Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) announces the "Open Internet Preservation Act"

[dullard]

Well I mean, technically it could work if they roll out speed increases to a few preferred content sources FIRST, then everybody else gets it after.

For example.

You have 100mbps internet, but now they have a speed increase where Netflix pays for all their stuff to be carried at 125mbps capacity. ISP gets money, Netflix spends to advertise faster connection to YOUR isp, even though you are only paying for 100mbps service.

This is similar to how wireless carriers are currently offering unlimited streaming to a few services "netflix, hulu, youtube" but not to all services.

Is it not fair to Netflix if they are basically paying for the backbone to get upgraded, to not enjoy some of the benefit exclusively before the rest of the content catches up to them? Sort of like patents to protect R&D development costs. Many people agree with that don't they?

Two comments:
1) As it is, there is nothing stopping Netflix from cooperating with the ISP for a better internet. There is no reason to make a law if that is your goal.

2) What about the next Netflix? Netflix is an ~$82 billion company. They can throw $1B towards ISP to make their service stay peak performance and it would only be a tiny blip to them. What startup can even begin to throw $1,000,000,000 at the ISP to have similar service? None. The law basically allows existing profitable companies to become monopolies. Want to start an 8K streaming service (or whatever bandwidth hog comes next), sorry Netflix paid for that backbone, your customers get stuck with whatever service speed they had when the law was passed only Netflix gets access to that amount of bandwidth from here on out.

 

[Engineer]

If you have 100Mps down you must be paying for 1000Mps down 'cause I have never seen anyone get what they paid for from an internet provider, lot'O'hype but no delivery.

I pay for 60 Mbps and get just over 71 Mbps. Time Warner started over provisioning right after some rating came out showing delivered speeds. Spectrum (Charter) still does it after taking over TW.

 

[SMOGZINN]

What startup can even begin to throw $1,000,000,000 at the ISP to have similar service?

Another multibillion dollar corporation, and that is basically the point of all this. This is a firm slamming the door on all those people that think they can join the dot.com billionaire club. If you have a billion dollar idea you need to work for an existing corporation so they can own the IP.

 

[theeedude]

Remember kids, net neutrality will only happen if conservatism is defeated.

 

[UNCjigga]

Is this the bill that Comcast supposedly wrote themselves? I saw news last week that Comcast had written a "net neutrality" bill favorable for cable providers and ISPs and were shopping it around to Republicans.

So if this passes, do we call it TrumpNet or TrumpNyet?

 

[bshole]

Is this the bill that Comcast supposedly wrote themselves? I saw news last week that Comcast had written a "net neutrality" bill favorable for cable providers and ISPs and were shopping it around to Republicans.

So if this passes, do we call it TrumpNet or TrumpNyet?

Haven't the Republicans given enough to the ISPs already? They repealed NET Neutrality and lowered the corporate tax rate and the ISPs are still not satisfied? Where was the election that we voted on ATT/Comcast setting government policy?

Please please please tell me this will never make it through. Won't the Republicans be too busy killing off Medicare/CHIP/SS/Obamacare to take another bite at the internet?

 

[SMOGZINN]

If this passes we might have to officially declare September over, and come up with something even worse.
Today is Thursday September 8878, 1993.

 

[trenchfoot]

For the simple fact that the Repubs have to consistently rely on deception and lies to advance their agenda is all anyone needs to know about them, their character, their knowing that they are committing acts contrary to the interests of the commoners, their desire to hide the fact that they are bought and paid for by special interests and the need to advance their own personal interests.

What's there to argue about? Nothing really. Oh yeah, let's all raise our voices in chorus and shout "but they all do it!!" Some truth there, but then what gets left out of that is the fact that the Repubs are the party of Big Oil, Wall St., the Banksters and of course, anyone that's willing to pay enough to make it worth their while. The Dems much less so. Just compare their legislative records for proof.

It would be a huge insult to those girls who work the street corners every night by describing the Repubs in Congress as whores, but then it's just so damn appropriate, so sorry ladies, those crooks are what they are.

 

[yllus]

Please please please tell me this will never make it through. Won't the Republicans be too busy killing off Medicare/CHIP/SS/Obamacare to take another bite at the internet?

They need a supermajority in your federal Senate to pass a bill, don't they? Unless they kill the filibuster rule.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

How in the hell do you prevent throttling but then allow fast lanes? Are the 'fast lanes' faster than your purchased speed from the ISP?

In other words, if I have 100Mbps down, are the paid fast lanes faster than 100Mbps down? Otherwise, if they slow down anything, it's throttling.

Maybe she doesn't realize that 'slow lanes' are 'throttled lanes'?

I'm reaching and likely wrong but maybe it's a percentage thing, like no traffic will be slowed more than 50%

 

[Engineer]

I'm reaching and likely wrong but maybe it's a percentage thing, like no traffic will be slowed more than 50%

If it's being slowed, it's being throttled.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

If it's being slowed, it's being throttled.

Not if your advertised rate is $50 for 50mb but direct tv now streams at 75mb

 

[Engineer]

Not if your advertised rate is $50 for 50mb but direct tv now streams at 75mb

That's basically what I said above....that the speed would need to be higher than your advertised speed in these "fast lanes" and the "slow lanes" would be at least your advertised speed.

 

[Paratus]

That's basically what I said above....that the speed would need to be higher than your advertised speed in these "fast lanes" and the "slow lanes" would be at least your advertised speed.

Right. But the problem with that is they hold your speed at the current level while the years go by and bandwidth demand creeps up. So they never slow you but you automagically are in the slow lane.

You can of course pay for a package deal that increases your speed to certain partner sites that have also paid to be part of the high speed package.

 

[Engineer]

Right. But the problem with that is they hold your speed at the current level while the years go by and bandwidth demand creeps up. So they never slow you but you automagically are in the slow lane.

You can of course pay for a package deal that increases your speed to certain partner sites that have also paid to be part of the high speed package.

Don't disagree with you one bit....and it's not a matter of if they will do it but more when......

NN needs to be fully and properly implemented, period.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Since we live in an everything as a service society with money grubbers at the helm what did you suppose they'd do once they tore down the protections that were in place? Wait until they repeal the Wagner Act and other worker protections and return us to the anything goes in business days.

 

[brycejones]

Since we live in an everything as a service society with money grubbers at the helm what did you suppose they'd do once they tore down the protections that were in place? Wait until they repeal the Wagner Act and other worker protections and return us to the anything goes in business days.

Don't worry it will trickle down, just like it did in the gilded age.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Don't worry it will trickle down, just like it did in the gilded age.

Yes, we will be showered in gold. The Republicans intend to treat us to a real golden shower!

 

[Fanatical Meat]

If you have 100Mps down you must be paying for 1000Mps down 'cause I have never seen anyone get what they paid for from an internet provider, lot'O'hype but no delivery.

Fios, I have always received at or above my advertised rate/speed. Never slower, never much faster.



100/100mb service fios, this test happened while a TV was streaming something from sling TV on a roku.

 

[fskimospy]

Two comments:
1) As it is, there is nothing stopping Netflix from cooperating with the ISP for a better internet. There is no reason to make a law if that is your goal.

2) What about the next Netflix? Netflix is an ~$82 billion company. They can throw $1B towards ISP to make their service stay peak performance and it would only be a tiny blip to them. What startup can even begin to throw $1,000,000,000 at the ISP to have similar service? None. The law basically allows existing profitable companies to become monopolies. Want to start an 8K streaming service (or whatever bandwidth hog comes next), sorry Netflix paid for that backbone, your customers get stuck with whatever service speed they had when the law was passed only Netflix gets access to that amount of bandwidth from here on out.

Yes, this is the primary danger. Would Netflix have ever come to exist if they had been forced to pay a ton of extra money not to transmit at 320p or whatever? The problem isn’t the current companies, it’s that the next one that has a better idea but doesn’t have billions to spend won’t be able to make it.

At this point we need to either break up the telecom companies so we can get real competition or regulate them like a utility. This bullshit where they enjoy both monopoly power and no regulation is just a recipe for looting.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Yes, this is the primary danger. Would Netflix have ever come to exist if they had been forced to pay a ton of extra money not to transmit at 320p or whatever? The problem isn’t the current companies, it’s that the next one that has a better idea but doesn’t have billions to spend won’t be able to make it.

At this point we need to either break up the telecom companies so we can get real competition or regulate them like a utility. This bullshit where they enjoy both monopoly power and no regulation is just a recipe for looting.

As a former telecom guy I understand the point. Years ago YouTube used a stupid amount of bandwidth, the talk was why do network upgrades need to be performed so YouTube can stream stolen video clips for free on the network plus get ad revenue from it and as an added bonus be forced to explain new network fees or increased cost to consumers. They generally don't care why the bill is going up but they really care their bill went up.
I also understand the point that allowing enormous companies be the gate keepers probably isn't smart in the long run.
Part of the problem is most people have one choice for high speed internet and nearly none have three choices.
I don't understand why it's not treated like long distance companies years ago. Deregulate but force them to lease access to people willing to resell their service at cost to provide service plus a realistic life. That way one person controls the "wires" but there could be multiple choices in whom you buy your service from.

 

[kage69]

The very first time I saw her speak on TV, the 'evangelical pastor meets used car salesperson' vibe she's got there made me think no good will come of this woman. She's from one of those ghost voting states that believes in the voter fraud myth as well.

Nooooooope.

 

[Greenman]

I wonder how much Mrs. Blackburn was paid to introduce this bill? I also wonder if it's like a retainer where she's always in the cable company's pocket, or if it's a fixed price for each piece of legislation she produces for them? Beyond that, is there a bonus involved if she gets it passed? What if she needs lubricate the wheels of democracy to make it happen, how would she arrange payment to other law makers?

 

[Engineer]

Since this isn't filibuster proof, it won't pass. Dems will push for much stronger regulation and full NN, as the voting public want by over an 80% majority.

 

[Genx87]

How in the hell do you prevent throttling but then allow fast lanes? Are the 'fast lanes' faster than your purchased speed from the ISP?

In other words, if I have 100Mbps down, are the paid fast lanes faster than 100Mbps down? Otherwise, if they slow down anything, it's throttling.

Maybe she doesn't realize that 'slow lanes' are 'throttled lanes'?

I feel like there is a lot of confusion on what a slow vs fast lane is in networking. A slow lane with or without net neutrality is best effort. Packets are all treated the same and the switching\routing fabric gives best effort to pass it along as fast as possible. A fast lane is when a packet has a higher prioritization that allows it to be moved to the head of the class and pass through quicker. Net Neutrality requires all packets are given best effort(slow lane).

1. We don't want all traffic to be treated the same. And for obvious reasons. VOIP requires low latency. Under net neturality it would receive no prioritization on an ISP network. The work around are dedicated VPL circuits for a faster lane. This is imo cost intensive and wasteful when there is no reason why we can't keep QoS on through the entire network.

2. If an ISP is throttling traffic. Meaning they actually put in a policy to drop packets or limit bandwidths. And demanding you or a competitor pay more because of this policy. That would fall under anti-competition laws. The realm of the FTC.

Net Neutrality is a band aid trying to address an underlying illness we have when it comes to govt enforced monopoly for internet access. We need to fix the issue of allowing local govt create monopolies. And we wont need to discuss Net Neutrality like laws\policy.