulated as a common carrier. DailyKos is subversive? Let's just not let people go there. Want to connect to Steam for games? Pay an extra fee to the gatekeeper.



Whenever anyone makes these arguments, the phone/cable monopolies scream "straw man! We would never do that!" Right -- like they would never interrupt traffic between their customers and Netflix unless Netflix paid them to let the traffic go through. Except they did. And they will do anything that they find to be in their business interests, no matter what the law. Because they can, and what are you (or you Feds) going to do about it?



Regulating them as a common carrier is the first step. But it's not the only one. There also has to be enforcement of the regulations, and that enforcement has to have teeth that really hurt when they bite. Because otherwise, the telcos and cable companies will simply say "fuck you" and do what they please, law or no law.



Post Reply

Return to “Computers & Internet”