ISPs Won't Promise To Treat All Traffic Equally After Net Neutrality (theverge.com) 232
An anonymous reader writes: The FCC voted to put an end to net neutrality, giving internet providers free rein to deliver service at their own discretion. There's really only one condition here: internet providers will have to disclose their policies regarding "network management practices, performance, and commercial terms." So if ISPs want to block websites, throttle your connection, or charge certain websites more, they'll have to admit it. We're still too far out to know exactly what disclosures all the big ISPs are going to make -- the rules (or lack thereof) don't actually go into effect for another few months -- but many internet providers have been making statements throughout the year about their stance on net neutrality, which ought to give some idea of where they'll land. We reached out to 10 big or notable ISPs to see what their stances are on three core tenets of net neutrality: no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. Not all of them answered, and the answers we did get are complicated. [The Verge reached out to Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, Charter (Spectrum), Cox, Altice USA (Optimum and SuddenLink), and Google Fi and Google Fiber.]
Many ISPs say they support some or all of these core rules, but there's a big caveat there: for six of the past seven years, there have been net neutrality rules in place at the FCC. That means all of the companies we checked with have had to abide by the no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization rules. It means that they can say, and be mostly correct in saying, that they've long followed those rules. But it is, on some level, because they've had to. What actually matters is which policies ISPs say they'll keep in the future, and few are making commitments about that. In fact, all of the companies we contacted (with the exception of Google) have supported the FCC's plan to remove the current net neutrality rules. None of the ISPs we contacted will make a commitment -- or even a comment -- on paid fast lanes and prioritization. And this is really where we expect to see problems: ISPs likely won't go out and block large swaths of the web, but they may start to give subtle advantages to their own content and the content of their partners, slowly shaping who wins and loses online. Comcast: Comcast says it currently doesn't block, throttle content, or offer paid fast lanes, but hasn't committed to not doing so in the future.
AT&T: AT&T has committed to not blocking or throttling websites in the future. However, its stance around fast lanes is unclear.
Verizon: Verizon indicates that, at least in the immediate future, it will not block legal content. As for throttling and fast lanes, the company has no stance, and even seems to be excited to use the absence of rules to its advantage.
T-Mobile: T-Mobile makes no commitments to not throttle content or offer paid fast lanes and is unclear on its commitment to not blocking sites and services. It's already involved in programs that advantage some services over others.
Sprint: Sprint makes no commitments on net neutrality, but suggests it doesn't have plans to offer a service that would block sites.
Charter (Spectrum): Charter doesn't make any guarantees, but the company indicates that it's currently committed to not blocking or throttling customers.
Cox: Cox says it won't block or throttle content, even without net neutrality. It won't make commitments on zero-rating or paid fast lanes.
Altice USA (Optimum and SuddenLink): Altice doesn't currently block or throttle and suggests it will keep those policies, though without an explicit commitment. The company doesn't comment on prioritizing one service over another.
Google Fi and Google Fiber: Google doesn't make any promises regarding throttling and paid prioritization. However, it is the only company to state that it believes paid prioritization would be harmful.
Many ISPs say they support some or all of these core rules, but there's a big caveat there: for six of the past seven years, there have been net neutrality rules in place at the FCC. That means all of the companies we checked with have had to abide by the no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization rules. It means that they can say, and be mostly correct in saying, that they've long followed those rules. But it is, on some level, because they've had to. What actually matters is which policies ISPs say they'll keep in the future, and few are making commitments about that. In fact, all of the companies we contacted (with the exception of Google) have supported the FCC's plan to remove the current net neutrality rules. None of the ISPs we contacted will make a commitment -- or even a comment -- on paid fast lanes and prioritization. And this is really where we expect to see problems: ISPs likely won't go out and block large swaths of the web, but they may start to give subtle advantages to their own content and the content of their partners, slowly shaping who wins and loses online. Comcast: Comcast says it currently doesn't block, throttle content, or offer paid fast lanes, but hasn't committed to not doing so in the future.
AT&T: AT&T has committed to not blocking or throttling websites in the future. However, its stance around fast lanes is unclear.
Verizon: Verizon indicates that, at least in the immediate future, it will not block legal content. As for throttling and fast lanes, the company has no stance, and even seems to be excited to use the absence of rules to its advantage.
T-Mobile: T-Mobile makes no commitments to not throttle content or offer paid fast lanes and is unclear on its commitment to not blocking sites and services. It's already involved in programs that advantage some services over others.
Sprint: Sprint makes no commitments on net neutrality, but suggests it doesn't have plans to offer a service that would block sites.
Charter (Spectrum): Charter doesn't make any guarantees, but the company indicates that it's currently committed to not blocking or throttling customers.
Cox: Cox says it won't block or throttle content, even without net neutrality. It won't make commitments on zero-rating or paid fast lanes.
Altice USA (Optimum and SuddenLink): Altice doesn't currently block or throttle and suggests it will keep those policies, though without an explicit commitment. The company doesn't comment on prioritizing one service over another.
Google Fi and Google Fiber: Google doesn't make any promises regarding throttling and paid prioritization. However, it is the only company to state that it believes paid prioritization would be harmful.
No shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You think any company put money towards this to not benefit from it?
You are 100% right. Specifically, it is a lot harder to make money providing wireline broadband in a geographically diverse country like the US (where 70% of the populace live in 3% of the landmass but 97% of the populace live in 70% of the landmass live).
More specifically, it if was easy to put money into last mile wireline ISP infrastructure, then there would be more competition. But there's not - yes, there is some municipal or state interference in the way - but overall, it takes a f**k-ton of money, ca
Re:No shit (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, other countries with similar population distributions with lower average GDP have been much more successful at building up internet infrastructure so the argument that the current state of affairs is explained by geography is provably wrong. Sure, more dense countries have it easier, but the sparcity isn't really an excuse for things to be anywhere near as bad as they are in more rural parts of the country. Even at that, it's not like companies can't charge more for connections in areas where the per-subscriber infrastructure costs are higher (they already do).
Secondly, ISPs are on the whole a very profitable industry and thus definitely have the money to spend of improving their infrastructure. However seeing how people need internet connections these days people will pay for substandard service. What this means is that in areas where companies have a monopoly, which covers a very large part of the U.S, there is little financial incentive to spend any money on new infrastructure. This is why they fight so hard against people when they decide to get together and build their own fiber, meaning that to compete they'd actually have to make the infrastructure investments they decided were unnecessary. Companies simply don't want the no competition gravy train to come to an end in these areas.
So what this all really boils down to is ISPs trying to maximise profits by minimising infrastructure investments (and ensuring that people can't get together and build their own competing infrastructure).
Re: (Score:2)
Politicaly the next action is to push your States and federal officials to put up a bunch of consumer protection laws. ...
ISP can’t advertise speeds faster then their throttle speeds.
Block content and its reasons needs to be publicly available.
Tax on ISP, Tax break (of that same amount if they follow NN principals)
They got rid of a simple rule because the GOP is against government control. So the natural action when abuse starts happening are a bunch of detailed laws targeting at ISP which are more e
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't really about fast lanes (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:This isn't really about fast lanes (Score:5, Informative)
Netflix is already paying for bandwidth. They are paying their ISP for the bandwidth they consume.
Verizon, Comcast, et al are already being paid for they bandwidth the use. Their customers pay them $x/mo for y Mbps and increasingly z GB/mo. Them charging Netflix is nothing more than double-dipping - charging Netflix for something that the ISP's customers have already paid them for. This is like you going to a restaurant, ordering and paying for steak, and the restaurant claiming that this somehow entitles them to charge the cattle rancher a steak processing and butchering fee. Even though the rancher has already paid those costs via the slaughterhouse which he took his cattle to.
The only reason the ISPs able to get away with it is because local governments have granted them a local Internet service monopoly. If there were actually competition among cable and DSL Internet services, any ISP which threatened to throttle Netflix if Netflix didn't pay them would be shooting themselves in the foot. Their customers would complain to their neighbor that Netflix has been really flaky lately, and their neighbor would say Netflix streams just fine at his house. And the customers would simply cancel service and switch to the neighbor's ISP.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should we trust Netflix [arstechnica.com]?
Re:This isn't really about fast lanes (Score:5, Interesting)
Netflix offers media hosting servers so that Netflix traffic doesn't have to travel over the ISP's upstream link - Netflix's library can be hosted and served locally within the ISP's network. Netflix offers this for free to larger ISPs. Verizon and Comcast refused Netflix's free offer just to manufacture a false argument for fast lanes
False. Netflix "offers" those boxes "for free", on condition that the ISP provide space, cooling, power and bandwidth to it, never look inside it, and ignore the fact that it hosts data other than the expected data related to Netflix's normal service offerings. And if you didn't accept the "offer" Netflix artificially limited features and told users that the ISP was to blame (despite the customer of the ISP having plenty of bandwidth). They even made websites with fake speed tests naming and shaming ISPs who dared to deny Netflix's offer. Netflix was artificially preventing users from getting the highest quality stream if their ISP hadn't bowed down to Netflix to get on the "nice list".
They were forced to stop this bullshit because a few ISPs didn't back down and threatened legal action over their bullshit. https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
Netflix pulled the whole stunt in the first place because ISPs asked Netflix to pay for all the bandwidth it was using. So Netflix threw a tantrum. (Hint to Netflix: You're not a fucking peer for the purposes of any equal peering agreement, you don't carry as much bandwidth for others as they do for you. Not by a long shot. Pay for your bandwidth.)
Netflix tried to use those boxes as a wedge to become a full-fledged CDN without having to pay for the network. They had plans to sell space and service on those boxes to anyone and everyone, for any purpose.
net neutrality = deliver bits w/o fuck'g with them (Score:3, Informative)
Netflix pulled the whole stunt in the first place because ISPs asked Netflix to pay for all the bandwidth it was using.
The ISP has customers, the customers ask for data, and it's the ISP's job to deliver to them. It's not Netflix using the bandwidth, it's the ISP's customers.
This is the whole point of net neutrality: the ISP's customers ask for some bits, and it's the ISP's job to deliver them without fucking around with them.
It's the ISP's job to figure how to make money from their customers. If the customers are using "too much" data then break out the spreadsheets and change your price points.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Netflix pulled the whole stunt in the first place because ISPs asked Netflix to pay for all the bandwidth it was using.
Fucking corporate shill.
Those ISPs already sold that bandwidth to their customers.
You're saying netflix should pay for bandwitch they've already paid for because Comcast's users are using the service they TOO paid for and Comcast doesn't like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Bzzzzt. Wrong.
The "Big Boys" (Google/Amazon/Netflix/etc.) Connect to the internet through IXPs (Internet Exchange Points)
These are the major link-ups between networks. They connect at the same levels as Comcast/Verizon/etc. (Tier 2 Providers), as seen here:
Clicky Clicky! [wikimedia.org]
Due to Net Neutrality laws, the other Tier 2 providers have to accept their traffic the same as people down or upstream. So, basically, they have to shoulder the extra data without compensation. And if Netflix/Google/Etc. start sending t
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That is a lie. Nobody is required to peer with anybody else. If an ISP doesn't want to peer with Netflix, they don't have to. They can still get the data through transit, and Netflix pays for that, just like ISPs pay for transit. What net neutrality means is that an ISP can not single out on a link and throttle that data to "encourage" Netflix to buy direct access to the ISP network or to pay to get unthrottled.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason the ISPs able to get away with it is because local governments have granted them a local Internet service monopoly.
The government has never granted an ISP a "local Internet service monopoly". Ever. Why does this misinformation keep appearing?
Name just one, if you can.
Re: (Score:2)
So the real net neutrality should be the restoration of competition among ISPs.
What if Pai and the FCC are really just driving things to a bad place on purpose to get the public pissed enough to actually remove the monopolies? Sort of like reverse psychology on a national level.
Re: (Score:2)
Worse. It isn't just services run by the ISPs. Without NN, there's nothing preventing your ISP from partnering with (for example) Netflix and offering that content unmetered (in exchange for a kickback from the partner service), while treating Hulu (for example) as metered data. Without those rules, the ISP can skew the competitive landscape arbitrarily, and it is entirely legal.
Curious (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The days of the internet as a global communications medium are probably numbered. Large chunks of it are already effectively disconnected like China and the Russians.
Re: (Score:2)
The potential throttling would be downstream to each ISP's customers, not upstream from the sites. So if Comcast throttles Netflix and you're not a Comcast customer, you won't be affected. Comcast is just shaking down Netflix to pay up if Netflix wants Comcast to deliver Netflix content to Comcast customer. Netflix is already paying their own ISP to deliver their content to the backbone carriers, and so long as your non-American ISP isn't throttling the content from there, you'll get it at normal speeds.
I'm shocked, SHOCKED!!!! (Score:3)
To hear that ISPs won't promise to commit to all Net Neutrality tenets after paying so much money to get them removed...
Cable vs streaming content? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Will the cable companies charge streaming providers like Hulu, Amazon Prime Video and Netflix for priority bandwidth to offset their losses of cable TV subscribers?
I'm guessing it will be more of a war of escalation.
If an ISP charges a content provider extra, the content provider should pass additional charges on to the customer using that ISP.
Re: (Score:3)
Netflix VS Everyone (Score:2)
Really about slowing Netflix and getting you to keep/buy overpriced Cable TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a short list (Score:3)
What is particularly worrying to me is how short the list of ISPs is (and this is after we include cellular providers, who are ISPs only in a wider sense of the word). There are more electricity generating companies out there than there are ISPs providing home broadband internet. USA truly does not have much choice here.
Re: (Score:3)
True. I wonder how that looks lin other countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It doesn't look like a very big list anywhere, does it?
Re: (Score:2)
I have a question for US people: why don't you have lots of ISPs, like the UK? We basically have a bunch because of Local Loop Unbundling, which allows other ISPs to use the incumbent telephony provider's hardware for the last mile. According to the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org], "the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires that ILECs lease local loops to competitors (CLECs)." So why don't you have a bunch of ISPs too?
there is no reason to make that promise (Score:3)
if they promise the FCC says they can be held liable for violating their promise.
So even if you intended to not violate NN, you would still not promise to avoid liability to the FCC.
So... consider that.
Re: (Score:2)
FCC is on record saying that if companies promise X then they will be held to that standard.
Think about that. Thus there is no reason to make promises you don't have to because it just opens you up to liability for no gain.
Do a pro/con chart on it. Think about it.
What are the pros of promising?
What are the cons of promising?
It loses a pro/con chart. Thus the absence of a promise doesn't mean they will or won't. It just means it isn't in their interest to make commitments.
Comcast has been throttling VPN's (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Comcast has been throttling VPN's (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
SONIC.NET is the best! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Please also share with your friends, family, and colleagues: you have a choice to support the ISPs that continue to support net neutrality and consumer privacy."
I don't have this choice.
At least in the immediate future... (Score:2)
Verizon indicates that, at least in the immediate future, it will not block legal content.
However later down the road.... well you know the common man forgets this stuff and then they can do what they want. Especially when ISPx impliments something they will have to stay competitive.
Just like the Tax Bill that sunsets Individual Tax breaks and keeps Corporate breaks in place - they are planning on people have short memories.
Re: (Score:2)
but yet makes it very clear it believes it can, and hence eventually will, block (not simply slow down) entirely legal content...that is a very chilling statement, actually.
Another step toward the complexity collapse (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Didn't understand the argument about competition, did you? Or maybe you failed to click on the link.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The point of the link is that there is already a good deal of competition at the ISP level. Want net neutrality? Buy the bandwidth that gives it to you.
Not so much with these monopolistic service providers.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, duh. It already does.
According to tests, it's preferred streaming service (I don't recall what it is called) throttles ALL media content.
Hint: you can tell by whether using a VPN makes the throttling go away.
Re: (Score:2)
I think T-Mobile is the opposite. They zero-rate certain video content.... stuff that they can recompress to save bandwidth. They also partner with Netflix to offer free content and exempt it from bandwidth caps.
As it exists, these violations of net neutrality are decidedly pro-consumer. So the issue is way more complicated than partisans pretend.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope all in the bullshit wording ie they will slow down everyone to crap but the lucky few will get extra as long as they pay for it. So everyone gets shit, only a few get more, so no notification except to those few who get more, they will be notified. So the lie is in the detail. Then of course, how soon they need to be notified, a month latter when their service changes, during the political cycle, that whole rigmarole of forward and backwards with communications, delay after delay in response and then p
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"If you have two enemies, fight the stronger one first." -- or something like that, Sun Tzu. Google/Facebook/Amazon are far bigger enemies to us than ISPs are. If NN repeal slows them down -- possibly since they lobbied for NN so much -- that will be the best possible outcome, then we can deal with ISPs. The fact that ISPs are forced to be transparent is in my opinion the only regulation we needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. And Thank you for Winning the Prize of being the first person to comment on this *AFTER* reading the link.
Re: (Score:2)
They're "forced" to be transparent. As mud.
They don't have to disclose any blocking or traffic shaping or anything else - if it's done for "network management" purposes. Basically, multiple internet-is-a-series-of-tubes-with-trucks wide loophole in the forced disclosure.
So no, they're not going to disclose anything because they're just going to say it's all because they have to manage their networks appropriately.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What would you say why the big guys fought so hard for Net Neutrality then? If it's just PR they could have faked it like Comcast did. I will be cynical and rule out google/fb striving for what's best for the community even if it is at a detriment to their bottom line. If you join me in that cynicism then what other google/fb motive does it leave us with then?
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that ISPs are forced to be transparent is in my opinion the only regulation we needed.
We also need regulation to prohibit monopoly deals between ISPs and governmental entities. Without competition, transparency is useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead we have regulation that requires monopolies or duopolies in most municipalities.
It is a mess. Maybe 5g or satellite constellations or freeing up TV spectrum can be the sword that cuts the Gordian knot.
Re: (Score:2)
"If you have two enemies, fight the stronger one first." -- or something like that, Sun Tzu. Google/Facebook/Amazon are far bigger enemies to us than ISPs are. If NN repeal slows them down -- possibly since they lobbied for NN so much -- that will be the best possible outcome, then we can deal with ISPs.
It's not an either-or, you can have both poor roads and poor destinations. Shutting down NN and setting up toll roads threaten Google/Facebook/Amazon's profit because they'd be paying a middleman, but in terms of competition they can afford it better than the small start-ups. So as consumers we get less choice and higher prices, it's a lose-lose for us. We still need better alternatives, but fighting against NN to achieve it would just be shooting ourselves in the foot.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it not better then to plug the hole that allows for Google/FB/Amazon's unchecked growth, and then start from there to bring regulation that gives us a better alternative?
I don't know if the ISP would now be able to throttle say Google/YT traffic specifically (on the ground of it consuming more bandwidth overall, or no reason) unless they pay to the ISP to bring their user-bound bandwidth to the same level as that of everyone else, including the small startup. That may be illegal or simply naive to consid
Re: (Score:2)
An alternate fact, you mean?
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly failed to click on the link.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't the argument that Facebook Maximized evil by allowing Trump to be elected?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so even Putin recognized that facebook is a weapon, but you can't?
Pot, Kettle, Black.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck trying to avoid these four.
Re: An alternate view (Score:2)
Net Neutrality is about preventing much worse..
Re: (Score:3)
I totally don't understand people continually bringing up the influence of these huge companies, except if they are trying to deflect the argument away what net neutrality really is.
None of these companies are essential to use the internet. You can even block their tracking with extensions. People can choose to use them or not. I've even switched to DuckDuckGo for search and it's pretty good. If Facebook suddenly vanished tomorrow, people would still use the internet and it would still be great. Even if you
Re: An alternate view (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet all of those organisations are private companies, and none of us is locked into any of them. There are alternative search engines, websites, and forums that work pretty well.
Re:The plural of anecdote (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet I can use the internet just fine without google, without twitter and without reddit having any kind of interference with whatever I try to do there, as long as I don't plan to use any service they offer.
Now please show me how to do the same concerning my ISP. Bear in mind that many people don't have the option to simply switch to another one, lacking any other ones.
Re: (Score:2)
There are far more people in the world who DO NOT use your ISP, than who use your ISP. So in that regard, your ISP's control over you is complete and unfortunate, but has a much lower bearing on the world.
But there are far less people in the world in the world who use internet and use NEITHER Google nor Twitter, than who use at least one of these. So Google uniting with Twitter can cause more censorship in the world.
Of course, if all ISPs unite, they could do even more censorship, but I hope that is not the
Re:The plural of anecdote (Score:5, Informative)
You mean documents stored on google servers. Did you even read the article?
You are a lying sack of shit.
Here is the video of Ajit Pai being a dumbass. On YouTube. Right now.
https://youtu.be/JqONIPwidQw [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
You mean documents stored on google servers. Did you even read the article?
You mean packets traversing your ISP's network ?
Funny how you give a pass to 1 private entity, but you want governement intervention for the other.
You are a lying sack of shit.
Here is the video of Ajit Pai being a dumbass.
Because the Daily Caller did the leg work to get it restored following the Harlem Shake copyright notice :
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12... [dailycaller.com]
Insulting the poster when you're clearly simply not understanding what is going on just shows you're not open to truth, just your vision and your narrative.
Re: (Score:2)
You can use the internet without Google. You cannot use the internet without your ISP. And 40% of the US has access to only one option for a broadband provider.
That's some censorsheep if the video of Ajit Pai doing the Harlem Shake with Pizzagate girl was unavailable for a whole three minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
You can use the internet without Google. You cannot use the internet without your ISP. And 40% of the US has access to only one option for a broadband provider.
Pretty sure those same 40% of the US have access to fast Internet that's just not classified as broadband. Aka : 4G mobile.
Google is a virtual monopolity on video content distribution with Youtube, and quite clearly a monopoly on search. Again : you give pass to 1 type of entity, while requiring another to face governement control.
That's some censorsheep if the video of Ajit Pai doing the Harlem Shake with Pizzagate girl was unavailable for a whole three minutes.
Even with the article, you still can't use Facts. Typical TDS sufferer. It was 7 hours.
Re: (Score:2)
You've got to be joking. You can't possibly be that dumb.
Re: (Score:2)
It was down for a matter of minutes because of a DMCA takedown notice.
Re:The plural of anecdote (Score:4, Interesting)
Plenty of left leaning accounts get hit too. Especially on YouTube.
In fact it's so bad that the alt-right on 4chan have weaponized it, organising mass flagging campaigns against people and videos they don't like.
Re: (Score:2)
You lie like a damned dog.
Re: (Score:2)
Google was recently caught
Given how it was common knowledge that Google scan documents put on Google's servers since their service basically launched, I don't think you know what the term "caught" really means.
Re: (Score:3)
If ISPs will use their new powers to hamper competition to FB/Google why did FB/Google lobby so hard for Net Neutrality? You can bet that they studied and projected everything in far more detail than we here have. And I can bet they are not doing it out of love for humanity. The only reasonable answer is FB/Google feel they -- their profits -- could be in danger. How can that be bad for us?
Me, I personally believe that nothing significant will change, and some people will get a break in their fees while som
Re: (Score:2)
The only reasonable answer is FB/Google feel they -- their profits -- could be in danger. How can that be bad for us?
Global thermonuclear war will also harm FB/Google profits. How can that be bad for us?
Something that harms your supposed enemy is not good for you if it also harms you.
Re: (Score:2)
Global thermonuclear war being undesirable is not a divisive opinion. When people are divided on something it is because they disagree on how they see the future relative to that thing, net neutrality in this case. Google/FB can't see the future either but they understand the inner workings of the system far better than we do, and they decided NN is profitable for them. Whether it's good for us they don't care. Now NN may or may not be good for us, it may even be neither, but I am of the opinion that a less
Re: (Score:2)
So your solution to limiting the influence of Google/FB is to give corporations like Comcast and Verizon even more influence and even more leverage on how they extract profits from a captive audience. It so self defeating, because legislative effort is going to have to be poured into enacting net neutrality laws to keep the likes of Comcast from ruining the internet experience out of short sighted greed - when instead, we could be focusing on enacting privacy laws that limit the ability for Facebook and Goo
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a baby, Google/FB/Amazon are monsters. It's not even the privacy laws that I'm concerned with, it's their unchecked profits and growth. I'm fine with Apple and even MSoft having that kind of money, they sell you gadgets and software, but Google, FB and Amazon directly influence the public opinion. NN was feeding the monsters, repealing NN will only feed the garden trolls that are the ISPs.
Re: (Score:2)
So your answer to the unchecked growth and increasing influence of the major platforms, is to deregulate other entrenched corporate interests in some strange hope that somehow the two will cancel out each other's negative effects. What can possibly go wrong?
Oh I know.. the likes of Comcast and Verizon trying to imitate the way that google and facebook runs their platforms. How're you going to like that? You're going to tell me they are going to pretend nothing changed, and won't innovate according to wh
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be happier is the government broke up Google/FB/Amazon and left Net Neutrality in place. That's obviously much less likely to happen so at least we may now pit ISPs against the Big Three. So let the ISPs innovate in a way that can siphon money away from Google/FB/Amazon in whichever way the ISPs can get away with. And if they are stupid enough to hurt consumers they'll be slapped on with new regulation.
But in contrary to my statement above, as a principle, it's better to have fewer rules than more to ac
Re: (Score:2)
There can only be fewer rules when there can be trust and accountability, and when it comes to the ISPS that's laughable. Title II was always a bandaid because congress was not fighting for the public interests, but were beholden to ISP lobbyists, and we happened to get lucky with Tom Wheeler. Well now the luck has run out, and the next few years will only show us what kind of damage a piece of shit shill at the helm of the FCC can accomplish.
If you think that deregulating ISPs in the vain hope that it
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me if you call the man a "piece of shit" because he pushed for a (de)regulation that you don't like but which may or may not be bad for consumers, you can't be able to look at things rationally. I'm not preaching that we should all be without hate and blahblah but saying that if you notice you are overwhelmed by an emotion you can't trust your judgement.
You may end up being right, or not, but it may well be by chance because analysis doesn't worth much when emotions run hot. For my part I get an
Re: (Score:2)
Only a shilling piece of shit such as Pai would make a video like this. [youtube.com] Apologies if you find the language offensive, but I find the term to be concise in describing those who act as pawns in the game of regulatory capture for the sake of their own greed.
On the other hand, you're claiming that it is logical to give ISPs carte blanche to extort popular platforms with the expectation that it probably won't hurt consumers. Yeah, I think you're right when you say you shouldn't be absolutely confident in your
Re: (Score:2)
Well then let me ask you this: suppose you are given the choice of that right now either A) your google account disappears making all your google email, docs and files being irretrievably locked or deleted, or B) Comcast (if that's your ISP, mine is Cox which have been mostly pleasant to work with) cuts off your internet connection immediately and you can't have internet through them ever again. Right now, you'd have to decide A or B, before making any backups or anything. Which would you choose?
Your answer
Re: (Score:2)
Were you expecting me to answer B, assuming that the data google holds for me is of more importance than the very connection I use to access that data?
"putting the cart before the horse" comes to mind, which is related to my earlier point about having to fight for net neutrality instead of enacting fair use limitations on how the likes of Google can censor or otherwise exploit their position in the marketplace for political purposes. They have been given an inch, and they most certainly will take a mile i
Re: (Score:2)
"They have been given an inch, and they most certainly will take a mile if we don't fight it tooth and nail to get NN restored."
Eric Schmidt will thank you for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Eric Schmidt will thank you for that.
Nah, I doubt it, since NN is in my own interest, after all. Using Schmidt as a boogeyman is pretty funny though, I got a laugh out of that!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah it's time we drop this, and revisit it in a year or two.
On the news that Schmidt is stepping down I too laughed at someone's comment, "Schmidt is the swampiest swamp monster of them all!" So I thought I'd pass on the laughs. :-)
Re: (Score:3)
So ignore YouTube and use one of the many other video platforms? That's the great thing about this, you actually have a CHOICE.
It ain't that easy when your ISP decides you can't see YouTube anymore and have to use his video service. Because for many people, it's this ISP or none.
Re: (Score:2)
You should look beyond the US, to countries where DMCA means little to nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Learn to read, it has everything to do with what he was replying to.
Re: (Score:2)
Local ISPs have competition these days.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you have any clue how many politicians they've bought at every level of the government?
From HOAs to townships to cities to countries to states to congress, they effectively own the fucking poles and the lines and were paid many of your tax dollars to own them and sit on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any clue how many politicians they've bought at every level of the government?
You mean there isn't an APP for that? How Luddite-ish!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You want fast access, pay for it. You want any access at all, pay for it. Let the market decide not the government. The less regulation the better off we are.
Ok. I'll go out and buy a spool of fiber right now. Can I walk across your property on my way to the peering location in my city? No? Then you're a fucking idiot and should shut up about things you don't understand.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to connect to a peering location, buy enough fiber to get there through the public right of ways, just like the ISPs do.
Where do you think those public rights of way come from? I'll give you a hint. It's GOVERNMENT! Fucking idiot. You and the original poster are cut from the same cloth, just blithely taking for granted thousands of government functions while bleating about "government overreach". The service we're talking about does not exist without quite a lot of government, from the rights of way to the permitting, to the very concept that they can still own wire that is installed on someone else's property. Oh, and