FCC Releases Plan to End Net Neutrality!!

[Lex Concord]

The Chairman of the FCC is a former employee of Verizon, an entity that has lobbied for years to block or remove these protections. That is a clear conflict of interest. That bothers me.

So, business as usual.

GEKE | venn diagrams

 

[BugI02]

So ~80% of people oppose getting rid of net neutrality.....but they get rid of it anyway. Good to see the .gov really working for the people here.

(For reference, 80% is a stupid amount of agreement among people. You can't even get 50% of people to agree the sky is blue.)

"Economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence."
https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...age-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B

So is that like the ~90% of people who want background checks/common sense gun laws? I sense the error bars on those numbers are ... large

 

[BugI02]

View attachment 61747

 

[seedubs1]

Sorry, not the same. Nice try though.

Try reading that study and learning something instead of trolling.

So is that like the ~90% of people who want background checks/common sense gun laws? I sense the error bars on those numbers are ... large

 

[JettaKnight]

So, business as usual.

GEKE | venn diagrams

Nerdist point of order!

Those aren't Venn diagrams - that's just lists of who's been in both the public AND private sector. In other words, those are completely overlapping circles. In order to be a true Venn diagram they need to show EVERYONE that's in the public sector and NOT in the private sector and EVERYONE in the private...



We ***** and moan about "Washighton insiders" then complain when someone in Washington gets real job and also complain when someone with "real world experience" goes to DC to draft public policy.

Let's do a Venn diagram of the hypocrisy.

 

[JettaKnight]

So is that like the ~90% of people who want background checks/common sense gun laws? I sense the error bars on those numbers are ... large

Sorry, not the same. Nice try though.

Try reading that study and learning something instead of trolling.

Seedubs right, you've committed the INGO version of Godwin's Law.

 

[JettaKnight]

Really what confused me was Pai's assertation that this move will decrease cost, increase speeds, roll out connections to rural areas...

Can someone explain how?


Wait, maybe...
OK, so w/o NN, Comcast can go full-on nipple rubbing and **** off everyone. This would give Verizon et al a good reason to finally bring a choice to downtown Fort Wayne businesses...

 

[BugI02]

Sorry, not the same. Nice try though.

Try reading that study and learning something instead of trolling.

Trolling, eh? How delightfully droll. Accusations of fascism come next, I believe

All because I disagree with your position on Netflix Neutrality. Please understand that some of us see a bunch of spoiled kids who have been getting something for free and fear they may actually have to pay for it. All of the other hypotheticals referencing censorship are just F.U.D. with no evidence (even anecdotal) of it happening when we didn't have Netflix Neutrality. The ISPs only moved on direct infringements to their profitability with no documented evidence of censorship for content, but we're supposed to believe that they have just been waiting for this chance to finally take the gloves off.

Neither you nor the government built the internet infrastructure nor do they own it. But you obviously advocate for government to regulate private business to preserve your rye-eets to the fruit of other peoples labors. You probably also should review DOCSIS 3.1 standards with an eye toward the theoretical maximum throughput through copper (you do know there are limits, no?). I am assuming most of you receive your internet access via a cable provider based on the majority of the scare stories being about the past evils of cable ISPs and the lack of choice subscribers have among them. If you prevent the ISPs from having any tools to control traffic and traffic growth, how long do you think it will take to begin rubbing up against these limits, if we aren't already in some areas. It's pretty clear it's only a matter of (likely not much) time

From: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solut...ete-white-paper-c11-481360.html#_Toc484813984
Cisco Visual Networking Index: Forecast and Methodology, 2016–2021

Annual global IP traffic will reach 3.3 ZB (ZB; 1000 Exabytes [EB]) by 2021. In 2016, global IP traffic was 1.2 ZB per year or 96 EB (one billion Gigabytes [GB]) per month. By 2021, global IP traffic will reach 3.3 ZB per year, or 278 EB per month.


Global IP traffic will increase nearly threefold over the next 5 years, and will have increased 127-fold from 2005 to 2021. Overall, IP traffic will grow at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 24 percent from 2016 to 2021.


Busy-hour Internet traffic is growing more rapidly than average Internet traffic. Busy-hour (or the busiest 60 minute period in a day) Internet traffic increased 51 percent in 2016, compared with 32-percent growth in average traffic. Busy-hour Internet traffic will increase by a factor of 4.6 between 2016 and 2021, while average Internet traffic will increase by a factor of 3.2.


Smartphone traffic will exceed PC traffic by 2021. In 2016, PCs accounted for 46 percent of total IP traffic, but by 2021 PCs will account for only 25 percent of traffic. Smartphones will account for 33 percent of total IP traffic in 2021, up from 13 percent in 2016. PC-originated traffic will grow at a CAGR of 10 percent, while TVs, tablets, smartphones, and Machine-to- Machine (M2M) modules will have traffic growth rates of 21 percent, 29 percent, 49 percent, and 49 percent, respectively.


Traffic from wireless and mobile devices will account for more than 63 percent of total IP traffic by 2021. By 2021, wired devices will account for 37 percent of IP traffic, while Wi-Fi and mobile devices will account for 63 percent of IP traffic. In 2016, wired devices accounted for the majority of IP traffic at 51 percent.


Global Internet traffic in 2021 will be equivalent to 127 times the volume of the entire global Internet in 2005. Globally, Internet traffic will reach 30 GB per capita by 2021, up from 10 GB per capita in 2016.


The number of devices connected to IP networks will be three times as high as the global population in 2021. There will be 3.5 networked devices per capita by 2021, up from 2.3 networked devices per capita in 2016. Accelerated in part by the increase in devices and the capabilities of those devices, IP traffic per capita will reach 35 GB per capita by 2021, up from 13 GB per capita in 2016.

So when we reach the practical limits of copper under DOCSIS 3.1, what then? Do you think the cable ISPs will add capacity, upgrade to fiber or implement 4.0 with no financial incentive to do so? Will you then seek to use more government power to compel them to upgrade? Will you hold your breath until you turn blue if they don't?

To paraphrase Maggie “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s [bandwidth]”

tl;dr for those with short attention spans

Government regulation of private business is always a bad idea. Pursuing legislation to open privately owned infrastructure and capacity to competition is a better idea, but it represents a government taking of property and you should still be prepared to compenate the owners through access fees. Legislation is the way to enshrine your favored principles. The pen and phone can be easily undone by a different pen and phone

 

[BugI02]

Seedubs right, you've committed the INGO version of Godwin's Law.

I believe you are incorrect. Seedubs quoted numbers of dubious provenance (and if you reread the post, he admits to some doubts about their veracity)

I simply referenced a similarly dubious number that is bandied about in an similarly cavalier manner as if it was fact. I could just as easily have used '97% of all scientists agree that climate change (or whatever they're calling it this week) is anthropogenic'. Bogus is bogus

But I'm sure in the klein bottle of the Netflix Neutrality resistance, 80% prolly seems like a low estimate

 

[T.Lex]

Thought I'd post this notion here, but it may deserve its own topic.

Drudge is linking to an article that suggests the Trump administration is considering a federally-built and owned 5G cellular system for the US. Ostensibly, it is to secure it from the Chinese.

I'm not familiar with the provenance of the story, so I'm not cross linking it.

This doesn't really sound plausible to me. But, if it is, I am concerned. Not alarmed, just concerned.

 

[jamil]

I heard Verizon talking about building a 5g nationwide network which would directly compete with cable/fiber networks.

 

[hoosierdoc]

the end of the Internet!

US Internet Speed Has Gone From 12th To 6th Fastest Since End Of Net Neutrality | The Daily Caller

oh wait, our speeds are actually MUCH faster now

you mean government control hurts performance? Gasp!

 

[Cameramonkey]

the end of the Internet!

US Internet Speed Has Gone From 12th To 6th Fastest Since End Of Net Neutrality | The Daily Caller

oh wait, our speeds are actually MUCH faster now

you mean government control hurts performance? Gasp!

This headline is misleading and mostly (if not totally) unrelated to Net Neutrality.


Haven and I were discussing this. He pointed out something I missed.


First, the source data of the speed increase is based on a false premise. The source data in the article is based on behavior of users at the speedtest site and is not scientific. Nobody compiled data scientifically across the industry to show how fast carriers were providing data, what plans they were offering, how fast they were capable of delivering, etc. The source of this article's data is based on end users choosing to run speed tests. It is not based on a cross section of ISPs and what they are selling. All this shows is the people checking their speeds were doing so from faster connections than before. In reality, there could be vastly more people running slower internet that just have never run the test and therefore do not affect the averages displayed. So the results are not necessarily a scientific representation of reality. Using random numbers, Assuming 50 million people that ran these tests, there could be 100m more that run slower connections that just dont care to see how fast it is because they either dont care or dont know to test.


And I'm not saying its NOT faster, just that Net Neutrality had nothing to do with this aspect of internet access. I know I was just forced into a faster plan from Comcast last month even though I didnt want or need it. I was perfectly happy with what I had. I was given the option of sticking with my 50mbit plan for the new price of $80/month (up from $35), or I could upgrade to 150mbit for $40/mo.


Second, Net Neutrality was not about how fast the carriers were willing or able to sell to customers. Before, as well as after Net neutrality, they were all willing to sell you as much bandwidth as you wanted and were willing to pay for. Nothing in Net Neutrality affected the available bandwidth plans provided to customers.


Net Neutrality's issue was the ability for carriers to control the speed of the bits that they would ALLOW you to receive from 3rd party content providers using their networks to get to you the consumer. So it wasn't about how much data you could get from Comcast, but whether Comcast would allow Netflix's data to be delivered at the fastest speed possible to you unencumbered and as fast as from say, CNN, or from their own servers. For example, if Comcast felt that Netflix, Amazon, and Youtube were eating their lunch and causing people to stop subscribing to their CATV services or premium channels, they would possibly make those services unavailable to their customers, or slow them down to the point they made those services look bad because they didnt work well in hopes of getting those customers back. (gee, this streaming media is all hype. Its slow and annoying. I'll go back to TV because its better)


Of course if those 3rd parties were willing to pay the ISPs for access to their customers, then they would stop throttling them.


Net Neutrality came out of a practice ISPs were doing to slow down access to 3rd party content providers in order to squeeze more $$ out of them to use their pipes. (pay to play) I think it was Comcast that was actually caught throttling Netflix to their customers, causing them performance issues. They relented when Netflix went public with the proof. Service was restored fully, but Net Neutrality was introduced soon afterward to prevent it from happening again.


Net Neutrality was designed to prevent retaliation, extortion, etc between content providers and communication providers and to force everyone to be granted the same level of access to the internet. It has nothing to do with what speeds ISPs are willing to sell to consumers for last mile service.


Bottom line, what does Net Neutrality have to do with the ISPs' willingness to increase last mile internet speeds provided to customers? Absolutely nothing. Trying to tie Net Neutrality into this outcome is flawed and most likely unrelated and coincidental. Given the historical bias of The Daily Caller, they are pushing an agenda. They arent exactly known for being unbiased.

 

[OutdoorDad]

Just before the end of net neutrality, we switched to fiber optic.
Everything is significantly faster.
But I have noticed some differences.

Mostly the gun and porn sites.
I’ve been researching it a lot.
I mean A LOT.

Not ready to share my data yet. Far too soon to draw conclusions.

The search for truth continues.

 

[Phase2]

It's officially two years since net neutrality was repealed. Has the sky fallen since that Obama's-era regulation was pulled back yet?

If

we

don't

save

net

neutrality,

you'll

get

the

internet

one

word

at

a

time.#savethenet #savetheinternet #netneutrality #onemorevote
— Senate Democrats (@SenateDems) February 27, 2018

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It's officially two years since net neutrality was repealed. Has the sky fallen since that Obama's-era regulation was pulled back yet?

Nope.

 

[Leadeye]

Still have pricey, unreliable internet here in the GSF. I don't expect it to ever change.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Still have pricey, unreliable internet here in the GSF. I don't expect it to ever change.

Are you on Orange County REMC?

 

[Leadeye]

Are you on Orange County REMC?

For electricity, satellite for internet. OCREMC keeps talking about Internet, but living in the forest on a dead end road, I'll be the last to see it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

For electricity, satellite for internet. OCREMC keeps talking about Internet, but living in the forest on a dead end road, I'll be the last to see it.

If you're in "phase 2", you're supposed to get it by June or so. If not, yeah...it'll be awhile. We're supposed to be at light speed by April or so.