Net Neutrality...

[SpamYouToDeath]

I upload and download between 20GB and 200GB a day for work. That's not to mention what I do for leisure. I work on very tight deadlines. I would have to pay for uncapped / "fast lane" access, reducing my net even more. Not only does repealing net neutrality disadvantage "the little guys" in terms of the telecom giants having all the power over the airwaves and infrastructure, but it also attempts to smolder out small businesses, from tiny ops like my own to start-ups.

I work from home. Similarly, I can pull down 1TB without thinking. I was nearly out of a job when the cable company unilaterally "altered the deal" and put a cap on my home connection, which had been uncapped for close to 15 years. They said I couldn't get business service at my residential address, and that I should just stick with them because "everybody has a cap now".

I called the city council.
The council called the cable company.
The cable company called me, apologized, and made me a business account.

It's $100 a month instead of $60 for a third the speed.

(EDIT: I know this is a separate issue from neutrality - but it illustrates how totally fucked we are by the whim of the cable company.)

 

[ShootTheCore]

Put this in the first post of this thread.

*Copy & Paste and Pass it on.
Here’s a super quick and effective way to support net neutrality.
1. On a computer, (not your phone!), go to:
www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express
2. Enter (under "Proceeding") the numbers 17-108.
3. In comments, say:
I support Title 2 oversight of ISPs and I support net neutrality.
*Fill in the form carefully; they've made it less friendly and impossible to fill in by phone, on purpose.
*Don't be silenced. DO IT NOW!
*Copy & Paste and Pass it on.

Signed and shared - thanks Sylvie.

 

[k'_127]

 

[thirdkind]

2. Enter (under "Proceeding") the numbers 17-108.

Note that they named the proceeding "Restoring Internet Freedom".

Ajit Pai is a fucking asshole.

 

[joe8]

I work from home. Similarly, I can pull down 1TB without thinking. I was nearly out of a job when the cable company unilaterally "altered the deal" and put a cap on my home connection, which had been uncapped for close to 15 years. They said I couldn't get business service at my residential address, and that I should just stick with them because "everybody has a cap now".

I called the city council.
The council called the cable company.
The cable company called me, apologized, and made me a business account.

It's $100 a month instead of $60 for a third the speed.

(EDIT: I know this is a separate issue from neutrality - but it illustrates how totally fucked we are by the whim of the cable company.)

It's like that, with a lot of other products and services you buy for a business. Businesses tend to be able to able to buy better services than consumers, because they can buy in greater scale, because suppliers don't want to mess business buyers around, and also because they tend to be more savvy about which products/services are good, and which are just crappy gimmicks for consumers. Products/services for pros just have the features that are absolutely needed, but they will be of a higher quality- they are made to do the job required, not to fit a certain price. Products/services for consumers usually have more features than are needed (extraneous features), and the few critical features aren't of the same quality/durability of those in the pro product. So, sometimes even as a private consumer, you are better off buying the pro product/service, even if it costs more, as it will last longer, and do the job it's meant to do.

Sometimes, having a good supplier is half the battle- if you buy from a supplier that a lot of other businesses (but not necessarily consumers) have decided to buy from, you can't usually go far wrong.

 

[LoneSage]

I work from home. Similarly, I can pull down 1TB without thinking. I was nearly out of a job when the cable company unilaterally "altered the deal" and put a cap on my home connection, which had been uncapped for close to 15 years. They said I couldn't get business service at my residential address, and that I should just stick with them because "everybody has a cap now".

I called the city council.
The council called the cable company.
The cable company called me, apologized, and made me a business account.

It's $100 a month instead of $60 for a third the speed.

(EDIT: I know this is a separate issue from neutrality - but it illustrates how totally fucked we are by the whim of the cable company.)

The price for internet in America is too damn high. It just seems so arbitrary. The govt should get in on the internet business, make it something like 25 bucks a month and that's that...

 

[SpamYouToDeath]

Products/services for pros just have the features that are absolutely needed, but they will be of a higher quality- they are made to do the job required, not to fit a certain price. Products/services for consumers usually have more features than are needed (extraneous features), and the few critical features aren't of the same quality/durability of those in the pro product. So, sometimes even as a private consumer, you are better off buying the pro product/service, even if it costs more, as it will last longer, and do the job it's meant to do.

It's literally the same cable carrying the same channels from the same headend to the same modem. If I don't configure my router to take my assigned static IP address, I'll get one from the same DHCP pool as my neighbor with the "residential" service.

The price for internet in America is too damn high. It just seems so arbitrary. The govt should get in on the internet business, make it something like 25 bucks a month and that's that...

Look on the bright side - I was getting quotes from microwave wireless ISPs that were north of $200 a month for 20mbps service.

This is the "competition" the FCC chairman is talking about. A couple of dorks with an unlicensed 60GHz dish "competing with" a national conglomerate with a citywide monopoly of RG6 in every house. It's a fucking joke and everyone knows it.

 

[joe8]

It's literally the same cable carrying the same channels from the same headend to the same modem. If I don't configure my router to take my assigned static IP address, I'll get one from the same DHCP pool as my neighbor with the "residential" service.

The hardware and everything is the same as for the residential service (consumer service). But you should still expect a better service, because you are a business user. Sometimes providers scale down their service, if they think you're a consumer, just because they know they can get away with it. And if you are using so much data, it will cost more for them. So, they only want to give you as much data and speed, as they think you will be satisfied with.
If you have a good service already (1TB), then try to keep it (it's called "grandfathering"), even if new businesses joining the same ISP have to settle for less.

 

[SpamYouToDeath]

And if you are using so much data, it will cost more for them.

That's not how the Internet works. They have to keep their links up, no matter if they're currently routing anything. The marginal cost of routing a packet is therefore about zero. (Even if you stick a Kill-A-Watt on a router, you still see that it's really damn near zero - for fast turnaround, the routers can't power-down anything to save energy like a desktop CPU might.)

 

[Heinz]

Wouldn't matter if it was 10GB or 1000TB, the data you use has no real world cost for the carrier. Like a telephone call, it doesn't 'cost' the carrier anything for that connection. Your service cost = upgrade/maintenance/expansion of network they administer and of course business overheads. For huge Telco's with existing networks, huge customer coverage and presence it's literally printing money at whatever rate they can get away with in the market. If they could sell you 1MB of usage for $1000 they'd do it in a heartbeat.

 

[evil wasabi]

Therein lies Ajit Pai’s argument. Net Neutrality stops ISPs from building out in the poor retard areas that put him in power. Whether it be the incest forests of Kentucky or the toofless mountains of west vaginia. Pai has stated that removing net neutrality will encourage isps to build and innovate everywhere. (Which is funny because it sounds like “development in areas that don’t generate tax revenue but instead generate ignorant trump voters.).

Sadly, Pai was appointed to the FCC by Obama, at the request of McConnell. One of those failed attempts to cross the aisle by Obama.

 

[caldwert]

Working in the cable industry, I can assure you that no one in their right mind will attempt to build anything in rural areas. Digital divide is real and will only get more real. Great for the people who happen to own those ISP's in podunk areas b/c nobody even cares to compete with them, but terrible for the residents. Podunk ISP LLC gives crap service because they're the only game in town. I know when my work buys some of those systems, we literally just throw everything in the trash because it is so outdated. Net Neutrality isn't stopping building out those areas, simple return on investment is. I assume Net Neutrality is stopping people from "over building" too. Meaning coming in to an established area and building out your own network. Some areas have municipality agreements so this is not possible, but other areas it is possible. Nope, again not enough potential subscribers given the initial investment to build it out.

Additionally, I do not believe anything Comcast says for a second.

 

[thirdkind]

Working in the cable industry, I can assure you that no one in their right mind will attempt to build anything in rural areas. Digital divide is real and will only get more real. Great for the people who happen to own those ISP's in podunk areas b/c nobody even cares to compete with them, but terrible for the residents. Podunk ISP LLC gives crap service because they're the only game in town. I know when my work buys some of those systems, we literally just throw everything in the trash because it is so outdated. Net Neutrality isn't stopping building out those areas, simple return on investment is. I assume Net Neutrality is stopping people from "over building" too. Meaning coming in to an established area and building out your own network. Some areas have municipality agreements so this is not possible, but other areas it is possible. Nope, again not enough potential subscribers given the initial investment to build it out.

Additionally, I do not believe anything Comcast says for a second.

The big ISPs refuse to add service to rural areas, then sue local municipalities when they try to set up their own networks because they don't want the idea of government-funded ISPs to take hold. Because capitalism, or whatever. And then there are the corrupt local (Republican) officials who make exclusivity deals with ISPs and block competition, even though they shout out of the other side of their mouth about the free market.

It's all so blatantly corrupt from the top down.

 

[LoneSage]

So, I mean a government internet provider would be a good thing, right?

Am I wrong? I don't know but for hwatever reason there's no competition for Comcast...this is madness, really.

Jesus, 100+ bucks a month for internet...wtf

 

[evil wasabi]

So, I mean a government internet provider would be a good thing, right?

Am I wrong? I don't know but for hwatever reason there's no competition for Comcast...this is madness, really.

Jesus, 100+ bucks a month for internet...wtf

Comcast is one internet provider. There is also Charter, Time Warner Cable (still I guess), RCN, and Verizon Fios (probably missed some smaller ones). These providers usually have their own territories that are protected from each other. Kind of like drug dealers or prostitution. Charter shouldn’t operate where Comcast is operating, and vice versa. If this sounds anti competitive, don’t worry. It is. But then it’s run a lot like a public utility. In Virginia, Dominion Power doesn’t compete with Pepco. But this doesn’t include the internet backbones like Level 3 or Cogent.

A lot of the providers have interconnection agreements with each other, and the content providers have peering agreements. You should look these terms up because they were parcel to the collapse of the TWC Comcast merger.

 

[greedostick]

Therein lies Ajit Pai’s argument. Net Neutrality stops ISPs from building out in the poor retard areas that put him in power. Whether it be the incest forests of Kentucky or the toofless mountains of west vaginia. Pai has stated that removing net neutrality will encourage isps to build and innovate everywhere. (Which is funny because it sounds like “development in areas that don’t generate tax revenue but instead generate ignorant trump voters.).

Sadly, Pai was appointed to the FCC by Obama, at the request of McConnell. One of those failed attempts to cross the aisle by Obama.

Unfortunately those poor areas are the same areas Pai fucks over when he made it so public libraries couldn't get a discount on internet.

Their argument that they can provide better service is complete BS, just like everything else spouted out of that fuck nuts mouth.

If they win this maintenance on service wont be regulated, so instead of moving to fiber they are going to let copper wires rot, thus making service even worse, until they eventually replace it with more shitty copper.

 

[Heinz]

You guys are already fucked, ISP's have their own areas where they lock down competition!? wow. Here there is mostly copper services, we're only just moving to fiber and that's a long haul project nationwide but any ISP can provide service to you anywhere as long as they have a hardware presence at your local exchange. (which they do)

 

[SpamYouToDeath]

Here there is mostly copper services, we're only just moving to fiber and that's a long haul project nationwide but any ISP can provide service to you anywhere as long as they have a hardware presence at your local exchange. (which they do)

We used to have a system like that - dial-up. That's the era of growth that Pai is actually referring to: Title-II regulated monopolies controlling the last mile and providing access to a competitive marketplace of ISPs.

Back then, we actually had service through a local ISP. They put up a couple network racks in the back of an auto shop, and started selling access on a pair of T1s. Instead of downloading a large file over the V.90 modem, we'd log into their server, download it on the T1, and then drive down and burn it to a CD. Now that's service.

Cable TV was already popular in the US by the time DOCSIS was introduced, and wasn't regulated like the phone system (because it didn't really require interoperability, and wasn't essential to anyone). So the cable companies had a back-door to sell Internet access directly over their own cables - 3GHz of bandwidth versus a few MHz. They additionally didn't need to provide universal service - they only cabled up what was profitable. They drove everyone else out of business as a result. VDSL limps along on the phone system, but it's a joke in most of the country.

In more reasonable times, it would be obvious that data cabling behaves like a utility, similar to electric power distribution or the post-Bell phone system, and should be regulated as such.

 

[Neorebel]

I don't understand how there aren't protests happening right now.

EDIT:
This is actual a pretty unique position the country is in.

1. Left and right wing citizens are both overwhelmingly in favor of keeping net neutrality.

2.Left wing lawmakers are in favor of keeping net neutrality.

3. Right wing lawmakers are not in favor of keeping net neutrality.

4. Both left and right wing lawmakers are paid off by telecom giants and lobbyists.

What does this mean? I don't know, but one tiny piece of it, I'm sure, is that Reps are bent on destroy The Black Man's accomplishments. That's certainly not the whole picture and I don't know what the rest of the picture looks like.

On a personal note, I'm self-employed. Not to be confused with unemployed. I make a decent amount of money. But I get the fuck taxed out of me. I upload and download between 20GB and 200GB a day for work. That's not to mention what I do for leisure. I work on very tight deadlines. I would have to pay for uncapped / "fast lane" access, reducing my net even more. Not only does repealing net neutrality disadvantage "the little guys" in terms of the telecom giants having all the power over the airwaves and infrastructure, but it also attempts to smolder out small businesses, from tiny ops like my own to start-ups.

 

[greedostick]

You know of everyone on Neo-Geo.com can agree on something, then this shit is stupid. Cause this never happens.

 

[mr_b]

All this screaming isn't going to do any good. Gov't own'ed ISP's are horrible idea. They already sniffing every fucking thing going thru the current instance. Let them have it. If the people truly give a fuck they will create their own networks among each other and give rise to the inevitable internet 2.0.

 

[SpamYouToDeath]

All this screaming isn't going to do any good. Gov't own'ed ISP's are horrible idea. They already sniffing every fucking thing going thru the current instance. Let them have it. If the people truly give a fuck they will create their own networks among each other and give rise to the inevitable internet 2.0.

First: the best ISP in America is publicly-owned.

https://www.consumerreports.org/med..._as_cord-cutters_gain_intriguing_new_options/

Second: you need a physical layer for any network. That means the air, regulated by the FCC, or the ground, regulated by your local government (and probably sold-out to incumbents).

 

[aha2940]

This shit is ridiculous, and it has me worried too, because the USA is like a big brother for my country, leading by example so if this gets done in the US, Colombia may follow the example and fuck us too.

 

[greedostick]

All this screaming isn't going to do any good. Gov't own'ed ISP's are horrible idea. They already sniffing every fucking thing going thru the current instance. Let them have it. If the people truly give a fuck they will create their own networks among each other and give rise to the inevitable internet 2.0.

Lets hope if this passes, some small new companies rise and put these bastards out of business. Seems unlikely. I know I'm already researching how to get internet without resorting to Spectrum. I use WOW right now, and they're perfect. If they get bought out, I will be devastated.

 

[mr_b]

First: the best ISP in America is publicly-owned.

https://www.consumerreports.org/med..._as_cord-cutters_gain_intriguing_new_options/

Second: you need a physical layer for any network. That means the air, regulated by the FCC, or the ground, regulated by your local government (and probably sold-out to incumbents).

I understand what you're driving at. But nothing stops me and my neighbor from throwing up open frequency equipment and creating a network. Now extrapolate that and you get to roughly what you have in that ISP you reference minus the interconnection to the current internet and services that exist on it. Seems worthless right? But this was the original intent of the internet.

Sure it might be the burnt out IT guy talking but I would find great plsasure in the current system just burning to the ground.