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

[Engineer]

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.

I can guarantee that ISP's aren't wanting repeal of NN to help VOIP customers (or anyone else) using QoS. It, as was creeping into the ISP fabric before NN, is about milking the net on both ends, resulting in higher costs being passed on from companies like Netflix, etc. because they are 'throttled' unless they pay to get in the 'fast lane'.

And as for competition cures things, just read the Spectrum (Charter) forums and see what customers say about their service, even when confronted with competitors with better / cheaper service.

Repeal of NN was about making more money for the ISP's....period.

 

[Zorba]

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.

Telecommunications are a natural monopoly. Show me all the companies just chumping at the bit to add wiring everywhere, including the last mile, once "local governments" can't allow monopolies any more. Even Google threw in the towel, and that was with every local government and even state governments bending over backwards for them.

 

[bshole]

Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.

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.

You know something, you are 100% correct. It is confusing. Downright baffling. WHY THE FUCK DON'T REPUBLICANS RUN ON THE SHIT THEY ACTUALLY DO!!!!!??/

When they were up for election, were they running on decimating Net Neutrality? Were they running on a historic giveaway to the 1% on FUCKING CREDIT? Where were the ad campaigns? Your party has demolished representative government. They are pathological liars and con men. They represent the 1% and could give a fuck about people like you who are fool enough to vote for them.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

First, it’s very uncertain if the FTC has jurisdiction over telecoms. In fact, according to the current status in the courts it has no jurisdiction:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...-fight-against-att-unlimited-data-throttling/

Second, the FTC has no expertise and no staff/rulemaking procedures in place to effectively police telecoms. Even if the current administration were interested in regulating them with the FTC (and it’s not), this would take years to develop.

Third, the FTC is a reactive regulator, meaning telecoms can get away with this sort of behavior for years as it winds its way through the courts and for tons of small operators even if they eventually win a disputed its too late because they were run out of business.

So in short, the FTC is no answer at all from either a technical or a practical perspective.

While I agree the best answer is to break up the telecoms and/or force them to lease the last mile at highly regulated rates to whoever wants to supply service they are likely simply too strong to do that at this point. Failing that, strong net neutrality is the best and easiest weapon we have to prevent them from further abusing their monopoly power.

 

[bshole]

While I agree the best answer is to break up the telecoms and/or force them to lease the last mile at highly regulated rates to whoever wants to supply service they are likely simply too strong to do that at this point. Failing that, strong net neutrality is the best and easiest weapon we have to prevent them from further abusing their monopoly power.

Oh my god, that would so awesome. If only we could get candidates to run on that!

 

[dyna]

Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.


You know something, you are 100% correct. It is confusing. Downright baffling. WHY THE FUCK DON'T REPUBLICANS RUN ON THE SHIT THEY ACTUALLY DO!!!!!??/

When they were up for election, were they running on decimating Net Neutrality? Were they running on a historic giveaway to the 1% on FUCKING CREDIT? Where were the ad campaigns? Your party has demolished representative government. They are pathological liars and con men. They represent the 1% and could give a fuck about people like you who are fool enough to vote for them.

QoS is used in virtually every network except the internet, are you raging that network prioritization is happening in your house or at your work place? Probably not. You probably don't even realize its happening and you can still stream, game, browse all your favorite sites without interruption. However, when your talking on the phone(VOIP) and the voice is all broken up, your probably like, hey who is going to fix this, why in 2017 can voice not be clear?

I support Net Neutrality but I get the reasons why they want to add QoS. I think the core issue in my mind is "Paid Prioritization" and not QoS. I think QoS probably needs to be allowed on the internet but it should not be a means of financial gain. Who decides what gets prioritized is probably a key factor to keeping Net Neutrality and also have QoS on the internet.

 

[momeNt]

Telecommunications are a natural monopoly. Show me all the companies just chumping at the bit to add wiring everywhere, including the last mile, once "local governments" can't allow monopolies any more. Even Google threw in the towel, and that was with every local government and even state governments bending over backwards for them.

That's just simply not true. Do you still have dial-up? DSL? Cable? Fiber?

 

[momeNt]

While I agree the best answer is to break up the telecoms and/or force them to lease the last mile at highly regulated rates to whoever wants to supply service they are likely simply too strong to do that at this point. Failing that, strong net neutrality is the best and easiest weapon we have to prevent them from further abusing their monopoly power.

That is only a reasonable argument if you consider the internet is finished at fiber in some places, 50mb cable in other places, and want to completely stagnate the development of the technology because you think it is good enough to call a "simple" utility, by that I mean, internet is internet.

This hasn't even been a relatively slow development either. The internet and ISPs have been relatively volatile in just the last 20 years. It's not like you have Bell telephone operating a vertical monopoly for 60 years.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

That's just simply not true. Do you still have dial-up? DSL? Cable? Fiber?

Dial up, dsl and fiber tend to be from the same company. Cable tends to be different. Most in the US have no choice, some have a choice between the local cable company or the local telecom company. Nearly nobody has a third choice that is realistic.

 

[momeNt]

Dial up, dsl and fiber tend to be from the same company. Cable tends to be different. Most in the US have no choice, some have a choice between the local cable company or the local telecom company. Nearly nobody has a third choice that is realistic.

My point is, it isn't water service. They should be focusing on spurring investment into the infrastructure as equally as worrying about the "next netflix".

 

[fskimospy]

That is only a reasonable argument if you consider the internet is finished at fiber in some places, 50mb cable in other places, and want to completely stagnate the development of the technology because you think it is good enough to call a "simple" utility, by that I mean, internet is internet.

Except of course there are other countries that do this right now, today, and it has not stagnated the technology. In fact, countries that unbundle the last mile generally have higher average speeds than the US. The UK was a great example of a country with poor internet speeds that did exactly this. The increase in competition saw speeds increase dramatically and prices drop. If the idea is that monopolists only have incentives to invest in their network because they can extract monopoly rents from their customers then the entire way we are creating telecommunications infrastructure is horrendous. If that's not an argument for turning them into a utility I don't know what is.

This hasn't even been a relatively slow development either. The internet and ISPs have been relatively volatile in just the last 20 years. It's not like you have Bell telephone operating a vertical monopoly for 60 years.

The ISPs are consolidating at a pretty breakneck pace and it's probably only going to get worse. Fully 1/6th of US households have either only 1 25Mbps option or none at all. Almost 90% of US households have 0,1, or at most 2 competitors. This is not a functional competitive market in any way, shape, or form.

Competition is the answer here and if the telecoms won't compete then we should force them to.

 

[woolfe9998]

Marsha Blackburn, top 20 donors:

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/contributors?cid=N00003105&cycle=CAREER

AT&T (2), Verizon (4), NCTA Internet and TV Co (6), Comcast (16)

What amazes me is how these people can even pretend they are acting in the interests of the general public.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

My point is, it isn't water service. They should be focusing on spurring investment into the infrastructure as equally as worrying about the "next netflix".

Its a decent point however time and time again it has failed. Nobody wants to invest the kind of money it will take without a profit guarantee. Best hope is some kind of wireless solution that has crap tons of bandwidth so thousands of people can use it simultaneously.

 

[fskimospy]

My point is, it isn't water service. They should be focusing on spurring investment into the infrastructure as equally as worrying about the "next netflix".

Wouldn't you agree that fostering competition is the best way to spur investment into infrastructure?

 

[momeNt]

Wouldn't you agree that fostering competition is the best way to spur investment into infrastructure?

Investment in infrastructure has dropped since NN started in 2015. At least according to Ajit Pai's statement when the repeal passed. I did not and probably could not independently verify that.

edit: to answer your question, yes, there appears to be disagreement on the best way to do that though.

 

[fskimospy]

Investment in infrastructure has dropped since NN started in 2015. At least according to Ajit Pai's statement when the repeal passed. I did not and probably could not independently verify that.

According to the ISPs themselves net neutrality hasn't hurt investment.

https://arstechnica.com/information...-investment-according-to-the-isps-themselves/

It's best not to trust a single word that comes out of Ajit Pai's mouth.

 

[momeNt]

According to the ISPs themselves net neutrality hasn't hurt investment.

https://arstechnica.com/information...-investment-according-to-the-isps-themselves/

It's best not to trust a single word that comes out of Ajit Pai's mouth.

I suppose I guess the argument in 2015 was, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, now I guess the same holds true. Why unfix what wasn't broken in the first place and still isn't broken now. This all really feels like much ado about nothing.

 

[fskimospy]

I suppose I guess the argument in 2015 was, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, now I guess the same holds true. Why unfix what wasn't broken in the first place and still isn't broken now. This all really feels like much ado about nothing.

I would argue that it's very much broken. US broadband is more expensive and slower than in most other developed countries. And before we talk about how the US is larger and more spread out (which certainly accounts for part of it), this is true even in dense urban areas. I don't think it takes a genius to figure out why this is, it's because our internet access is governed by either monopolies or duopolies that have no incentive to compete with each other.

http://www.analysisgroup.com/upload...roadband_competition_report_november_2016.pdf

 

[Puffnstuff]

Mozilla has a page where you can sign up to send congress a letter requesting that this be repealed.

https://advocacy.mozilla.org/en-us/net-neutrality/petition

 

[theeedude]

Marsha Blackburn may be running for the Senate in TN next year. That would be a good time for Tennesseans to show up and let her know what they think about her proposals on net neutrality.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

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.

Basically how Texas does electric plans.

 

[hal2kilo]

Marsha Blackburn may be running for the Senate in TN next year. That would be a good time for Tennesseans to show up and let her know what they think about her proposals on net neutrality.

Yea, but she's anti pro choice, so no. Republicans got that single issue block locked down.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

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.

Awww, you're so cute. You still think only the enemy's side can be bought and paid for. There there /pats Engineer on the head.

 

[Zorba]

That's just simply not true. Do you still have dial-up? DSL? Cable? Fiber?

I have a phone line and a cable line. Both were laid for different purposes than internet. No body is ever going to come in a lay another set to compete with them. That is a natural monopoly. Just like I have a set of electrical lines and a gas line. No one is going to run a competing set of electrical lines to my house either.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I have a phone line and a cable line. Both were laid for different purposes than internet. No body is ever going to come in a lay another set to compete with them. That is a natural monopoly. Just like I have a set of electrical lines and a gas line. No one is going to run a competing set of electrical lines to my house either.

This is why such infrastructure should be owned by the government. What we are doing now is like letting Fed-Ex and UPS build the roads, and if you want Amazon to deliver a package you can only get it from the company that happened to build a road to your house, and if the other company wants to deliver a package to you they have to first build a competing road to your front door.