Net Neutrality

Post by **GORDON** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:25 pm

Some of us have bigger pipes than other, tbh.

Post by **Vince** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:40 pm

No, you have the same size pipe as a low band person because you are using the same circuit or circuit type (unless you're both paying for partial T1's, then you're actually bundling some fraction of 24 pipes together and may have different sized bundles, but that's kind of a different beast). If you and your neighbor use the same provider you are more than likely both using the same technology and the same cable bundle and terminating into the same switch or DSLAM. The only difference is that you're paying not be throttled as much as your neighbor. Throttling is done all the time depending on the technology. They reason you can get much faster DSL speeds being closer to the CO is because they don't have to throttle your connection as much to keep it stable.

If everyone in your neighborhood is paying for the super fast connection then they can pay to upgrade your hardware feeding your neighborhood to accommodate that. The hope is that they have enough cash reserves and monitor the growth to stay ahead of the curve on the need, but it doesn't always happen that way. If you're a cable customer paying extra for a minimum connection speed it's because you are paying not to be throttled to the same extent as the normal customer.

Post by **GORDON** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:40 pm

Was talking about my penis.

Post by **TPRJones** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 1:12 pm

I think this will be the ruling that tips us towards metered internet, though.

I hope so. That would be the quickest way to incite a major customer revolt against the big ISPs and give incoming upstarts the leverage they need to take over the industry.

Post by **Vince** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:10 pm

Trying to catch out network architect at his desk today to get his thoughts on this. This guy is wicked smart on all things network and I don't think I'm exaggerating to say his knowledge and capabilities in that area are 10 times all of us combined. My fears may be overblown. He'd be the guy to ask. If I can catch up with him I'll pass along his thoughts on it.

Post by **Vince** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:19 pm

TPRJones wrote:
I think this will be the ruling that tips us towards metered internet, though.
I hope so. That would be the quickest way to incite a major customer revolt against the big ISPs and give incoming upstarts the leverage they need to take over the industry.

That's possible. Another scenario would be the big vendors getting with regulators and promise big campaign contributions if they would also peg the new up and coming federal usage taxes to a metered model as well. That would get the customers accustomed to it and only hasten the financial demise of their competition that doesn't follow that model.

Hmmm... I wonder if the feds would go for that?

Post by **TPRJones** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:25 pm

That would get the customers accustomed to it...

Nah, as long as other countries continue to have faster speeds for cheaper prices than us, customers will remain restless.

Post by **Leisher** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 9:14 am

The cartoonist has no idea how net neutrality works.

Post by **GORDON** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 9:19 am

Yeah, I thought that was pretty clever. I've claimed from the beginning this issue was obfuscated to the point of total confusion, glad i am not the only one.

Post by **TPRJones** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 9:36 am

While there are some points he makes that might cause disagreement, this cartoonist seems to have a pretty good idea of how it works.

Post by **TheCatt** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 10:23 am

TPRJones wrote:While there are some points he makes that might cause disagreement, this cartoonist seems to have a pretty good idea of how it works.

With that many words and panels, it's not a cartoon any more.

Post by **TPRJones** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 10:34 am

True.

And don't read his other stuff. He's a frothing rabid liberal. It will only annoy you.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 10:53 am

TPRJones wrote:While there are some points he makes that might cause disagreement, this cartoonist seems to have a pretty good idea of how it works.

Sweet. He picked the Twin Cities to show how openly non-competitive they are.

Post by **Vince** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 7:05 am

TheCatt wrote:
TPRJones wrote:While there are some points he makes that might cause disagreement, this cartoonist seems to have a pretty good idea of how it works.
With that many words and panels, it's not a cartoon any more.

I got partway thought before giving up on it. Between the lack of technical knowledge and his definitive statements about what the FCC's new rules will and will not do without having seen anything shifted the whole stip into George Soros propaganda territory for me.

Post by **Leisher** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:46 am

Vince wrote:
TheCatt wrote:
TPRJones wrote:While there are some points he makes that might cause disagreement, this cartoonist seems to have a pretty good idea of how it works.
With that many words and panels, it's not a cartoon any more.
I got partway thought before giving up on it. Between the lack of technical knowledge and his definitive statements about what the FCC's new rules will and will not do without having seen anything shifted the whole stip into George Soros propaganda territory for me.

I had the same thought.

"Net Neutrality" is awesome and it's what we had.

What was just achieved is government regulation, and historically, that doesn't mean sunshine and lollipops.

Post by **Vince** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:35 am

Even the "ISP is like selling you access to the Internet like your driveway to the street" is flawed. He left out the part where the rules if taken at face value will remove all the street signs and lights from the said "roads". Which is fine as long as traffic is light, but once things start getting congested it will require new clover leaf interchanges at every intersection because you can't give any traffic higher priority. Suddenly your taxes go up to pay for all this road construction and you can no longer afford gas to drive on the roads anymore so the problem, for you, is solved.

Post by **Vince** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 11:11 am

Asked our network architect via email (haven't been able to catch him at his desk) about his thoughts on net neutrality.

Sounds like the guiding principle of communism: equal misery shared equally.

Post by **Vince** » Mon Mar 09, 2015 2:59 pm

[url=http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/netflix-cfo-pleased-with-fcc-title-ii-ruling-although-its-preference-would-have-been-no-br oadband-regulation-1201446282/]Wow![/url]

At the same time, Wells said that the FCC’s order reclassifying broadband as a telecom service under Title II of the Communications Act was not, in fact, Netflix’s preferred outcome. While the streaming-video company wanted to see “strong” net neutrality measures to ensure content providers would be protected against ISPs charging arbitrary interconnection fees, Netflix ultimately wanted the situation resolved without government intervention.

“Were we pleased it pushed to Title II? Probably not,” Wells said at the conference. “We were hoping there might be a non-regulated solution.”

Um... then you probably shouldn't have gone to the FCC for the solution to this. I think Netflix is trying to cover their asses for the shit storm that's coming once the 300 pages are released. If Google got to read them before they were voted on, there's no reason to think Netflix hasn't seen them.

Post by **GORDON** » Thu Mar 12, 2015 8:16 pm

According to this, a lot of really smart people say Net Neutrality is very bad. Also, a lot of very smart people say Net Neutrality is very good.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story....y-order

I don't think anyone has a clue how this is going to shake out.

Post by **GORDON** » Thu Mar 12, 2015 8:21 pm

This guy on the slashdot discussion summarized thusly:

In case the 500 pages scare off anyone, he's the TDLR version:

1) No Blocking - An ISP can't block legal content for any reason. So Comcast can't decide that you can't get to Disney's website anymore because they are having a cable TV dispute with Disney over ESPN.

2) No Throttling - An ISP can't say "you have broadband Internet" and then tell you "you've used too much so now you're stuck at dial-up speeds." If they want to have caps - e.g. only 500GB of data per month - they need to clearly specify this limitation. ("the Order builds on the strong foundation established in 2010 and enhances the transparency rule for both end users and edge providers, including by adopting a requirement that broadband providers always must disclose
promotional rates, all fees and/or surcharges, and all data caps or data allowances")

3) No Paid Prioritization - An ISP can't tell a website that the website will be slowed down unless they pay for "fast lane access." (Note: This doesn't mean the ISP can't sell users faster speeds for more money. Just that ISPs can't try to double-dip by charging web content providers to allow/speed up their traffic through the ISP's network as well as charging users for the Internet access to get the web content.)

Of course, once the thing gets all Troyed u... errr, lawyered up, who knows how it will shake out.