Welcome to Thunderdome

Last time congress decided to help me as a consumer not get screwed I got Obamacare.

Trey Gowdy responds...



I get his point. I really do, but I don't think he's seeing the bigger picture.

"And besides, have you seen how much the telecom industry gave to my reelection fund? If I don't do what they ask then I can't can't get the 65' boat, only the 45 footer like I'm some sort of peasant or something."

Human garbage.

May you all get everything you're asking for.

Vince wrote: May you all get everything you're asking for.

With no competitive marketplace for high speed internet, yes, we need net neutrality.

I'm serious. Not being a smart ass. I'm hoping you get what you want rather than what the government usually gives us.

Vince wrote: I'm serious. Not being a smart ass. I'm hoping you get what you want rather than what the government usually gives us.

Oh, hard to tell sometimes

Yeah, me too.

GORDON wrote: "And besides, have you seen how much the telecom industry gave to my reelection fund? If I don't do what they ask then I can't can't get the 65' boat, only the 45 footer like I'm some sort of peasant or something."

Human garbage.

Seconded. In order to get elected on the federal level, you pretty much have to be a corrupt, lying asshole.

1 - It's not a possibility of monopoly. Internet carriers are monopolies or duopolies in most places.
2 - The internet IS unfettered do what you want. The carriers are not.
3 - Netflix is big. His"1 website" argument is undermined by "33% of Internet traffic"
4 - My speeds increased 20x when Google Fiber (competition) came. In its absence, I'd still have shitting 50Mbs connections.
5 - Yes, the government should work to increase common good when. Treating different traffic differently is injustice, thus by his own argument it should be regulated by the government.
6 - "It's your right to leave Comcast" Again, see #1.
7 - It's not about Netflix, it's about the USERS of Netflix. That's the argument, not Netflix vs Comcast.

A number of issues here for me.

1. It's their network.

2. Internet carriers are not monopolies or duopolies in most areas as there are wireless and satellite plans available except in the most rural areas. Also dedicated data circuits from multiple carriers ( check MPLS or T1/T3 circuits). So maybe by area, but not by population.

3. I have yet to speak to a network architect that says this is practical.

4. I have never seen increased federal regulation improve any sector in quality or quantity.

Vince wrote: A number of issues here for me.

1. It's their network.

True.

Vince wrote:
2. Internet carriers are not monopolies or duopolies in most areas as there are wireless and satellite plans available except in the most rural areas. Also dedicated data circuits from multiple carriers ( check MPLS or T1/T3 circuits). So maybe by area, but not by population.

Not true. Completely untrue. And if you are trying to compare satellite/cellular internet to cable, you are insane to consider them the same product.

Vince wrote: A number of issues here for me.
3. I have yet to speak to a network architect that says this is practical.

It's the way things are, already, basically. And perhaps your network architects friends are COMPLETELY unfamiliar with how roads, or our power grid work.

Vince wrote: A number of issues here for me.
4. I have never seen increased federal regulation improve any sector in quality or quantity.

Good thing we still have all that lead in the environment. Or CFCs. Or railroad monopolies. Or diseases in the food we eat. Or diseases in our drinking water.

Over 10 million people filed complaints with the FCC over Net Neutrality.

That's a new record, and they're very likely to ignore it.

Leisher wrote: Verizon trying to block states from enacting online privacy laws.

I can kind of see their point. I would think this would create a bit of a mess with compliance. I could see a situation where we end up like our insurance companies and state compliance. Which state's law would apply to my cell plan? KY where I live? I have a TN number, would their laws apply? Maybe where AT&T Corp headquarters is located? Or the server farm where all the data is processed?

I usually fall in the camp of "more states' rights", but this one seems like it would be a mess.

If only there was a single organization that could protect all consumers' privacy...

I'm torn. The way the Internet is going on about it, I think people are WAY over-reacting. It's like the world's ending. That being said, I think fast, competitive Internet is essential to economic growth. And we don't have that.

I said before they'd try again, and now they are. Eventually they will take control, so there's no point obsessing unless you're willing to revolt.

I think what you will see is the telcos going after companies like YouTube and Netflix that take up more than half of Internet traffic to get them to pay up for the pipes they are using.

Good news is that BitTorrent, which 10 years ago was 1/3rd of Internet traffic, is only 2.9% these days, so hopefully will not be targeted.

Are you suggesting that youtube and netflix aren't paying for their bandwidth and data?

Because what I think is that the telcoms want to get paid for it twice.