Net Neutrality Ruling Passed

[Patranus]

You probably wouldn't be saying that if the topic were the FCC's "decency rules".

And those rules came about because the FCC had authority to regulate the spectrum to ensure the people didn't use the same frequency.

The law of unintended consequences.

It is a joke to think that a private company is bad because it regulates content (and nothing is stopping you from going to a different company - hell, choice and competition, right?) but when the government does it, it is a good thing, but there is no alternative to government.

 

[Patranus]

Oh yes, because Dialup, 3G, and Satellite are such *great* solutions

Everything has a plus and a minus.
You decide which is best for you, not government.

 

[Modelworks]

To make things worse companies are taking cities to court and trying to get state laws passed preventing a city from installing their own networks. They are basically saying it doesn't matter what the consumer wants, companies make the rules. If the rules do not fit the law, the companies will change them so they do.
http://stopthecap.com/2010/05/04/no...ium-bill-expected-to-be-introduced-wednesday/

North Carolina faces a moratorium on municipal broadband deployment. On Wednesday, Senators David Hoyle and Daniel Clodfelter will introduce a bill expected to stall community broadband projects across the state. The bill, which has yet to be seen by the public, should appear in the Revenue Laws Study Committee, co-chaired by Clodfelter. We have heard the bill faces mere minutes of consideration before a quick vote, in hopes of moving it forward before the public finds out what elected officials are doing on their behalf.

Proponents of the moratorium argue that municipal broadband harms private industry and reduces tax revenue the state earns from those businesses. But their argument lacks something — merit. Missing from the debate are the actual numbers from the state’s largest telecommunications companies. How much tax revenue does Time Warner Cable, AT&T and CenturyLink (formerly EMBARQ) generate? We don’t know and the two senators (and the companies involved) aren’t saying.

Telecom execs are the slimiest of all corporations.

 

[blackangst1]

As a professional in networking, and as someone who holds two Cisco certs, Im still on the fence about this. Fact is, I believe part of the reason voice/video works so well now is that traffic is prioritized. I'll have to wait for implimentation to see if its a benefit or not.

 

[Modelworks]

Everything has a plus and a minus.
You decide which is best for you, not government.

The corporations decide what is best not you or the government.

 

[zsdersw]

And those rules came about because the FCC had authority to regulate the spectrum to ensure the people didn't use the same frequency.

The law of unintended consequences.

So you think the decency rules are a good thing? I sure don't.

It is a joke to think that a private company is bad because it regulates content (and nothing is stopping you from going to a different company - hell, choice and competition, right?) but when the government does it, it is a good thing, but there is no alternative to government.

So, let me get this straight... I should consider myself "free" to switch from one ISP that prioritizes traffic to the other (there are two in my area) that also prioritizes traffic? That's bullshit!.

You're also proposing.. by listing dialup, 3G, and satellite as options.. that I consider myself "free" to restrict what I do on the Internet (thereby making those offerings acceptably fast)... all just to fit an ISP's ridiculous need to segment and prioritize traffic? That's totally and completely bullshit!

 

[ch33zw1z]

And if you think the level of service you are getting from your ISP is not up to your standards nothing is stopping you from going to a different ISP that uses any number of technologies.

Every ISP has a const/benefit to it. It is up to you (the consumer) to decide what ISP is best for you.

If an ISP blocks bittorrent and is able to provide higher speeds to the average consumer (the average consumer doesn't use bittorrent) why shouldn't the consumer be able to decide if that is the product they want to buy, especially if they never use bittorrent?

The consumer is the decider.

I'm pretty sure I've seen this from you before, and it's simply not true. Comcast has both Verizon and Satellite beat in my area, and countless others. That's in terms of speed/price ratio. Not everyone has multiple ISP's to choose from that can provide the same speed. If I switch from Comcast, Verizon can't even give me enough bandwidth to stream from Netflix without buffering every minute or so. I know due to experience.

If this were not the case, I would be inclined to agree. I wish I had more choices, but it's just not the case.

 

[zsdersw]

Patranus's idea of "choice" is choosing to limit/change what you do on the Internet so that more ISP options become available to you because the ISPs are whining that they need to be able to segment and prioritize certain types of traffic.

Fuck that.

ISPs don't get to decide what I need or want to do with the Internet.. I do.

 

[xj0hnx]

And those rules came about because the FCC had authority to regulate the spectrum to ensure the people didn't use the same frequency.

The law of unintended consequences.

It is a joke to think that a private company is bad because it regulates content (and nothing is stopping you from going to a different company - hell, choice and competition, right?) but when the government does it, it is a good thing, but there is no alternative to government.

Your idea that people have a choice is bullshit, and that has been proven by at least three people here who do not. You want the companies that are throttling bandwidth to decide, we do not. Companies should not offer what they can not provide. You support them stealing from consumers. The only "cost benefit" analysis going on is how much longer they can throttle bandwidth before the customers that have no choice decide to just drop their service completely.

 

[Patranus]

I'm pretty sure I've seen this from you before, and it's simply not true. Comcast has both Verizon and Satellite beat in my area, and countless others. That's in terms of speed/price ratio. Not everyone has multiple ISP's to choose from that can provide the same speed. If I switch from Comcast, Verizon can't even give me enough bandwidth to stream from Netflix without buffering every minute or so. I know due to experience.

If this were not the case, I would be inclined to agree. I wish I had more choices, but it's just not the case.

Like I said, everything is a cost/benefit.

 

[Genx87]

TCP/IP is a wonderful protocol.. and is all we need to enjoy all of the services the Internet can provide, both now and in the future. We don't need to segment or prioritize certain types of traffic.

It is a wonderful protocol until you get applications like Bit Torrent which exploit it for their own benefit crushing the network in the process.

 

[Patranus]

The corporations decide what is best not you or the government.

And I can *choose* what corporations get my business.

I cannot *choose* what a group of unelected bureaucrats decide to regulate.

Again, the FCC was granted the authority to regulate the spectrum and overstepped its authority and began regulating content.

THE FUCKING FCC IS REGULATION CONTENT AND PEOPLE ARE BITCHING ABOUT COMPANIES THEY DO NOT HAVE TO BUY A PRODUCT FROM.

Again, the "progressive" ignores history in order to justify government control of the private sector.

 

[Modelworks]

Again, the "progressive" ignores history in order to justify government control of the private sector.

I got your history right here:

If you think that telecom is doing things right then please read this . It details how they stole several hundred billion from taxpayers and all the things they did to get the rules to where they are.
http://www.newnetworks.com/FCCCITIbroadband.pdf

By the end of 2000, the companies stated they would spend $53.4 billion on 36.1 million
homes.


In virtually every state, Verizon, AT&T and Qwest applied for and received major
financial incentives through changes in state laws, sometimes referred to as “alternative
regulations”, “incentive regulations”, “price cap regulation” or “AFOR”, “Alternative
Form of regulation”.

Though each state had a different regulatory series of requirements and incentives, an
example of alternative regulations is Indiana Bell’s changes in state law. Originally
regulated through ‘rate-of-return’, which examined profits, in this case, the company
profits were no longer examined and the company received “market based pricing” for
”competitive” services using “pure price regulation” --- meaning that the price of a
competitive service can be changed to what the market allows and that the state
commission can not examine or restrict profits. In this state, the commission would no
longer be allowed to examine “depreciation rates”, and the company would invest $120
million to wire schools, hospitals, and government centers.

-------------------
Pacific Bell announced it would be spending $16 billion over the period of 5 years
for fiber optic upgrades to 5.5 million homes.

Estimated total expense in California: $250 million.
Ratio of announcements and expenditures: 1.6%
Benefits from state Incentive regulations: Estimated $1 billion in extra profits.
Pacific Bell also took a $3.4 billion tax deduction for accelerated depreciation in
1995.

Bell Atlantic announced $11 billion dollars in expenditures for 8.75 million homes.
Estimated total expense in California: $200 million.
Ratio of announcements and expenditures: 1.8%
Benefits: Bell Atlantic (and NYNEX) took a $5.1 billion tax deduction for
accelerated depreciation. State by state alternative regulations (deregulation)
had been implemented for fiber optic upgrades.


US West said it will spend at least $750 million to upgrade 750,000 homes by
1995 and businesses in the four cities, on top of the Omaha Nebraska project.
Estimated total expenditures: $40 million.
Ratio of announcements to expenditures: 5.3%
Benefit: In 1993, the company took a $3.1 billion dollar tax deduction for accelerated depreciation.

They also changed the definition of broadband

The standard speed for broadband in 1993 was 45 Mbps. It was also “symmetric”
speeds, meaning fast in both directions. And it is part of state laws, including New Jersey
and Texas. The speed was based on the fact that high definition television without
compression required that speed in 1993.

"Broadband Digital Service — Switching Capabilities matched with
transportation capabilities supporting data rates up to 45,000,000
bits per second (45 Mbps) and higher, which enables services, for
example, that will allow residential and business customers to receive
high definition video and to send and receive interactive (i.e., two
way) video signals

Sometimes regulation is necessary . Give me the right to use anyone I want for the last mile and all the content regulation goes away.

 

[frostedflakes]

I'm FAR from a "progressive" and I can see what ISP's are trying to do, it's what they have been doing, but legally. They are Internet Service PROVIDERS, not Internet Service DECIDERS. I pay for internet service, not what they decide I need to be doing. they do not own the content on the internet, they provide me with the service to access it, and them deciding what I can, and can not access is not what I pay for.

If ISP's want to cry about people using too much bandwidth ...then don't sell them that much bandwidth. Simply put, if I pay for 14mbps down and 2mbps up, than I should be able to max that amount 24/7 if I want. If their infrastructure can't handle it, and they can't provide what I pay for, than they shouldn't be charging me for it.

People would be bitching just as much if they did that, though. The latest and greatest in cable internet technology, DOCSIS 3.0, shares like 152Mbps of downstream bandwidth between an entire neighborhood. Assuming 32 customers in a neighborhood, if you split that evenly it's only 5Mbps per household. Yet people are demanding very high speed services, 10Mbps+, stuff like that. There's no way they could deliver those kind of speeds and guarantee people could max the connection 24/7.

Fiber has a lot more capacity, and with a GPON network the cable providers could easily deliver that kind of bandwidth to customers. But that's a big investment, Verizon for example has spent five years and $20 billion to bring its FiOS service to 20 million households. And I'm sure they were going after the most profitable markets first, so delivering it to the next 20 million households would probably be much more expensive. It probably wouldn't even be economically feasible to rewire a lot of Americans for fiber right now, heck a lot still don't even have cable or DSL. So you can't really blame cable providers for sticking with the current infrastructure as long as possible. Not to mention the people that want very high speeds and bandwidth limits are the minority of customers, most are happy enough with their service. They're not going to spend tens or hundreds of billions on upgrading to fiber to appease 0.1% of their customers. I'm sure in 5-10 years when a significant amount of their customers are demanding more speed and bandwidth they'll start making the switch, but right now it makes little sense.

 

[her209]

You don't want net neutrality. It's a false scare that only harms the development of the Internet to provide quality voice, video and data. Treating different traffic differently is crucial to advance the internet and provide better service.

Comcast doesn't want broadband to be regulated as a Title II "telecommunications service" because it will hurt VoIP, video conference, and content streaming.

The ironing is delicious.

 

[xj0hnx]

People would be bitching just as much if they did that, though. The latest and greatest in cable internet technology, DOCSIS 3.0, shares like 152Mbps of downstream bandwidth between an entire neighborhood. Assuming 32 customers in a neighborhood, if you split that evenly it's only 5Mbps per household. Yet people are demanding very high speed services, 10Mbps+, stuff like that. There's no way they could deliver those kind of speeds and guarantee people could max the connection 24/7.

Fiber has a lot more capacity, and with a GPON network the cable providers could easily deliver that kind of bandwidth to customers. But that's a big investment, Verizon for example has spent five years and $20 billion to bring its FiOS service to 20 million households. And I'm sure they were going after the most profitable markets first, so delivering it to the next 20 million households would probably be much more expensive. It probably wouldn't even be economically feasible to rewire a lot of Americans for fiber right now, heck a lot still don't even have cable or DSL. So you can't really blame cable providers for sticking with the current infrastructure as long as possible. Not to mention the people that want very high speeds and bandwidth limits are the minority of customers, most are happy enough with their service. They're not going to spend tens or hundreds of billions on upgrading to fiber to appease 0.1% of their customers. I'm sure in 5-10 years when a significant amount of their customers are demanding more speed and bandwidth they'll start making the switch, but right now it makes little sense.

Than they should NOT offer it. It's a pretty simple idea, don't sell what you don't have. Fact is they screw customers all day every day by selling them something, and then not providing it. If I bought a TV that only turned on, or had a clear picture part of the time I would return it, as would anyone. I verify my speeds regularly, and if they aren't what I am paying for, whether I am using it or not I call and complain because those fuckers are charging me for it, I want it. If they aren't going to provide it, they shouldn't be allowed to sell it, the fact that internet usage is so variable allows them to steal customers money with zero consequence.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Than they should NOT offer it. It's a pretty simple idea, don't sell what you don't have. Fact is they screw customers all day every day by selling them something, and then not providing it. If I bought a TV that only turned on, or had a clear picture part of the time I would return it, as would anyone. I verify my speeds regularly, and if they aren't what I am paying for, whether I am using it or not I call and complain because those fuckers are charging me for it, I want it. If they aren't going to provide it, they shouldn't be allowed to sell it, the fact that internet usage is so variable allows them to steal customers money with zero consequence.

They watered down the milk, they are watering down the OJ, and now they are watering down our broadband, by way overselling bandwidth.

 

[spidey07]

Than they should NOT offer it. It's a pretty simple idea, don't sell what you don't have. Fact is they screw customers all day every day by selling them something, and then not providing it. If I bought a TV that only turned on, or had a clear picture part of the time I would return it, as would anyone. I verify my speeds regularly, and if they aren't what I am paying for, whether I am using it or not I call and complain because those fuckers are charging me for it, I want it. If they aren't going to provide it, they shouldn't be allowed to sell it, the fact that internet usage is so variable allows them to steal customers money with zero consequence.

You can get internet service to let your run 24/7 at full capacity. It will cost you thousands of dollars a month though. The reason residential ISPs can offer that kind of speed for the incredibly low monthly cost is because of high oversubscription.

 

[frostedflakes]

Than they should NOT offer it. It's a pretty simple idea, don't sell what you don't have. Fact is they screw customers all day every day by selling them something, and then not providing it. If I bought a TV that only turned on, or had a clear picture part of the time I would return it, as would anyone. I verify my speeds regularly, and if they aren't what I am paying for, whether I am using it or not I call and complain because those fuckers are charging me for it, I want it. If they aren't going to provide it, they shouldn't be allowed to sell it, the fact that internet usage is so variable allows them to steal customers money with zero consequence.

Overselling is just a reality of residential internet service, though. The idea is that most customers are not going to be using the service all the time, and because of this you can sell to more customers and offer them higher speeds than you can actually carry.

It's a sound idea and it's the reason residential broadband services are affordable. If you want dedicated bandwidth go price something like a T1, it will cost way more than a residential connection and you'll only have 1.544Mbps to show for it. But you can use the connection in any way you want, max the upload and download 24/7. The provider won't mind, because that's what the connection is designed for.

 

[child of wonder]

People would be bitching just as much if they did that, though. The latest and greatest in cable internet technology, DOCSIS 3.0, shares like 152Mbps of downstream bandwidth between an entire neighborhood. Assuming 32 customers in a neighborhood, if you split that evenly it's only 5Mbps per household. Yet people are demanding very high speed services, 10Mbps+, stuff like that. There's no way they could deliver those kind of speeds and guarantee people could max the connection 24/7.

Fiber has a lot more capacity, and with a GPON network the cable providers could easily deliver that kind of bandwidth to customers. But that's a big investment, Verizon for example has spent five years and $20 billion to bring its FiOS service to 20 million households. And I'm sure they were going after the most profitable markets first, so delivering it to the next 20 million households would probably be much more expensive. It probably wouldn't even be economically feasible to rewire a lot of Americans for fiber right now, heck a lot still don't even have cable or DSL. So you can't really blame cable providers for sticking with the current infrastructure as long as possible. Not to mention the people that want very high speeds and bandwidth limits are the minority of customers, most are happy enough with their service. They're not going to spend tens or hundreds of billions on upgrading to fiber to appease 0.1% of their customers. I'm sure in 5-10 years when a significant amount of their customers are demanding more speed and bandwidth they'll start making the switch, but right now it makes little sense.

This is a real conundrum. If there is 152Mbps of bandwidth for 32 households, for example, to share how does a company prevent, say, 6 users constantly maxing out their 20Mbps connections leaving only 32Mbps for the remaining 26?

Maybe a change in price model? Offer low speed internet for cheap while higher speeds get progressively more expensive? This would entice many customers to go for lower tier service which ensures more available bandwidth for the remaining customers.

$20 for 5Mbps/512Kbps -- could see a LOT of customers going to this
$50 for 12Mbps/1Mbps -- this seems to be standard speed/price for a lot of cable internet
$75 for 16Mbps/2Mbps
$120 for 20Mbps/4Mbps

This would also mean if higher bandwidth is demanded, more money will come in to allow for infrastructure upgrades to accomodate the traffic.

However, we all know the biggest problem is lack of competition. My new house has two options for internet: Comcast at $42.95 for 12/1 service or Bevcomm at $54.95 for 5/.5 or $79.95 for 15/1.

My options are to go with cheaper service with a 250GB monthly cap or much more expensive service with no cap.

 

[xj0hnx]

Overselling is just a reality of residential internet service, though. The idea is that most customers are not going to be using the service all the time, and because of this you can sell to more customers and offer them higher speeds than you can actually carry.

I know that, and realize it works quite well, I actually at the moment don't have any complaints about my service, other than I am locked into this company, but it took me about 9 months of fighting with them to get my service to resemble what I am paying for. I still do not think it excuses the behavior, and thanks to so many people that don't have a clue how internet speeds work, or even what those number mean companies have been taking advantage of customers long enough. When I first got my service is ran a little better than DSL, which honestly will serve most people more than adequately, but yet they continue to push these high speed packages which most people will never fully use and now want to be able able to limit certain traffic? Fuck that, it's just another way for them to control what customers get, and push their own services, and limit options. It is simple theft selling people 15/1. and only giving them 5/.5 the fact that a lot of people don;'t have a clue because most people never even use that much keeps the scam going.

 

[Modelworks]

Overselling is just a reality of residential internet service, though. The idea is that most customers are not going to be using the service all the time, and because of this you can sell to more customers and offer them higher speeds than you can actually carry.

I think what people are complaining about is the advertisements that read 15Mbps unlimited* internet. Then if you read the fine print
* unlimited means using the service under acceptable* rules.
* acceptable rules are no more than 250GB per 30 day period

I think they should do one of two things.
List the restrictions in plain view, 15Mbps connection 250GB monthly limit

Offer 15Mbps full time with the speed degrading as the person downloads more. This allows someone to have a fast connection to get the things they need quickly and controls the people that abuse the system without penalizing people who don't. 15Mbps full speed 24/7 until 200GB used then 10Mbps for another 50GB then 5Mbps for the next 10GB, etc

They could also offer customers an option to download during certain hours and not have it count against the limit, like phones do for nights and weekends.

 

[JS80]

lol unintended consequence, get ready for your internet bill to go up. loliberals strike again. corporatism at its finest.

 

[her209]

Offer 15Mbps full time with the speed degrading as the person downloads more. This allows someone to have a fast connection to get the things they need quickly and controls the people that abuse the system without penalizing people who don't. 15Mbps full speed 24/7 until 200GB used then 10Mbps for another 50GB then 5Mbps for the next 10GB, etc

They could also offer customers an option to download during certain hours and not have it count against the limit, like phones do for nights and weekends.

Consumer ISPs aren't going to go for that because they can't guarantee you the 15Mbps 24/7 for the first 200GB anyways.

 

[piasabird]

This is so they can slow down the people who dont pay enough money. Cant allow any high speed downloads unless you pay some outrageous fees. The cable companies routinely promise up to 50 times the speed of dial-up and then fail to deliver even 5 times the speed of dial up. Ditch your cable.